by fezz on 7/24/19, 9:26 PM with 48 comments
by glangdale on 7/25/19, 12:01 AM
Arguably a design that permits a chunk of downtown to turn into a homeless encampment is "hostile" to the original purpose of a bench downtown, which is to be sat on by a range of different people in the course of the day.
If those BART gates are anything like the ones in Sydney, though, they are a substantial risk. During the roll-out of our "Opal" card system I got my leg slammed - hard - by the gates doing that thing where the mechanics are a little too slow to keep up with the electronics and a bunch of people are going through one after the other and largely keeping the gate open. To be clear, I'm talking about walking through the gate only after having the comforting little noise that said "yes, I scanned your card and you're OK" - not me trying to race through the system regardless of status.
I lift weights, am a fairly healthy middle-aged man, and am large (6'2.5", 235kg) and getting hit by that normal gate hurt. I cannot imagine what the consequences of this kind of paranoid design - especially amp-ing up the gate with more nasty stuff - would do to someone who is older and frailer (but perhaps not old/frail enough to feel like they have to use the special wide gate). It is completely unreasonable to endanger more vulnerable legitimate transit users to get a little more compliance, especially where the biggest scofflaws will still just vault the gates or 'draft' through behind others.
by akira2501 on 7/24/19, 11:39 PM
Am I a curmudgeon, or is the level of concern shown in the article a legitimate thing?
by nlh on 7/24/19, 11:55 PM
BART service has a fare, gated by turnstiles. People try to steal that service by jumping over those turnstiles. So BART has modified them to make it harder to steal.
Of course the design is hostile - it’s trying to prevent theft!
Am I missing something?
by darkpuma on 7/24/19, 11:50 PM
Junkies defecating in the train station discourages me a hell of a lot more than "hostile design", which for the most part is purely decorative from my perspective because my perspective is not that of somebody wishing to do precisely that which the "hostile design" is meant to encourage.
"Hostile design" is in fact defensive design, designed to protect the common people from the anti-social and frequently hostile behaviors you frequently see on public display in Californian cities. We need more of it.
(Note also that "hostile design" does not focus just on the homeless, but in fact encompasses a wide range of techniques aimed at addressing a wide range of anti-social behaviors. For instance, skate boarders can be discouraged from playing in crowded areas where they present a risk to bystanders with use of furniture and structures specifically designed to discourage skateboarders. This addresses the problem of skateboarders causing property damage or frightening bystanders without threats of force (e.g. property owners calling the police or hiring a security guard) or any other form of confrontation. Isn't that better, or at least safer, for everybody involved? Similarly, "hostile" design allows property owners to discourage the homeless without instigating a confrontation between the homeless and police officers.)
by lordCarbonFiber on 7/24/19, 9:58 PM
by AdamM12 on 7/24/19, 11:37 PM
I thought this was the best line of the whole thing. If you can't pay for it then how can you be alienated? If you are paying for it then isn't the so called "hostile" design no longer hostile?
by bassman9000 on 7/25/19, 5:50 AM
> BART
> San Francisco
> Fruitvale
Ok
by ridicuus101 on 7/24/19, 11:32 PM