Started thinking about this after noticing a bench placement on Michigan Avenue that seemed designed to be useless. Facing a blank wall. No shade. Maximum distance from anything you'd want to sit near.
The decision chain
Someone decided to put that bench there. More precisely, a chain of decisions led to that bench in that location:
- A city ordinance required "street furniture" in the redevelopment plan
- A contractor selected the cheapest option from an approved vendor list
- A site plan placed the bench where it wouldn't interfere with vehicle sightlines
- Nobody involved in any of these steps asked who would actually sit there
The bench exists to satisfy a checkbox, not a human need. And yet it occupies public space. It communicates something about what the city values (compliance) and what it doesn't (comfort, rest, sociability).
Hostile by default
This isn't even hostile architecture in the aggressive sense (no arm rests designed to prevent sleeping, no spikes). It's something quieter: design that is hostile through indifference. The bench is there, technically. It meets the requirement, technically. But no one thought about the person who might need to sit down after walking six blocks.
I want to develop this into something larger about the difference between hostile design and indifferent design. Hostility is at least honest about its intentions. Indifference pretends it has none.