Your question touches on a common debate in urban design: should park benches have armrests removed to allow more people to sit or even lie down? The short answer is, it's a complex balance between compassion, practicality, and public policy.
On one hand, benches without armrests do offer greater flexibility. They can accommodate more seated individuals in a pinch and provide a potential resting place for those experiencing homelessness. This aligns with principles of inclusive design, ensuring public spaces are usable by all, regardless of circumstance. A simple, continuous wooden or metal slab can feel more welcoming for stretching out, reading a book, or simply relaxing in a different position.
However, the removal of armrests introduces significant trade-offs. Armrests are not merely decorative; they serve crucial functions. They provide essential support for older adults and individuals with mobility issues to sit down and stand up safely. Without them, a bench becomes less accessible and potentially hazardous for a significant portion of the population. Furthermore, from a maintenance and management perspective, some cities install armrests or segmented benches specifically to discourage prolonged lying down, aiming to maintain orderly public spaces and address broader social challenges—a controversial practice often criticized as "hostile architecture."
The ideal solution may not be a universal removal of armrests, but a thoughtful mix of bench designs within a park. Designating some areas with traditional, accessible benches with armrests ensures safety and support. Meanwhile, incorporating other seating options like wide, armrest-free ledges, contoured concrete forms, or ample picnic tables can create informal, flexible seating without compromising the critical support that armrests provide. The goal should be creating diverse, humane public spaces that balance comfort, accessibility, and care for all community members.