You’ve probably noticed it yourself—some street benches have armrests, while others are wide open and flat. The short answer is: armrests are deliberately designed to discourage lying down.
When a bench has armrests positioned in the middle or at both ends, it breaks up the continuous flat surface. That makes it incredibly uncomfortable to stretch out and sleep. This is a classic example of “hostile architecture” or “defensive design”—urban furniture created to influence behavior, often to prevent homeless individuals from using the bench as a bed.
On the other hand, benches without armrests are more inclusive. They allow people to sit in multiple ways, including lying down if needed. However, this can lead to complaints from local businesses or residents who feel the benches are being used for overnight sleeping.
So which design is “better” for discouraging lying down? If the goal is purely to prevent lying down, armrests are more effective. But here’s the nuance: they are not a perfect solution. People can still curl up in small spaces, or simply sleep under the bench. Plus, armrests can be uncomfortable for elderly folks, people with mobility issues, or those carrying heavy bags.
From a city planning perspective, the choice reflects a deeper tension: do we design for comfort and inclusivity, or for control? Some cities are moving away from hostile architecture and adding more supportive features like curved benches, individual seats, or even shelters nearby.
In conclusion, armrests do work to keep people from lying down, but they come with trade-offs. They are uncomfortable for legitimate sitting and can make a city feel less welcoming. If you’re thinking about bench design for a park or street, consider the people who will use it—and whether the goal is really about sleeping, or about dignity.