I would call these bodges, not architecture. They're all tacked on modifications independent of the rest of the building's design and some of them obviously conflict with the actual architecture.
Signs of hidden war where politics and local government fails the people and then creative local architecture ideas has to take matters in their own hands.
Similar things happen here in my city. Instead of homelessness it's loitering in front of corner bodegas. local government has failed the business, but in this case there is no creative architecture design to stop troublemakers from hanging around the store.
There may be situations where they are erosion control, but there are definitely many places where they are deliberately anti-homeless (or refugee) measures, including the ones in the article.
At the end, the article says that these design features don't solve the problem of homelessness. Clearly they don't, but several of these would be used in front of private property, not city property.
How wrong is it for, say, a store owner to use these features to keep homeless people away from their storefronts? I can understand store owners being concerned about a loss of customers if there are homeless people nearby.
Does anyone know if any instances where there is "pro-homeless" architecture?
Most people would like to sweep the homeless under the rug, so to speak, but there are still some people who want to help the homeless. What architectural changes would such a person or organization make?
You would build or rent a shelter, proving food, housing, education and child care. Helping people that want to get back on their feet and need some support.
You would probably also want to provide medical supervision to manage withdrawal symptoms. Because you would be wasting your time if you didn’t make it a sober shelter.
And we have these. The people you see on the streets don’t want to use them.
There might be a region where there is enough support, but I don't know any place where that could be. Please elaborate where there is no demand for additional support.
https://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-city-building... is one example. You build tiny homes or other self-contained high density housing and give it away for free to the homeless. Ideally, there is a spectrum of housing for people with zero income, low income, median income, etc. But this always runs into politically blocks by the nominally liberal Bay Area voters.
I'd really like to know why that story got flagged. It does not discuss computers, but it still discuss technology (architecture) to achieve a goal, which is spiritually a fit with hacker news. Of course it is biased, but there are many stories here that are.
Yeah I'm super confused here myself. None of the comments suggest significant displeasure with the post as far as I can see, so I feel like it might've been a mistaken flag? Would be nice if someone can vouch or flag my comment here the mods can respond.
23 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 62.2 ms ] threadSigns of hidden war where politics and local government fails the people and then creative local architecture ideas has to take matters in their own hands.
SF libs would probably ban these.
There's no redeeming perspective for those ugly spikes on a windowsill or under an awning. Ugly in purpose and design.
See coverage here (for example) https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2017/02/20/paris-authoriti...
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostile
How wrong is it for, say, a store owner to use these features to keep homeless people away from their storefronts? I can understand store owners being concerned about a loss of customers if there are homeless people nearby.
Most people would like to sweep the homeless under the rug, so to speak, but there are still some people who want to help the homeless. What architectural changes would such a person or organization make?
You would probably also want to provide medical supervision to manage withdrawal symptoms. Because you would be wasting your time if you didn’t make it a sober shelter.
And we have these. The people you see on the streets don’t want to use them.
Ideally, they would build more small-scale housing in walkable mixed-use neighborhoods so we can reduce the numbers of homeless people on the street.
Being "pro homeless" is ridiculous. We need to be "pro ordinary people with ordinary lives not getting pushed out into the streets by our policies."
https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/11/21/Victoria-Shower-Struggle/