Have you ever settled onto a public park bench and noticed the armrests dividing the seat into separate sections? While they offer a place to rest your arms, many people wonder: are these armrests primarily designed to prevent people from lying down? The short answer is, often, yes. This design choice is a common example of what urban planners and critics call "hostile architecture" or "defensive design.
The primary function of a bench is to provide seating. Traditional armrests aid in sitting down and standing up, especially for the elderly or those with mobility issues. They define personal space and can make sitting more comfortable. However, when armrests are placed at regular intervals along a bench, they intentionally segment the seating area, making it impossible for an adult to lie down across the length of the bench.
Proponents of this design argue it ensures benches are used for their intended purpose—sitting. It can discourage long-term occupancy by individuals, potentially reducing loitering or allowing more visitors to use the bench. Maintenance crews might also find it easier to clean segmented sections.
Critics, however, see it as a targeted and inhumane strategy. They argue that such designs specifically aim to exclude homeless populations from finding temporary rest in public spaces. Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness, hostile architecture makes the problem less visible by making public spaces unwelcoming for those in need. It raises significant ethical questions about who public spaces are truly for and how cities manage social inequality.
So, while not every bench with armrests is explicitly designed with this exclusionary intent, the widespread use of segmented benches in urban areas is frequently a deliberate choice to restrict lying down. It's a small feature that represents a much larger debate about compassion, public order, and the right to the city. The next time you see a park bench, those armrests might tell a deeper story about the community's values and conflicts.