Yes, there absolutely is—and you’ve probably sat on one without realizing it. These are often referred to as “anti-homeless benches” or “hostile architecture.” Urban designers and city planners have, over the past few decades, introduced specific design features to make it physically uncomfortable or impossible to lie down on a bench. The most common tactic is adding metal armrests in the middle of the seat, dividing it into individual slots that are too short for an adult to stretch out on. Some benches have curved or sloped surfaces that force you to keep sliding off if you try to sleep. Others use narrow slats with gaps, or even a central ridge running down the length of the seat, making it impossible to find a flat, comfortable position.
The intention behind these designs is often framed as “defensive” or “preventive” urbanism. Cities argue that they are necessary to deter loitering, keep public spaces “clean,” and prevent what some perceive as disorder. But the real-world impact is clear: it primarily targets people experiencing homelessness, who have nowhere else to rest. This has sparked a heated ethical debate. Critics call it “mean-spirited” and argue that it criminalizes poverty without offering solutions. Instead of designing benches to keep people uncomfortable, some designers advocate for “inclusive” benches—wider, flat, and with armrests only at the ends—so that everyone, including someone who needs a rest, can use them.
So, the next time you sit on a bench with an odd metal bar right where your legs would go, you’re looking at a piece of public furniture with a hidden, not-so-friendly purpose. It’s a silent conversation between city designers and the most vulnerable members of our community.