The question of how to prevent people from sleeping on urban benches touches on a complex and often controversial aspect of modern city planning known as "hostile architecture" or "defensive design." No, this is not a feature we offer, but rather a widespread practice employed by municipalities and property owners.
The primary goal is to discourage long-term occupation of public seating, particularly for sleeping, by making it physically uncomfortable or impossible. This is achieved through various subtle and not-so-subtle design modifications. Common features include individual armrests dividing a bench into separate seats, slanted surfaces that are unstable for lying down, and even small metal studs or bars placed on flat surfaces.
Proponents argue that such measures maintain cleanliness, ensure benches are available for their intended use—brief sitting—and deter loitering or perceived anti-social behavior that could make other citizens feel unsafe.
However, this approach is heavily criticized. Opponents see it as a punitive and inhumane way to manage homelessness and poverty, effectively criminalizing the need for rest without addressing the root causes. It raises significant ethical questions about who public space is truly for and how cities choose to deal with social inequality. Instead of providing support, hostile architecture often just displaces vulnerable individuals to less visible areas.
Ultimately, the presence of anti-sleeping benches is a visible symptom of larger societal issues, sparking an important debate about the function of our shared urban environment and the balance between order and compassion.