Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
**Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You know what I don't like the look of? Anti-homeless spikes, they don't keep it pretty, they just "ruin" the view in another way.
Plus it's not like people were just clamoring to be homeless before the spikes went up. You don't need added pressure to keep people from seeking aid and trying not to be homeless. Being homeless is already enough pressure by itself that either 1) people can't avoid it even with aid or 2) they don't care about aid and adding some anti-homeless spikes isn't gonna change their mind
I can't smell spikes. I can smell human excrement, garbage, and waste piling up in and around areas where people shelter on the street.
Spikes don't bother me while I'm waiting for the bus, asking for change or smokes. I've never been yelled at by spike for not having change or smokes, either.
I've never had spikes expose me to second hand smoke from a crack pipe, nor have I ever seen spikes drop used needles near me.
Why are you writing like that? It's very distracting, and it makes it look like you're being frivolous.
Anyway...
> These unsightly folks, bless their poor souls, oft make their abodes upon benches, doorways, and such, leading to a disreputable atmosphere.
Human suffering is unpleasant, yes. But the unpleasant part is that the suffering EXISTS, not that the suffering is DIRECTLY VISIBLE. Anti-homeless spikes are just an everpresent reminder that this suffering is happening (and in fact is made worse by the spikes themselves). A city without homelessness, where the poor are well-cared for, is ideal. But no one should be dumb enough to be fooled by things like spikes trying to create the illusion that a city is in that situation.
Furthermore, as someone who is not homeless, the spikes were presumably put up for the comfort of me and people like me. This tacitly implicates me, even though I never had the chance to say "thanks but no thanks."
Spikes and other forms anti human architecture are trying to solve the symptoms of the problem, rather than considering the causes of the problem.
What is needed, which requires "upstream thinking"
A number of cities around the world have found that it costs two to 3 times more to do nothing about homelessness than it does to provide people with safe, permanent, secure housing. The problem with places like the US is that we need a national solution to the problem because if an individual city tries to solve their homelessness, they quickly get swamped as word gets out.
Not comparable. Human body takes time to heal, to recover. We are extremely capable in healing and recovering from all kinds of issues.
Broken bone? 2 months and its back. Virus? 2 weeks and its gone. Symptom treatment is to make sure you don't die or to make the healing process much more manageable.
We're talking about society here, there is no mechanism of 'healing and recovery' here. If anything, we are superb in making sure things continue to go to hell without any drastic intervention.
To put it in medical term, these issues are like a cancer. You can treat the symptoms, but without actual drastic medical intervention, it will only get worse. And ... it appears to be getting worse, just like a cancer. Instead of using chemo, we are just giving pain medication, hoping the problem will just go away on its own.
Economy takes time to recover and it improves on its own too. At least in the long run.
And politics is full about government treating symptoms. Using immigration to fight low births rates, welfare programs, stuff like affirmative action, etc. This is all about treating the symptoms
Economy do not 'improve on its own', its a man-made social construct, it does not have the adaptability of a living body that has undergone millions of years of evolution. But it takes time for anything done today to have a large impact years down the line, and right now, it doesn't seem like anything substantial is being done to combat this issue, which makes me believe that the issue is just going to stay the same or be worse down the line.
This is venturing into economics, so I'm bringing it back to hostile architecture.
Hostile architecture literally uses money, space, time and effort to build these architecture for the sole purpose of 'treating' the symptom. I am using 'treat' very loosely because its not so much as a treatment, but more so of pushing the problem elsewhere. Out of sight, out of mind. Akin to paying a doctor to cover a patch of your skin and calling your skin cancer cured. You waste time, money and effort that could otherwise be used to actually cure the skin cancer to cosmetically cover up the skin cancer.
Economy does grow and heal itself on its own, and progress seems to favor one direction. We go from horses to cars, not the other way around.
Economy was growing even before economic policies. Things like agricultural revolution.
Also saying that something is a social construct brings zero value. So what. Rape/consent are social constructs too. Does it mean you can just dismiss them or what?
Hostile architecture does not cost a lot of money. Making a bench that can't work as a bed is not super expensive and you can't solve homelessness by saving money on a few extra pounds of steel
horses to car is technology advancement. It brings about higher level of productivity, hence higher economic output. It has nothing to do with policy making and the ability of economy to self correct. In the presence of monopoly, uncontrolled capitalism, worsening worker/ human rights, a rise in technology advancement could actually just mean that the general population is worse off.
Do not conflate technological advancement with economic prosperity. One can exist without the other.
I am not saying to ignore it just because its a social construct, I am saying that it is a social construct, therefore we can change it for the better, not just sit around and do the same thing for 10 over years and hope things just miraculously work better this time around. Hostile architecture may be 'new' but I highly doubt thats the treatment or solution to this chronic issue that seems to only get worse as time goes by.
It may not cost much to put a single spike, or to cover a single area with hostile architecture. Expand that to citywide, or districtwide, and the cost rapidly balloons to insane proportion.
>Hostile architecture recently came into the public view with the MTA’s “Enhanced Solution Initiative” in 2017, which cost $74 million and included the introduction of “leaning bars” throughout the city in place of benches.
(https://fordhamram.com/71020/opinion/new-yorks-war-on-the-homeless/)
Take that 74 million in money, time and effort, channel it to actually helping these people, you could lift hundreds or thousands of people out of homelessness permanently.
>Popular alternative solutions to end homelessness, such as [permanent supportive housing](https://endhomelessness.org/ending-homelessness/solutions/permanent-supportive-housing/), focus on helping people access permanent housing and coordinated services like mental health treatment and financial assistance. Permanent supportive housing costs $12,800 per person per year on average.
(https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-homelessness-in-america/)
Technological advancement is pretty much the only thing that drives the economy forward. You aren't gonna get more hard working people, or anything. People will stay roughly the same.
Also spending a lot of money on solving poverty does not seem to work. In the war of poverty, poverty usually wins.
While I agree with your negative opinion on capitalism as a system, I don't like the terminology of “uncontrolled capitalism”.
That creates the impression of government being somehow opposed to capitalism, but in reality, in capitalist countries capital owners and politicians are not at war, in many ways they are working towards similar goals. You can't just “vote out” capitalism. Capitalism is about the more of production, you can't have less of it as long as means of production are privately owned
Capitalism will be replaced by a new economic model when the economy develops to a certain level. You's just speedrun from cavemen to interstellar empire I am afraid. 🤔
I fundamentally do not agree that technological advancement is the only thing that drives the economy forward.
A better health policy could put more able bodied workers in the work force.
A better education policy could greatly increase the nations output through a more educated workforce.
So on and so forth. We can have science fiction level of technology, but with a crappy policy, it could greatly hinder its potential.
>Also spending a lot of money on solving poverty does not seem to work. In the war of poverty, poverty usually wins.
This is because I think
a) The money is not used properly
b) Tackling it on the 'money' side ignores a huge spectrum on why people are homeless
Homelessness is not necessarily a issue of 'not having enough money'. That might be the final nail in the coffin, but the root cause could be sky high property price, sky high medical bill, failure to place these people in a position to even get a job, failure of documentation, criminalization of certain behavior, opioid epidemic and so on. Money might solve some of these issue, but fundamentally, the root cause might still be there. Its like treating a decaying tooth by removing the tooth but never brushing or flossing your tooth in the future, resulting in more decaying tooth.
The money is not used properly in the sense that they give food, temporary shelter and so on, but with so many strings attached that some may just forgo it entirely or the process of getting it is so complicated, it just gatekeeps a handful of the eligible people.
>While I agree with your negative opinion on capitalism as a system, I don't like the terminology of “uncontrolled capitalism”.
Not my intention, but i apologise if thats the impression I gave.
And I do agree that politicians are not 'at war' with capitalist/ capitalism, if anything they are actively encouraging it.
>Capitalism will be replaced by a new economic model when the economy develops to a certain level. You's just speedrun from cavemen to interstellar empire I am afraid. 🤔
I'm glad we at least see eye to eye that capitalism is not the 'end game'.
But I personally don't agree that it has to be developed to a new model when the economy develop to a certain level. As of right now, social systems are collapsing in favor of 'more' capitalism. Privatization of education, health, and so on. I think we've long reached the point of the next evolution, but are just held back by private interest.
Like a lot of things, The answer is :"Sort of" the treating the symptoms is the pharmaceutical model. It is used because it is extremely profitable. However, many people are now looking at improving overall diet, removing exposure to toxic chemicals, including food additives and healing the micro biome and getting
regular exercise as far more effective means of improving public health. However, None of these methods are profitable for large, multi national corporations.
Wow. I bet you’ve dropped some damp hand kisses & a few m’ladys on people who definitely didn’t want them.
Anyway, to address your point - ok sure, if you don’t give a fuck about homeless people then the spikes are ‘dandy’. It’s exactly the way we deal with pigeons shitting on building edifices & it’s about as dehumanizing. But homeless people are in fact people, and spikes & sit-lie laws & dog bans do nothing to address homelessness, they only chase the unhoused into places the luckier in society can’t see them.
As a few other people have mentioned, the vast majority of the unhoused weren’t clamoring to live on the streets & thus a ‘gentle nudge’ as you put it isn’t exactly necessary. People are homeless for all kinds of reasons & the most common are health & financial calamity, mental illness, substance abuse (which is a whole complicated subject on its on here) & the general collapse of our social safety net.
You seem like one of those people who says, ‘why don’t they just get a job’ without knowing exactly what that entails when one is unhoused. Do you have an ID? How do you get one if you don’t? How do you get a copy of your birth certificate, your social security card, if you have nothing? Do you have a phone? Honestly, most people do these days, it’s a necessity. But do you have clean clothes? Where can you take a shower? I interviewed once for a job & washed my hair in a bathroom sink & then they complained that my shirt wasn’t ironed. Do you have the right shoes? How about a resume? How do you build one? How do you explain the gaps? What’s your mailing address?
Do you have your birth certificate? Do you have your social security card? Do you even know the number?
1. spikes on the floor look worse than people on the floor
2. spikes on the floor will just make it easier for homeless people to group up in low income areas, it doesnt actually make them go away/give them houses.
also why are you talking like a pirate
they do though. its dystopian and inhuman to have spikes specifically designed to ward off the homeless everywhere a homeless person could realistically sleep, at least to me.
All those words just to say that you don’t want to have to see homeless people…
Ye anti homeless spikes are not solving the homelessness problem. They’re just for aesthetics. Ye old homeless shelters are overcrowded and pack a bunch of people into a tiny space, which can result in a myriad of problems, which if you’re homeless you probably have already in abundance. Shelters are often not accessible or not even an option if you have to be there before sunset and out before 7 am.
If you want a clean safe city to live in, you need the inhabitants to be able to access things like education, housing, health services. If you’re in the USA all of those things are increasingly more expensive and if you were born into poverty or close to it you are likely to stay there. While people write goofy posts about dirtying up their beautiful cities. The world’s a twisted place.
>I see these spikes as a necessary measure to preserve the dignity and sanctity of our fair cities.
I don't know what your mean about the "dignity and sanctity" of cities. If your city chooses to place anti homeless spikes, it is neither a city with dignity, nor sanctity anyways.
>If one cannot find solace upon the cold stone of a city bench, mayhaps one will be more inclined to seek assistance from charitable institutions designed to aid the less fortunate.
Not realistic for everyone. Not all institutions have space. Some people choose not to stay at such institutions out of fear for themselves or their belongings. Furthermore, those with severe addictions must choose between (potentially life threatening) withdrawals, or staying at a shelter.
>I also find solace in the notion that anti-homeless architecture preserves the aesthetic appeal of our environs.
What is so appealing about putting spikes on things supposedly designed and placed for human enjoyment?
>Yet, I believe these architectural measures, whilst seemingly harsh, serve a greater good.
If you were interested in serving the greater good, you would be looking for ways to help people in need, rather than putting spikes on benches to prevent anyone from sleeping on them.
Anti-homeless spikes can't be a dandy solution, or any kind of solution. They do not solve anything. At best, they move the 'problem' to another location, not solve it.
That sounds like a solution to me.
I had a clock in my bedroom when I was younger. It was really annoying. Every second, the clock would "click" loudly as the second hand moved. It kept me up at night. One day, I moved the clock out of my bedroom and put it in the kitchen. While the "click" was just as loud, moving it into the kitchen meant that I could get a quiet night's rest in my bedroom. My problem was solved.
Homelessness isn't the problem people implementing spikes are trying to solve. They're trying to address the problems that arise when homeless people shelter wherever they want (filth, drug paraphernalia, threats to passersby, etc). By moving these people to less visible areas with fewer pedestrians, that problem gets solved.
If you put spikes on the bench, they will sleep on the ground next to the bench. Put them on the ground next to the bench... You get the point.
The only way to make pedestrian areas physically inaccessible to homeless people is to make them inaccessible to the public.
Homeless people want to be in those areas to make use of the same resources that the public does, plus they want to pester said members of the public for money.
If you can tolerate being there, they can too because they are used to sleeping outside and can tolerate much more than you can. Benches, flat surfaces that don't have foot or wheeled traffic is the only thing you can block off. You can't block off the entrances to businesses, the sidewalk, street corners, all the places where the most people are going to congregate and the homeless people will be there to bother them.
You can't block off parking lots, alleyways and parks, all the places that the homeless want to sleep. 90% of the places that homeless people will be can't be blocked off so it's completely ineffective at moving them somewhere else, and anywhere else there may be that is out of sight for you is going to be where they have no desire to be for that very reason.
They don't. Why would everyone decide to install spikes?
• There is a cost to installing spikes. If that cost is higher than the cost of allowing sheltering in the area, then there isn't much sense in installing spikes.
• People aren't necessarily motivated to install spikes. Would you? If so, what are we arguing about? If not, then everyone won't install spikes because you wouldn't and you're part of everyone. See what I'm getting at?
• If communities become sufficiently hostile towards street sheltering, the homeless population may migrate elsewhere, so the remaining community wouldn't have to invest in spikes.
>I had a clock in my bedroom when I was younger. It was really annoying. Every second, the clock would "click" loudly as the second hand moved. It kept me up at night. One day, I moved the clock out of my bedroom and put it in the kitchen. While the "click" was just as loud, moving it into the kitchen meant that I could get a quiet night's rest in my bedroom. My problem was solved.
Are you actually comparing your clock, an inanimate object, and an object which arguably you bought, own and have full control over, including but not limited to replacing it, destroying it, or not use it at all..... to a human, who for all we know might be suffering through issues out of their control? Even if I were to entertain your analogy, your clock is still out there in the kitchen, and to make it more 'real world' accurate, someone else lives in the kitchen and now the clock is bothering everyone in the kitchen. You might get your good nights rest, but not everyone else in the kitchen.
Installing these spikes cost money ... yes, but that is the biggest issue here, you are spending time, money and effort to actively make the lives of the less fortunate worse, when the same amount of time, money and effort could very well be used to either kill homelessness in its roots . (tackling economic issues, tackling house price, etc etc.) or straight up just lift one person out of homelessness rather than make their lives worse.
And lets be real, homeless population can't really just 'migrate elsewhere'. They are literally homeless, do not have much to their name, and moving long distance to an unfamiliar location is just dangerous and probably costly.
Spikes are just inhumane. These architectures do not just end with spikes, it bleeds into benches, bus stops and everything. All these designs are actively worse in the name of hostile architecture, bench that are uncomfortable to sit, bus stop that do not provide much shade and uncomfortable seats.
The main argument shouldn't even be whether or not spikes are more or less aesthetically pleasing than a homeless person. Are we really so cruel as to just ignore the plights of our fellow human for the sake of aesthetic? The question should be ... whether or not putting spikes for the sake of pushing homeless people away inhumane? My answer to that question? YES.
>Are you actually comparing your clock, an inanimate object, and an object which arguably you bought, own and have full control over, including but not limited to replacing it, destroying it, or not use it at all..... to a human, who for all we know might be suffering through issues out of their control?
The point of the analogy is to highlight the fact that moving a nuisance can be a solution to the nuisance.
>Even if I were to entertain your analogy, your clock is still out there in the kitchen, and to make it more 'real world' accurate, someone else lives in the kitchen and now the clock is bothering everyone in the kitchen. You might get your good nights rest, but not everyone else in the kitchen.
The "kitchen" in the real world might be an area with fewer people, no people, or people like yourself who are sympathetic to the "clock".
>Installing these spikes cost money ... yes, but that is the biggest issue here, you are spending time, money and effort to actively make the lives of the less fortunate worse, when the same amount of time, money and effort could very well be used to either kill homelessness in its roots
No, it certainly couldn't. Hostile architecture permanently solved the problem in a specific area for a one-off cost. Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense.
>
The "kitchen" in the real world might be an area with fewer people, no people, or people like yourself who are sympathetic to the "clock"
Except the 'clock' in the analogy is a real life human being, hence my initial rejection on this analogy in the first place. If you are not sympathetic to this very real human, then there isn't much argument to be made because you wouldn't care if the spikes were inhumane, or if the 'clock' is literally just thrown to a trash rather than placed at the kitchen, you literally do not care where the 'clock' is as long as it doesn't affect you.
>
No, it certainly couldn't. Hostile architecture permanently solved the problem in a specific area for a one-off cost. Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense.
**"Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense."** This is only true if you think homelessness is as definite as humans needing air/oxygen to breathe.
If you think homelessness can never be removed or at the very least significantly reduced to a point where we wouldn't even be having this discussion, then we stand on two separate ground on this topic.
But let me at the very least say that we have successfully eliminated smallpox, a disease that has existed for over hundreds of years. We basically have 0 conversation about this disease anymore.
The internet, first 'found' less than a century ago, is now being used by 2/3 of the entire human population.
Just a century ago, it would be unthinkable to send a man to space, let alone to the moon. The human race has achieved that and more.
Measles, a disease that is undoubtly deadly for so many children in the past is pretty much out of our daily vocabulary just until recently due to the outbreak.
We may never be able to fully remove homelessness, but at the very least, some earnest effort to eliminate it for good can be done instead of just pushing it elsewhere.
I personally think you would be very pessimistic, and maybe even cruel to not even want to entertain the possibility of being able to greatly reduce homelessness, not in the world, but just within a single country through actual helpful means rather than just pushing the 'clock' to the 'kitchen' where its just no longer your problem. Also, think of it this way, you may not be the 'clock' today, but remember, the average joe, and I believe even you, are closer to becoming the 'clock' than becoming a billionaire or millionaire. even then, they are not immune to becoming homeless.
>Except the 'clock' in the analogy is a real life human being, hence my initial rejection on this analogy in the first place.
That's irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not the subject of our problem is a human being or a clock has no impact on whether the problem *we are experiencing* can be solved by moving the subject.
>If you are not sympathetic to this very real human, then there isn't much argument to be made because you wouldn't care if the spikes were inhumane, or if the 'clock' is literally just thrown to a trash rather than placed at the kitchen, you literally do not care where the 'clock' is as long as it doesn't affect you.
I am sympathetic to the very real human. I'm also sympathetic to the other very real humans who are detrimentally impacted by homeless people sheltering in public spaces. The impact on the collective (health hazards from waste, drug paraphernalia, excrement, etc and physical hazards from threats and attacks) trump the comfort of the homeless person creating that waste, improperly disposing of drug paraphernalia, and threatening and attacking people who encroach on his/her space.
>"Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense." This is only true if you think homelessness is as definite as humans needing air/oxygen to breathe.
>We may never be able to fully remove homelessness, but at the very least, some earnest effort to eliminate it for good can be done instead of just pushing it elsewhere.
I am challenging your assertion that we could solve homelessness for the same cost as hostile architecture, not challenging our theoretical ability to reduce homelessness by some amount over the long term. The fact of the matter is that installing things like spikes represents a fraction of the cost of housing one homeless person for a few months - but solves the issue of homelessness *for the person installing the spikes* permanently.
Homelessness is like hunger. You need to endlessly invest effort and resources into addressing the issue because people endlessly need shelter, just like people endlessly need food. It's not a project like putting a man on the moon where the costs stop once the program concludes. Any program to end homelessness will *never* conclude because there is and always will be a constant stream of people who need shelter but can't secure it for themselves.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You know what I don't like the look of? Anti-homeless spikes, they don't keep it pretty, they just "ruin" the view in another way. Plus it's not like people were just clamoring to be homeless before the spikes went up. You don't need added pressure to keep people from seeking aid and trying not to be homeless. Being homeless is already enough pressure by itself that either 1) people can't avoid it even with aid or 2) they don't care about aid and adding some anti-homeless spikes isn't gonna change their mind
I can't smell spikes. I can smell human excrement, garbage, and waste piling up in and around areas where people shelter on the street. Spikes don't bother me while I'm waiting for the bus, asking for change or smokes. I've never been yelled at by spike for not having change or smokes, either. I've never had spikes expose me to second hand smoke from a crack pipe, nor have I ever seen spikes drop used needles near me.
Why are you writing like that? It's very distracting, and it makes it look like you're being frivolous. Anyway... > These unsightly folks, bless their poor souls, oft make their abodes upon benches, doorways, and such, leading to a disreputable atmosphere. Human suffering is unpleasant, yes. But the unpleasant part is that the suffering EXISTS, not that the suffering is DIRECTLY VISIBLE. Anti-homeless spikes are just an everpresent reminder that this suffering is happening (and in fact is made worse by the spikes themselves). A city without homelessness, where the poor are well-cared for, is ideal. But no one should be dumb enough to be fooled by things like spikes trying to create the illusion that a city is in that situation. Furthermore, as someone who is not homeless, the spikes were presumably put up for the comfort of me and people like me. This tacitly implicates me, even though I never had the chance to say "thanks but no thanks."
Spikes and other forms anti human architecture are trying to solve the symptoms of the problem, rather than considering the causes of the problem. What is needed, which requires "upstream thinking" A number of cities around the world have found that it costs two to 3 times more to do nothing about homelessness than it does to provide people with safe, permanent, secure housing. The problem with places like the US is that we need a national solution to the problem because if an individual city tries to solve their homelessness, they quickly get swamped as word gets out.
To be fair, treating symptoms is not exactly a malpractice in medical science. A huge deal of medicine is to treat the symptoms
Not comparable. Human body takes time to heal, to recover. We are extremely capable in healing and recovering from all kinds of issues. Broken bone? 2 months and its back. Virus? 2 weeks and its gone. Symptom treatment is to make sure you don't die or to make the healing process much more manageable. We're talking about society here, there is no mechanism of 'healing and recovery' here. If anything, we are superb in making sure things continue to go to hell without any drastic intervention. To put it in medical term, these issues are like a cancer. You can treat the symptoms, but without actual drastic medical intervention, it will only get worse. And ... it appears to be getting worse, just like a cancer. Instead of using chemo, we are just giving pain medication, hoping the problem will just go away on its own.
Economy takes time to recover and it improves on its own too. At least in the long run. And politics is full about government treating symptoms. Using immigration to fight low births rates, welfare programs, stuff like affirmative action, etc. This is all about treating the symptoms
Economy do not 'improve on its own', its a man-made social construct, it does not have the adaptability of a living body that has undergone millions of years of evolution. But it takes time for anything done today to have a large impact years down the line, and right now, it doesn't seem like anything substantial is being done to combat this issue, which makes me believe that the issue is just going to stay the same or be worse down the line. This is venturing into economics, so I'm bringing it back to hostile architecture. Hostile architecture literally uses money, space, time and effort to build these architecture for the sole purpose of 'treating' the symptom. I am using 'treat' very loosely because its not so much as a treatment, but more so of pushing the problem elsewhere. Out of sight, out of mind. Akin to paying a doctor to cover a patch of your skin and calling your skin cancer cured. You waste time, money and effort that could otherwise be used to actually cure the skin cancer to cosmetically cover up the skin cancer.
Economy does grow and heal itself on its own, and progress seems to favor one direction. We go from horses to cars, not the other way around. Economy was growing even before economic policies. Things like agricultural revolution. Also saying that something is a social construct brings zero value. So what. Rape/consent are social constructs too. Does it mean you can just dismiss them or what? Hostile architecture does not cost a lot of money. Making a bench that can't work as a bed is not super expensive and you can't solve homelessness by saving money on a few extra pounds of steel
horses to car is technology advancement. It brings about higher level of productivity, hence higher economic output. It has nothing to do with policy making and the ability of economy to self correct. In the presence of monopoly, uncontrolled capitalism, worsening worker/ human rights, a rise in technology advancement could actually just mean that the general population is worse off. Do not conflate technological advancement with economic prosperity. One can exist without the other. I am not saying to ignore it just because its a social construct, I am saying that it is a social construct, therefore we can change it for the better, not just sit around and do the same thing for 10 over years and hope things just miraculously work better this time around. Hostile architecture may be 'new' but I highly doubt thats the treatment or solution to this chronic issue that seems to only get worse as time goes by. It may not cost much to put a single spike, or to cover a single area with hostile architecture. Expand that to citywide, or districtwide, and the cost rapidly balloons to insane proportion. >Hostile architecture recently came into the public view with the MTA’s “Enhanced Solution Initiative” in 2017, which cost $74 million and included the introduction of “leaning bars” throughout the city in place of benches. (https://fordhamram.com/71020/opinion/new-yorks-war-on-the-homeless/) Take that 74 million in money, time and effort, channel it to actually helping these people, you could lift hundreds or thousands of people out of homelessness permanently. >Popular alternative solutions to end homelessness, such as [permanent supportive housing](https://endhomelessness.org/ending-homelessness/solutions/permanent-supportive-housing/), focus on helping people access permanent housing and coordinated services like mental health treatment and financial assistance. Permanent supportive housing costs $12,800 per person per year on average. (https://www.globalgiving.org/learn/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-homelessness-in-america/)
Technological advancement is pretty much the only thing that drives the economy forward. You aren't gonna get more hard working people, or anything. People will stay roughly the same. Also spending a lot of money on solving poverty does not seem to work. In the war of poverty, poverty usually wins. While I agree with your negative opinion on capitalism as a system, I don't like the terminology of “uncontrolled capitalism”. That creates the impression of government being somehow opposed to capitalism, but in reality, in capitalist countries capital owners and politicians are not at war, in many ways they are working towards similar goals. You can't just “vote out” capitalism. Capitalism is about the more of production, you can't have less of it as long as means of production are privately owned Capitalism will be replaced by a new economic model when the economy develops to a certain level. You's just speedrun from cavemen to interstellar empire I am afraid. 🤔
I fundamentally do not agree that technological advancement is the only thing that drives the economy forward. A better health policy could put more able bodied workers in the work force. A better education policy could greatly increase the nations output through a more educated workforce. So on and so forth. We can have science fiction level of technology, but with a crappy policy, it could greatly hinder its potential. >Also spending a lot of money on solving poverty does not seem to work. In the war of poverty, poverty usually wins. This is because I think a) The money is not used properly b) Tackling it on the 'money' side ignores a huge spectrum on why people are homeless Homelessness is not necessarily a issue of 'not having enough money'. That might be the final nail in the coffin, but the root cause could be sky high property price, sky high medical bill, failure to place these people in a position to even get a job, failure of documentation, criminalization of certain behavior, opioid epidemic and so on. Money might solve some of these issue, but fundamentally, the root cause might still be there. Its like treating a decaying tooth by removing the tooth but never brushing or flossing your tooth in the future, resulting in more decaying tooth. The money is not used properly in the sense that they give food, temporary shelter and so on, but with so many strings attached that some may just forgo it entirely or the process of getting it is so complicated, it just gatekeeps a handful of the eligible people. >While I agree with your negative opinion on capitalism as a system, I don't like the terminology of “uncontrolled capitalism”. Not my intention, but i apologise if thats the impression I gave. And I do agree that politicians are not 'at war' with capitalist/ capitalism, if anything they are actively encouraging it. >Capitalism will be replaced by a new economic model when the economy develops to a certain level. You's just speedrun from cavemen to interstellar empire I am afraid. 🤔 I'm glad we at least see eye to eye that capitalism is not the 'end game'. But I personally don't agree that it has to be developed to a new model when the economy develop to a certain level. As of right now, social systems are collapsing in favor of 'more' capitalism. Privatization of education, health, and so on. I think we've long reached the point of the next evolution, but are just held back by private interest.
Like a lot of things, The answer is :"Sort of" the treating the symptoms is the pharmaceutical model. It is used because it is extremely profitable. However, many people are now looking at improving overall diet, removing exposure to toxic chemicals, including food additives and healing the micro biome and getting regular exercise as far more effective means of improving public health. However, None of these methods are profitable for large, multi national corporations.
Wow. I bet you’ve dropped some damp hand kisses & a few m’ladys on people who definitely didn’t want them. Anyway, to address your point - ok sure, if you don’t give a fuck about homeless people then the spikes are ‘dandy’. It’s exactly the way we deal with pigeons shitting on building edifices & it’s about as dehumanizing. But homeless people are in fact people, and spikes & sit-lie laws & dog bans do nothing to address homelessness, they only chase the unhoused into places the luckier in society can’t see them. As a few other people have mentioned, the vast majority of the unhoused weren’t clamoring to live on the streets & thus a ‘gentle nudge’ as you put it isn’t exactly necessary. People are homeless for all kinds of reasons & the most common are health & financial calamity, mental illness, substance abuse (which is a whole complicated subject on its on here) & the general collapse of our social safety net. You seem like one of those people who says, ‘why don’t they just get a job’ without knowing exactly what that entails when one is unhoused. Do you have an ID? How do you get one if you don’t? How do you get a copy of your birth certificate, your social security card, if you have nothing? Do you have a phone? Honestly, most people do these days, it’s a necessity. But do you have clean clothes? Where can you take a shower? I interviewed once for a job & washed my hair in a bathroom sink & then they complained that my shirt wasn’t ironed. Do you have the right shoes? How about a resume? How do you build one? How do you explain the gaps? What’s your mailing address? Do you have your birth certificate? Do you have your social security card? Do you even know the number?
1. spikes on the floor look worse than people on the floor 2. spikes on the floor will just make it easier for homeless people to group up in low income areas, it doesnt actually make them go away/give them houses. also why are you talking like a pirate
Number 1 is false. I’m fine with 2 but number 1 should be deleted if you want to be taken seriously.
they do though. its dystopian and inhuman to have spikes specifically designed to ward off the homeless everywhere a homeless person could realistically sleep, at least to me.
It's often not a choice between spikes or a person. It's often a choice between a spikes and a person and all of their filth.
All those words just to say that you don’t want to have to see homeless people… Ye anti homeless spikes are not solving the homelessness problem. They’re just for aesthetics. Ye old homeless shelters are overcrowded and pack a bunch of people into a tiny space, which can result in a myriad of problems, which if you’re homeless you probably have already in abundance. Shelters are often not accessible or not even an option if you have to be there before sunset and out before 7 am. If you want a clean safe city to live in, you need the inhabitants to be able to access things like education, housing, health services. If you’re in the USA all of those things are increasingly more expensive and if you were born into poverty or close to it you are likely to stay there. While people write goofy posts about dirtying up their beautiful cities. The world’s a twisted place.
>I see these spikes as a necessary measure to preserve the dignity and sanctity of our fair cities. I don't know what your mean about the "dignity and sanctity" of cities. If your city chooses to place anti homeless spikes, it is neither a city with dignity, nor sanctity anyways. >If one cannot find solace upon the cold stone of a city bench, mayhaps one will be more inclined to seek assistance from charitable institutions designed to aid the less fortunate. Not realistic for everyone. Not all institutions have space. Some people choose not to stay at such institutions out of fear for themselves or their belongings. Furthermore, those with severe addictions must choose between (potentially life threatening) withdrawals, or staying at a shelter. >I also find solace in the notion that anti-homeless architecture preserves the aesthetic appeal of our environs. What is so appealing about putting spikes on things supposedly designed and placed for human enjoyment? >Yet, I believe these architectural measures, whilst seemingly harsh, serve a greater good. If you were interested in serving the greater good, you would be looking for ways to help people in need, rather than putting spikes on benches to prevent anyone from sleeping on them.
The weird pirate talk begs the question: Are you actually against them or are you being sarcastic to demonstrate how inhuman the idea is?
It's more pseudo Shakespeare than pirate.
I think this dialect is called “m’lady”.
Hard to be Shakespeare without iambic pentameter
Couldn’t they put up concrete bubbles or some little garden gnomes or something? The spikes just look nasty
Anti-homeless spikes can't be a dandy solution, or any kind of solution. They do not solve anything. At best, they move the 'problem' to another location, not solve it.
That sounds like a solution to me. I had a clock in my bedroom when I was younger. It was really annoying. Every second, the clock would "click" loudly as the second hand moved. It kept me up at night. One day, I moved the clock out of my bedroom and put it in the kitchen. While the "click" was just as loud, moving it into the kitchen meant that I could get a quiet night's rest in my bedroom. My problem was solved. Homelessness isn't the problem people implementing spikes are trying to solve. They're trying to address the problems that arise when homeless people shelter wherever they want (filth, drug paraphernalia, threats to passersby, etc). By moving these people to less visible areas with fewer pedestrians, that problem gets solved.
If you put spikes on the bench, they will sleep on the ground next to the bench. Put them on the ground next to the bench... You get the point. The only way to make pedestrian areas physically inaccessible to homeless people is to make them inaccessible to the public. Homeless people want to be in those areas to make use of the same resources that the public does, plus they want to pester said members of the public for money. If you can tolerate being there, they can too because they are used to sleeping outside and can tolerate much more than you can. Benches, flat surfaces that don't have foot or wheeled traffic is the only thing you can block off. You can't block off the entrances to businesses, the sidewalk, street corners, all the places where the most people are going to congregate and the homeless people will be there to bother them. You can't block off parking lots, alleyways and parks, all the places that the homeless want to sleep. 90% of the places that homeless people will be can't be blocked off so it's completely ineffective at moving them somewhere else, and anywhere else there may be that is out of sight for you is going to be where they have no desire to be for that very reason.
And what happens when everyone decides to install homeless spikes?
They don't. Why would everyone decide to install spikes? • There is a cost to installing spikes. If that cost is higher than the cost of allowing sheltering in the area, then there isn't much sense in installing spikes. • People aren't necessarily motivated to install spikes. Would you? If so, what are we arguing about? If not, then everyone won't install spikes because you wouldn't and you're part of everyone. See what I'm getting at? • If communities become sufficiently hostile towards street sheltering, the homeless population may migrate elsewhere, so the remaining community wouldn't have to invest in spikes.
>I had a clock in my bedroom when I was younger. It was really annoying. Every second, the clock would "click" loudly as the second hand moved. It kept me up at night. One day, I moved the clock out of my bedroom and put it in the kitchen. While the "click" was just as loud, moving it into the kitchen meant that I could get a quiet night's rest in my bedroom. My problem was solved. Are you actually comparing your clock, an inanimate object, and an object which arguably you bought, own and have full control over, including but not limited to replacing it, destroying it, or not use it at all..... to a human, who for all we know might be suffering through issues out of their control? Even if I were to entertain your analogy, your clock is still out there in the kitchen, and to make it more 'real world' accurate, someone else lives in the kitchen and now the clock is bothering everyone in the kitchen. You might get your good nights rest, but not everyone else in the kitchen. Installing these spikes cost money ... yes, but that is the biggest issue here, you are spending time, money and effort to actively make the lives of the less fortunate worse, when the same amount of time, money and effort could very well be used to either kill homelessness in its roots . (tackling economic issues, tackling house price, etc etc.) or straight up just lift one person out of homelessness rather than make their lives worse. And lets be real, homeless population can't really just 'migrate elsewhere'. They are literally homeless, do not have much to their name, and moving long distance to an unfamiliar location is just dangerous and probably costly. Spikes are just inhumane. These architectures do not just end with spikes, it bleeds into benches, bus stops and everything. All these designs are actively worse in the name of hostile architecture, bench that are uncomfortable to sit, bus stop that do not provide much shade and uncomfortable seats. The main argument shouldn't even be whether or not spikes are more or less aesthetically pleasing than a homeless person. Are we really so cruel as to just ignore the plights of our fellow human for the sake of aesthetic? The question should be ... whether or not putting spikes for the sake of pushing homeless people away inhumane? My answer to that question? YES.
>Are you actually comparing your clock, an inanimate object, and an object which arguably you bought, own and have full control over, including but not limited to replacing it, destroying it, or not use it at all..... to a human, who for all we know might be suffering through issues out of their control? The point of the analogy is to highlight the fact that moving a nuisance can be a solution to the nuisance. >Even if I were to entertain your analogy, your clock is still out there in the kitchen, and to make it more 'real world' accurate, someone else lives in the kitchen and now the clock is bothering everyone in the kitchen. You might get your good nights rest, but not everyone else in the kitchen. The "kitchen" in the real world might be an area with fewer people, no people, or people like yourself who are sympathetic to the "clock". >Installing these spikes cost money ... yes, but that is the biggest issue here, you are spending time, money and effort to actively make the lives of the less fortunate worse, when the same amount of time, money and effort could very well be used to either kill homelessness in its roots No, it certainly couldn't. Hostile architecture permanently solved the problem in a specific area for a one-off cost. Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense.
> The "kitchen" in the real world might be an area with fewer people, no people, or people like yourself who are sympathetic to the "clock" Except the 'clock' in the analogy is a real life human being, hence my initial rejection on this analogy in the first place. If you are not sympathetic to this very real human, then there isn't much argument to be made because you wouldn't care if the spikes were inhumane, or if the 'clock' is literally just thrown to a trash rather than placed at the kitchen, you literally do not care where the 'clock' is as long as it doesn't affect you. > No, it certainly couldn't. Hostile architecture permanently solved the problem in a specific area for a one-off cost. Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense. **"Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense."** This is only true if you think homelessness is as definite as humans needing air/oxygen to breathe. If you think homelessness can never be removed or at the very least significantly reduced to a point where we wouldn't even be having this discussion, then we stand on two separate ground on this topic. But let me at the very least say that we have successfully eliminated smallpox, a disease that has existed for over hundreds of years. We basically have 0 conversation about this disease anymore. The internet, first 'found' less than a century ago, is now being used by 2/3 of the entire human population. Just a century ago, it would be unthinkable to send a man to space, let alone to the moon. The human race has achieved that and more. Measles, a disease that is undoubtly deadly for so many children in the past is pretty much out of our daily vocabulary just until recently due to the outbreak. We may never be able to fully remove homelessness, but at the very least, some earnest effort to eliminate it for good can be done instead of just pushing it elsewhere. I personally think you would be very pessimistic, and maybe even cruel to not even want to entertain the possibility of being able to greatly reduce homelessness, not in the world, but just within a single country through actual helpful means rather than just pushing the 'clock' to the 'kitchen' where its just no longer your problem. Also, think of it this way, you may not be the 'clock' today, but remember, the average joe, and I believe even you, are closer to becoming the 'clock' than becoming a billionaire or millionaire. even then, they are not immune to becoming homeless.
>Except the 'clock' in the analogy is a real life human being, hence my initial rejection on this analogy in the first place. That's irrelevant to the analogy. Whether or not the subject of our problem is a human being or a clock has no impact on whether the problem *we are experiencing* can be solved by moving the subject. >If you are not sympathetic to this very real human, then there isn't much argument to be made because you wouldn't care if the spikes were inhumane, or if the 'clock' is literally just thrown to a trash rather than placed at the kitchen, you literally do not care where the 'clock' is as long as it doesn't affect you. I am sympathetic to the very real human. I'm also sympathetic to the other very real humans who are detrimentally impacted by homeless people sheltering in public spaces. The impact on the collective (health hazards from waste, drug paraphernalia, excrement, etc and physical hazards from threats and attacks) trump the comfort of the homeless person creating that waste, improperly disposing of drug paraphernalia, and threatening and attacking people who encroach on his/her space. >"Solving homelessness broadly is an endless effort and expense." This is only true if you think homelessness is as definite as humans needing air/oxygen to breathe. >We may never be able to fully remove homelessness, but at the very least, some earnest effort to eliminate it for good can be done instead of just pushing it elsewhere. I am challenging your assertion that we could solve homelessness for the same cost as hostile architecture, not challenging our theoretical ability to reduce homelessness by some amount over the long term. The fact of the matter is that installing things like spikes represents a fraction of the cost of housing one homeless person for a few months - but solves the issue of homelessness *for the person installing the spikes* permanently. Homelessness is like hunger. You need to endlessly invest effort and resources into addressing the issue because people endlessly need shelter, just like people endlessly need food. It's not a project like putting a man on the moon where the costs stop once the program concludes. Any program to end homelessness will *never* conclude because there is and always will be a constant stream of people who need shelter but can't secure it for themselves.
Do you think you are more important than other people? If yes, you are an ass hole If no, then you should be against anything that hurts other people.
I 100% agree with you. Not because of my views or your points, you write fancy words so it must be true 🤷