this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
210 points (94.5% liked)

Memes

45884 readers
1684 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Frog@lemmy.ca 35 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Homeless people sleep on the vents for warmth.

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 20 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

The vents are still accessible though? And you have these nifty mannequins to hang your stuff?

Edit: honest question, possibly unnecessary joke.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Let them eat cake. Try sleeping on them and report back to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 22 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I feel like we're talking past each other. I'm wondering how the weird human-shaped things added on top of the vents constitute hostile architecture - how are they meant to to discourage people from sleeping there? This is me trying to learn, I'm very aware that sleeping on vents isn't exactly comfortable but how do these things make it less so?

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 7 points 11 hours ago

You'd probably have to lie between them instead of just looking at a photo, to assess if it's still possible.

Clearly they were put there with the intention of making it difficult/uncomfortable to lie down on the subway vent. If they were installed incompetently that doesn't make them unhostile though, it just makes them ineffective for their obviously intended purpose.

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 14 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I see what you're digging at, I was confused by them too. Hostile architecture meets just plain terrible design?

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Right? It looks like there was an attempt (gold star) at hostility but they still wanted it to look somewhat aesthetically pleasing and mostly forgot about the hostile part? Or maybe I'm just not seeing most of the hostile part, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

Nah I think you got it. Veiling art as hostile architecture is fairly common so I think the artist lead took over and they forgot the intent of ruining someone's ability to sleep haha