It seems to me that you are describing very isolated, xenophobic communiites. While these exist, they are generally not the norm any more.
These being said, the dynamics of groups of people is indeed fascinating, but the discussion would be far too long for a comment section on a web site article. One aspect which you should add to your observations is social status. It is generally easier to be considered part of a “community” for persons perceived to be of higher social status. Money needs not be involved.
No, not really. Just your run of the mill little towns and villages.
I refuse to believe there is a discussion which is ‘too long’ for these comment sections But I’m happy to leave the topic save to say:
I would disagree and say it is more correct to say that it is easier to survive (in a social rather than literal sense) not being part of the community if you are perceived to be of higher social status.
As in the new doctor may or may not be ‘one of us’ but he or she is someone worthy of respect and will be treated accordingly.
I used to work in homeless shelters and brain injury rehab; I’ve cleaned up my share of messes.
If the benches are being fouled, then the benches need to be cleaned more often. There’s probably also a need for more publicly-accessible toileting and washing facilities.
I still think it is ridiculously far beyond the pale to pin the cause of homelessness on a bench design.
I don’t want rich white people sitting too long on those benches, either, because someone else might like a turn. I don’t want anyone to be too comfortable there as a design feature.
No one is doing that? People are saying that homeless use benches for sleeping often because they lack alternatives. No one is saying that bench design causes homelessness.
I still think it is ridiculously far beyond the pale to say that this bench design targets homeless people.
I don’t want rich white people sitting too long on those benches, either, because someone else might like a turn. I don’t want anyone to be too comfortable there as a design feature.
I think that it is doing so. Didn’t the person who made these say as much? I mean, panhandling laws and vargrancy laws apply to everyone equally, but let’s not kid ourselves about who they are really aimed at. It’s not you or I, but the homeless.
I wonder why is it that so many people believe “spending money on special street furniture designed to make life less pleasant for homeless people” a totally legit and acceptable use of taxpayer funds but “spending money to help the homeless” is not?
Sleeping on a bench isn’t what a bench was designed for, particularly in high throughput areas like bus stations. Discouraging monopolizing use of a shared resource is a valid, and applies-to-everyone, design goal.
When you take away all the homeless people’s resources, like shelters, and mental health institutions, and such. When they really don’t have alternatives, it seems really perverse to design public-use objects specifically to be less useful just to try and keep the homeless from using it.
If you’re going to take away everyone’s bread and butter, especially the bread and butter the destitute need, then it’s perverse and wrong to get angry at the homeless for foraging instead of conveniently all “disappearing” ie dying.
But I’m happy to leave the topic save to say:
