Your question touches on a significant and often controversial aspect of modern urban design. Yes, such benches do exist, and they are a prime example of what critics call "hostile architecture" or "defensive design." These are public seating elements specifically engineered to be uncomfortable for prolonged sitting or impossible for lying down and sleeping.
Common design features include individual seats with pronounced, fixed armrests dividing the bench into single-person segments, preventing anyone from stretching out. Other designs feature slanted surfaces, convex curves, or even small, strategic metal studs on flat surfaces. You might also see benches with vertical bars or partitions in the middle. The stated intent from municipalities or private property owners is often to maintain order, prevent vandalism, ensure accessibility, and encourage turnover of use. However, the undeniable and criticized effect is that they physically deter homeless individuals from using them for rest or shelter, making life even more difficult for a vulnerable population.
This practice sparks intense ethical debate. Proponents argue it protects public spaces and businesses. Opponents condemn it as inhumane, arguing it criminalizes poverty and solves a social problem (homelessness) with a punitive architectural "fix" rather than addressing root causes like housing affordability and mental health services. These benches force us to ask a critical question: for whom is our "public" space truly designed?