As I said to another commenter, “anti-homeless” measures like these make zero sense if there aren’t resources for the homeless available. I’m sorry, it doesn’t sound like resources were available to you, and that truly sucks. Your state should do better.
However, in places where resources are available, homeless people still sometimes refuse to utilize them, and then measures like this become valid and utilitarian.
All that it does is push homeless people out of the area. That is all that you are accomplishing. This will not force those who do not seek help, to seek help, it just pushes them out of sight. No matter what you say, this is the point, to push the homeless out of the area, they do not give a single fuck about getting them help. If they did, instead of making it so people couldn’t lay down, or sit, in public, they would be putting far more money into mental health facilities, and other aspects of life that makes, and keeps, people homeless.
But no, just make it so they can’t lay down in your area, that will make it better. It also makes life worse for people who are not homeless, especially the elderly, and disabled. This type of thinking also leads to the privatization of public spaces, reducing resources to everyone, that have a demonstrably positive affect on people. Part-and-parcel of hostile architecture initiatives are also legal punitive ones, to enforce the removal of unwanted people in areas that they can’t specifically do something like put spikes on. The very morality behind “defensive” architecture is called into question, because of the line of thinking you put forward is little more than an excuse to push undesirables away from society.
There are more, if you would like, everything I have ever found on this subject has read “we can prove many negative aspects of doing, and there might be some good aspects, but it isn’t as evident, and often can possibly be explained by other factors”, so I don’t even really see research backing up this idea you propose.
As I said to another commenter, “anti-homeless” measures like these make zero sense if there aren’t resources for the homeless available. I’m sorry, it doesn’t sound like resources were available to you, and that truly sucks. Your state should do better.
However, in places where resources are available, homeless people still sometimes refuse to utilize them, and then measures like this become valid and utilitarian.
All that it does is push homeless people out of the area. That is all that you are accomplishing. This will not force those who do not seek help, to seek help, it just pushes them out of sight. No matter what you say, this is the point, to push the homeless out of the area, they do not give a single fuck about getting them help. If they did, instead of making it so people couldn’t lay down, or sit, in public, they would be putting far more money into mental health facilities, and other aspects of life that makes, and keeps, people homeless.
But no, just make it so they can’t lay down in your area, that will make it better. It also makes life worse for people who are not homeless, especially the elderly, and disabled. This type of thinking also leads to the privatization of public spaces, reducing resources to everyone, that have a demonstrably positive affect on people. Part-and-parcel of hostile architecture initiatives are also legal punitive ones, to enforce the removal of unwanted people in areas that they can’t specifically do something like put spikes on. The very morality behind “defensive” architecture is called into question, because of the line of thinking you put forward is little more than an excuse to push undesirables away from society.
https://english.artsci.udel.edu/arak-journal-article/?id=169
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b57726adb2fe4f91bd1a7356f7e74551
https://ltu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Berdan_Report.pdf
https://nchv.org/policing-and-punishment-based-approaches-a-really-expensive-way-to-make-homelessness-worse/
There are more, if you would like, everything I have ever found on this subject has read “we can prove many negative aspects of doing, and there might be some good aspects, but it isn’t as evident, and often can possibly be explained by other factors”, so I don’t even really see research backing up this idea you propose.