Yes, such street benches absolutely do exist. They are a real, and often controversial, feature of urban design. You might know them by a few names: “uncomfortable benches,” “anti-loitering benches,” or more critically, as a form of “hostile architecture.
So, how do they work? Instead of a flat, inviting seat, these benches have a seat surface that is deliberately slanted downward—usually at a slight angle of 10 to 15 degrees. This prevents anyone from sitting comfortably for more than a few minutes. You have to constantly engage your leg muscles to avoid sliding off, which quickly becomes exhausting. The design effectively discourages resting, socializing, or, as the name suggests, loitering.
You will see these benches most often in places where city planners or property owners want to keep people moving: bus stops where sleeping is frowned upon, retail storefronts, subway stations, and certain public plazas. The primary target is usually people experiencing homelessness who might use a bench as a place to rest for long periods or even sleep.
While the intention—to keep spaces open and available for paying customers or to reduce perceived “loitering”—makes sense to some, it is a highly debated solution. Critics argue that it is a form of hostile architecture that punishes everyone. It is uncomfortable for the elderly, for people with disabilities, for tired parents, or for anyone who just needs a moment’s genuine rest. Many urbanists and advocates for the unhoused see it as a cruel public policy, designed to make public spaces less welcoming to the most vulnerable.
In short, yes, the option exists. But it is a choice between a bench that is efficient but unkind, and a bench that serves the entire community. When you see one, you are witnessing a deliberate, and often polarizing, design decision in action.