What hostile architecture? This is on the underground. Nobody is going to be sleeping on these seats.

The hostile architecture in this instance is the choice to use benches instead of seats with back support.

To what hostile purpose? Just out of spite?

It's not hostile, it's just practical. Seats with backs would take up way too much space. And you don't need it anyway because the maximum time you'll be sitting on these is like 5 minutes.

What is hostile about the architecture here? The armrests?

If the (quite useless) armrests weren't there to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them, people wouldn't be sitting in the exact same spot every time, causing a light smear instead of defined person-like shaped on the wall.

While it's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree that these are here purely to stop homeless people from sleeping on them.

For a start, I would give anyone on the underground about 3 minutes, if they attempted to sleep anywhere, before they were moved on. It's one of the few places where you regularly see staff on the public transport network in London.

I think there is a legitimate argument that these arm rests are actually providing a useful service by delimiting the space for each person. Few people will naturally sit on the spot at the end of a bench seat which is already partially occupied (and other people will discourage it by sitting near the middle). Where as people will take an empty seat which is clearly free and separated from the other people on the bench.

> I think there is a legitimate argument that these arm rests are actually providing a useful service by delimiting the space for each person. Few people will naturally sit on the spot at the end of a bench seat which is already partially occupied (and other people will discourage it by sitting near the middle). Where as people will take an empty seat which is clearly free and separated from the other people on the bench.

Yes, exactly this! Especially when the platforms are crowded, it makes so much sense to be efficient on the allocation of seats.

Now we’ve still got to deal with some people bag-spreading but normally most people take their bags off as soon as it gets busy or someone asks.

I assume you mean stations/platforms/etc. — the trains themselves have dozing people in seats all the time.

And yes, I don’t recall any opportunity to sleep as I shuffled along in the massive crowds for the Waterloo and City line.

People without a home do not have access to the platforms that these seats are on. These seats are on the underground, past the ticket barriers, and they would quickly be removed for trespassing on private property, as all TFL stations are staffed.

Typically in London, People without a home would be found outside the station, or occasionally in the concourse.

Bro you've clearly never ridden the tube. Homeless people are on it all the time begging. They slip in behind other people through the barriers at busy or unmanned stations.

Londoner for 24 years. I don't know what to tell you, 'Bro'.

Yes beggars walk down tube trains trying to get money, but they don't tend to set up shop on the platform which is what we're talking about here. I'm also pretty sure most of the people that have asked me for a quid on the tube were not homeless people, just chancers and drug users.

Besides which, once you were past the barrier, sleeping on the tube train itself is likely to be a much more viable and comfortable option than the platform.

as for "unmanned stations"? All London Underground stations are rostered to be staffed during operating hours. Stations located underground have specific staffing requirements and minimum staff numbers, which vary depending on the size of the station. This is a fire regulation requirement arising from the King's Cross fire in 1987.

Some of the small, outer, (above ground) tube stations I use have periods where staff leave the gates open and leave the public areas. They even do this during busy periods. It is easy to get onto the tube network at these places.

There's also stations that share common areas with overground trains that don't even have gates (West Ruislip, for example). And then people also squeeze through the pram/wheelchair gates or closely follow someone through. It's easy to do because the ticket offices are closed and whatever skeleton staffing they have is busy elsewhere. These gates (and stations) are effectively unmanned in this context.

But I agree. It's actually very rare to see people begging on the underground compared to other cities. I don't think access is the issue. Maybe the BTP spend all their time on it?

Thank you for verifying that what I'm saying is not that unreasonable. I'm getting downvoted way too much for totally factual claims here.

I do see beggars at least once a week these days I'd say. They've increased a lot compared to my first years in London when I would safely call it rare. I reckon because of cost of living.

You're getting downvoted because armrests only act as 'hostile architecture' when they stop people lying down to sleep, and the beggars on the tube are visibly not sleeping.

The beggars are constantly moving, and only ask for money on trains that are in motion, in order to evade the staff. Those that want to stay in one place set up just outside the station entrance.

Furthermore, a tube platform is a poor place to sleep, not only because the staff will move you on and the trains are really noisy, but mostly because the tube is closed at night.

I do agree that some-human was wrong to say "People without a home do not have access to the platforms" though, as you're right that it's possible to access the platforms without paying. But some-human was right in the broader context of the thread - whether the armrests constitute hostile architecture - that we do not see rough sleepers sleeping on tube platforms.

Yes, I was responding to the claim that "People without a home do not have access to the platforms". That is all. That therefore rules out that as the main reason that homeless people are not sleeping rough in tube stations. I never mentioned anything about the hostile architecture. That was someone else, so I do not deserve a downvote for it. I was only addressing the claim about access, so that we could discuss the real reasons for the lack of rough sleeping in the tube, not fantasy ones.

In reality the reason is because the authorities want to stop them and they do this through policing the platforms obviously but hostile architecture is put in place to make sure they don't have to be searching for homeless people all the time in the first place. It's a joint effort, obviously.

They are quite common on the Elizabeth, District, Hammersmith & City, and Central lines east of Liverpool Street.

Not unknown to see people sat at the bottom of stairs with a “homeless and hungry” signs

I mean i think the vast majority of them are homeless and/or drug users. Lots of homeless people are cos they're freezing their nuts off with no hope every day. It's honestly impossible to tell which of them are on drugs and which aren't. But I find it unlikely that most of those people aren't homeless.

And yes I know every station has to be staffed. I mean they look for moments of time when no staff are watching the barriers at lower staffed stations. I have had people slip in the barriers behind me it very obviously happens. Homeless people are perfectly able to get in. They don't sleep there because everything possible is done to stop them.

The stations are indoors and clean. Homeless people could sleep on the floor if they wanted to, but that doesn't happen.

Not the DLR stations though. Those are unmanned.

I don't think I've ever seen a homeless person sleeping in a London Underground station in 30 years of commuting, and many of them have benches without armrests.

People would be sitting in the middle of the seats with or without the arm rests. I don't think that would make any difference.

> to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them

Seems very unlikely that’s why they’re there, given the station is covered in CCTV, highly staffed, and the train itself would be much more comfortable to sleep on

> (quite useless) armrests

Very useful for apportioning space on the seats for multiple people to sit

And even if they weren't there for hindering homeless people, they're still hostile for overweight people - the ones, aside geriatrics, that most need the seats.

100% US view haha! There is no chance that TFL lets people sleep here.

It is such a shame how normalized homeless people and transit are in the United States. And they wonder why everybody drives their car?

This isn't the United States, other countries don't tolerate vagrants sleeping on public transit.

Well, without a ticket, anyway. N15 is a three hour bus journey for cheap, overnight, and certainly use to be popular for rough sleepers, providing they had a ticket.