Your concern for people experiencing homelessness is both valid and compassionate. It touches on a visible and deeply complex issue in our urban landscapes. To answer your question directly: yes, specific designs intended to deter sleeping on benches are unfortunately common. This practice falls under the term "hostile architecture" or "defensive design.
These are not typically called "anti-sleep benches" in official documents, but the intent is clear. Common features include individual metal armrests dividing a bench into single seats, making it impossible to lie down. Other designs incorporate slanted surfaces, pronounced bumps, or even segmented, curved seats that offer no flat area. You might also see benches with cold, metallic surfaces or those that are deliberately short.
The stated goal from municipalities or private property owners is often to "maintain order," "prevent loitering," or "ensure benches are used for their intended purpose" of sitting briefly. Proponents argue it protects public amenities and can address broader concerns about perceived safety or business disruption.
However, this approach is widely criticized. Critics, including many urban planners and social advocates, argue that hostile architecture does not solve homelessness; it merely makes it less visible by pushing vulnerable individuals into more dangerous, hidden locations. It treats the symptom, not the cause. This design philosophy effectively weaponizes public space against those with nowhere else to go, prioritizing aesthetics and a specific notion of order over basic human dignity. It creates an environment that is unwelcoming for everyone, including the elderly or tired travelers who might need to rest longer.
The core of your worry points to a larger ethical question: who are our public spaces for? While the immediate answer to your query is "yes, such designs exist," the more important conversation is about seeking compassionate, long-term solutions like increased shelter access, supportive housing, and social services, rather than architectural measures that further marginalize people in need.