How can we combat the culture of "defensive design" on the NYC subway?

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

This has been a trend beyond just the subway. "Sefensive design" is basically design that seeks to make things less comfortable to prevent loitering or homeless people in public spaces. However, after a certain point I think the discomforts normal citizens have to put up with outweigh the potential benefits of stopping homeless folks.

I mean things like the reduction in seating on new cars or in renovated stations, indefinitely closing down bathrooms, lack of facilities such as water fountains, and lack of retail within stations and so on. In recent years, especially post-COVID it's gotten worse with almost all the system's restrooms closing and many of the few in-station stores. R211 have lower seating capacity than the NTTs, and many renovated stations have ripped out benches.

Especially on the NYC subway, I think this matters cause people often ride the subway for longer journeys that could involve staying on one train for over an hour or making multiple transfers. Sometimes, people just need a place to sit, some food to eat, or a restroom to use, especially people who might be older or have other issues. I also think about tourists who might not have planned for the fact some of these amenities are limited on the subway.

Having retail in stations that sells food is something that I think is underdiscussed, especially in large IND stations that have underused mezzanines. It would benefit the customer by allowing them to get food while allowing the MTA to make extra money and would generally force stations to have better Maintenace. At 72nd St on the  for instance, there's a small little shop on the mezzanine the station (within the turnstiles) that sold some basic beverages, little bars, pastries, ect. Right across from that shop was a small but well-maintained restroom. I wish that was a more common occurrence at stations across the system.

It doesn't have to be at every station, but I think at least at major hubs, it would be nice to see more of this; since these areas are heavily trafficked and already tend to have a lot of police, worrying about homeless people loitering shouldn't be an argument against this.

Edited June 7, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[CenSin]

52 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

However, after a certain point I think the discomforts normal citizens have to put up with outweigh the potential benefits of stopping homeless folks.

How about a third option: move the point where these thresholds cross over.

• Defensive design exists because of homeless people making the subway their home.
• Homeless people make the subway their home because X.
• X because Y.
• …

Then you eventually reach a point where you ask: why are there so many homeless people—the real root of all the problems?

You can keep sweeping them here and there and put up barriers to stem their flow into the system, but in the end why do they exist in the first place? Almost every conversation is about keeping homeless people out of some place (e.g., rich neighborhoods) or keeping them sequestered in some place (e.g., Chinatowns and brown neighborhoods).

If we could hypothetically approach the limit of zero homeless, then the stock of defensively designed infrastructure would be in free fall until there wasn’t any. Speak nothing of “putting up” with stuff.

Edited June 7, 2023 by CenSin

[Lex]

48 minutes ago, CenSin said:

How about a third option: move the point where these thresholds cross over.

• Defensive design exists because of homeless people making the subway their home.
• Homeless people make the subway their home because X.
• X because Y.
• …

Then you eventually reach a point where you ask: why are there so many homeless people—the real root of all the problems?

You can keep sweeping them here and there and put up barriers to stem their flow into the system, but in the end why do they exist in the first place? Almost every conversation is about keeping homeless people out of some place (e.g., rich neighborhoods) or keeping them sequestered in some place (e.g., Chinatowns and brown neighborhoods).

If we could hypothetically approach the limit of zero homeless, then the stock of defensively designed infrastructure would be in free fall until there wasn’t any. Speak nothing of “putting up” with stuff.

Given the country's bent on neoliberalism, that's not happening.

[texassubwayfan555]

What is neoliberalism exactly?

[Wallyhorse]

On 6/7/2023 at 8:26 PM, Lex said:

Given the country's bent on neoliberalism, that's not happening.

More like the ACLU going to court and making it impossible to clear out the homeless. 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

More like the ACLU going to court and making it impossible to clear out the homeless. 

And then what?

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

clear out the homeless.

Please elaborate on what it means to “clear them out.”

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

Please elaborate on what it means to “clear them out.”

I thought that was obvious:

IMO, if the MTA tried other ways to clear out the homeless from being in the system at all times (even legally), the ACLU would head straight to court to get such overturned.  

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

And then what?

See my response above. 

[Lex]

11 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

See my response above. 

That tells me nothing I couldn't piece together from your last reply to me. As such, you haven't answered the question.

[CenSin]

14 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

clear out the homeless from being in the system at all times

But this is exactly what I wrote in the beginning: you’re simply shifting them elsewhere. People don’t spend all their time on the subway. Once they get out, that’s where all the homeless people will be—the same ones that the MTA cleared out. You don’t solve the problem by deferring it.