You must log in or register to comment.
Psst 🤫
You don’t need anti-homeless architecture if you fix your society
(Every human has a right for housing and food in my opinion, labour should be for luxury, not survival)
Idk about the last Part but the Rest Yes absolutely
Lies! Anti-homeless this may be, but this bench was also created with the VERY noble intention of facilitating wheelchair-bound men to receive a handjob from two women at once!
It’s 2026, Finjamin. The handjob could also be given by two men! Or a man and a woman. Or a nonbinary person and a woman. Or…
But not two disabled people. Alas, this bench discriminates.
Mentally disabled, or physically?
Three wheelchair users could give double-handjobs to two seated men.
So the bench design still has you beat.
It’s IMPECCABLE (im-pecker-ble), no slander that you level at this piece of ingenious public infrastructure will ever stick.
INSTALL THE PIT OF GENDER NEUTRAL HANDJOBS!
Unless it’s the wheelchair user dual wielding.
Maybe it’s intended to let a homeless person give two handjobs at once. Did you ever think of that?
I see the vision now… “give a man a handjob and he’ll still be homeless. Give a man a station to perform handjobs in the park and he might be able to earn a place to sleep if he’s good enough at it”
Or yo mamma and yo daddy at once
False, their mama would take up both ends of the bench
their mama just that fat
We’re in 2026 now, you can get two flawless robot whatevers to blowjob you.
The xSlut by Elon Musk is on hold after several dicks were bitten off during testing. What’s that? Nevermind I just received word that they’re moving to immediate deployment.
My dad is dead, so zombie fan-fic fans can have a little treat
Or…
I need you to finish what you started. All combinations of options.
🌈
I normally don’t read usernames, so I got fucking brain fried trying to figure out what a Finjamin is
Like, it looks like a word I should remember but it isn’t even a word
Hmm. I’m seeing the person in the wheelchair giving two handjobs to people on the seats. I think they used to call this skiing.
Well, I’m sold. Except for the “women” part.
Two guys could give just as good a hand job…
Why did you choose this way round? Surely a wheelchair-bound women taking ski lessons would be more common!
Yes and the fact that they care about the comfort of the handjob givers so they can sit down. I mean who likes to get a handjob while the other person is complaining about knee or back pain.
Props to the wheelchair-bound well-endowed dude if he needs 2 hands to properly jizz.
Lies! Anti-homeless this may be, but this bench was also created with the VERY noble intention of facilitating wheelchair-bound (wo)men to give a handjob to two men at once!
The obvious response to this is to guerilla install regular benches, but put wheelchair legs on the legs so we can roll sleeping homeless men into bank lobbies.
PARK THE FUCKING WHEELCHAIR NEXT TO THE BENCH! This has to be a trolling photoshop
If this were real, consider how it would come to be. It’s obvious that even if we pretend it’s for accessibility purposes, it’s worse than just pulling up beside the bench because now you have to deal with backing into the spot.
But what if it’s more nefarious than that? No budget to put in new benches with spikes or whatever built in. But maybe there’s room in the budget for “accessibility upgrades”. Maybe a ramp was sacrificed for this idiocy.
If this were real, consider how it would come to be.
I gotta stop giving reality the benefit of the doubt.
We’re glad you came out from living under that rock.
They even sell the actual bench from the meme, so I linked it instead! Fantastic design. No notes.
This is real. It’s located in Giulianova Lido, Italy. IIRC an arts project from a local school and it is meant as a way to “integrate” wheelchairs symbolically as well as practically.
as well as practically.
X doubt.
This is worse than nothing, because (as a wheelchair user) there’s like 10 inches of clearance behind the chair (given wheel clearance). That back rail means you can’t back up to get yourself in line with your compatriots,so you’ll be in front of and misaligned with the people on either side, such that they’re literally talking behind your back.
If this design was in earnest, it’s godawful and just shows the designer had no idea what they were doing.
If it’s an art project, then I can appreciate it. If it was meant to be practical, it’s a major fail.
I can appreciate the thought, because as a part time wheelchair user, it does often wear me down when I feel like I’m perpetually perched on the periphery of any conversation.
However, like you say, this is just far too impractical for most people. I have a small, active wheelchair, and even that would probably put me in front of friends sitting on the bench beside me.
However, I can totally believe that this was made in earnest. I’ve seen some ridiculous “accommodations” that are ostensibly for disabled people that just show that the able bodied designer just didn’t involve any disabled people in the design process at all. And that’s why “nothing about us, without us” is a long used slogan used by disability rights campaigners.
If anyone wants to see an example of good accessibility design, I love how they designed the packaging for the Xbox Accessible Controller. They included lots of people with varied needs across multiple stages of the design process, and it really shows. And the end product is so elegantly functional. I like this quote from Solomon Romney, a “Microsoft Retail Stores retail learning specialist”:
"The whole thing sort of blossoms open in this really beautiful, fluid way. The package just sort of opens and hands you the controller. What’s wonderful about it is the effortlessness.”
Say what you will about Microslop, that controller was/is a pretty amazing thing.
It’s a single installation, AFAIK - and definitely an art project. Having some academic arts background, I dare to say the focus of the installation is the difference between “in the middle” and “aside”. So it’s highly symbolic. Practically two chairs with a reasonable gap inbetween would be far more practical but they, of course, don’t transmit any message.
But what this art says to me, as a wheelchair user, is something completely different because this design is the opposite of inclusive. Is that what is meant?
This design says I should be excluded – taking it as art, this design communicates everyone having conversations and leaving me out, because that back bar will exclude me by design.
If I’m to socialise, I should be on one end or the other, but that middle part means I’ll be artificially excluded by the environment.
Is that what it’s meant to mean?
What it’s meant to mean is “yay us! We’re doing inclusivity!”
What it actually means, to me, is “we will make a show of valuing disabled people, but we won’t go so far as to actually include them in the design process, thereby making this bench an artifact to our own self congratulation, as well as making wheelchair users feel excluded in a far more insidious way than they already did”.
And I feel like an asshole to say it like that, but it’s so annoying to see well intentioned people fall at literally the first hurdle. Like, if they truly do see us as people who have intrinsic value that means we are worth including, then they also need to see us in our full personhood and include us in the process. The alternative is that their enthusiasm will just cause more money to be pissed down the drain on symbolic gestures that don’t fulfill their intended purpose
I could see this meaning something more – and even something inclusive – if the environment is part of the design; for a moment I ignored the steep looking sand bank, but if that’s part of the art, that changes the meaning by a lot. That would make much more sense.
I’ve lived places where the landscape changes a lot throughout the year, though, so I sort of ignored the background and took the bench itself in isolation.
Maybe that’s where I fucked up.
I think that in this imaginary scenario, the art student is being graced with the benefit of the doubt, and it’s assumed that they just have no clue how wheelchairs function in reality. I have a hard time assuming such malice if it is in fact an art project.
However, reality likes to make fools of optimists.
Ok but if you’re doing an art project about including chair users, maybe run your design by like, at least one chair user.
I didn’t assume malice, but ignorance. And not malicious ignorance, either.
Given this is a public installation, though, I was giving my interpretation.
At some point it really is. It’s not like it’s impossible to find a chair user to talk to about such things.
deleted by creator
practically
Ahhh, art students trying to be practical.
I mean it is a product
Maybe it is now. The one,. I saw not that long ago was a single piece.
I mean, the only benefit this has is that someone in a wheelchair can now sit next to two people. Pulling up besides the bench always means that you’re on the end.
They couldn’t, though. Because of the space the back of the chair and the radius the wheels requires, the person in the chair would be sitting nearly a foot in front of anyone seated on the bench.
e: look at the amount of space with my custom high-end and narrow profile chair (it’s even more space with the standard-issue chair):
.Your head will be in line with the leftmost right dot if you’re relaxed. I backed my chair against a door, and that’s fuzz or something.
That back bar prevents you from sitting ‘with’ anyone.
But since the wheelchair has a back to it and such, you’ll be sitting slightly in front of those two people meaning everyone will have a sore neck.
“That disabled person stole your
cookieseat”“That
disabled personcompany stole yourcookieseatbed”
there, I fixed it.
Shadow 404.
Ok, ok…
here you go.
it’s perfect now.
Close, but it is floating on one side.
That’s just how benches work
Thank you clearing that up for me.
Anytime, Carl.
At this point surely you could just have two individual chairs spaced about that far apart and slightly angled towards eachother. Still anti homeless but also at least a better user experience for, for lack of a better term, intended users.
Probably cheaper than the weird bench and more plausible deniability.
This is literally the illustration of most things within the world. The corporations/governments rather muddy the waters than actually do what has to be done.
Praise is given for effectively doing a cheap act of “niceness” that is more harmful in the long run. It is a method of deceiving the public, and taking advantage of a minority to precisely execute their evil intentions.
In this case, disability is one thing, but age and other factors are also used as a leverage point.
And how exactly would one even back a wheelchair into that? Wheelchairs have backrests already, so you’d just hit the backrest of this bench before being on the same line as the other people sitting on it.
I mean, as an actual disabled person… By just like, backing up to it?
There are a few comments about this and I’m like, yeah it’s stupid as fuck, but that’s not even what they are pointing out, it’s like they can’t grasp the concept of a wheelchair backing up. I don’t want to be around when they pull into a parking spot and then can’t drive forward out of it…
And while I agree that this seems more nefarious than anything, you (everyone in this thread) GREATLY overestimates the brainpower that goes into actual accessibility ‘features’. Put escalators front and center, but I have to take the service elevator? Put 1,000 hotel rooms, but only 5 are made for accessibility? Your store has a wheelchair ramp, all the fuck at the end of the building near the loading docks? Your store has electric carts, but not enough for all your disabled customers. You don’t have enough employees to help me load my purchase, so I have to hurt myself. Shit, even paving walkways, in fucking modular concrete squares, suck ass: when (not if) the front wheels get stuck, especially if I’m being pushed, my ass gets launched.
It sucks ass being disabled, but god damn it’s like the dumbest people get assigned to accessibility planning.
I mean, as an actual disabled person… By just like, backing up to it?
Well, as an actual disabled person, how many different chairs do you have on a daily basis? Because as a taxi driver driving around disabled people, there’s a lot of different chairs.
I’ve never seen one without a backrest. Do you have one?
Could you back into that with a chair? Ofc.
But if yours has a backrest like all the other chairs, you’ll hit the backrest before with the back of your chair before you’d be in the same line as a person leaning back on other parts of the bench.
Not to even mention that a ton of the people that I know who use chairs have often have a bag or a backpack hanging back there.
I don’t want to be around when they pull into a parking spot and then can’t drive forward out of it…
As a professional driver, I can tell you that if you have to choose a parking place between a space that’s only just and just free (three cars around it, all parked tightly so as to not leave any extra room even close to the line), and one that is completely free, not a single car around it, you choose the latter one.
Can I reverse into the former? Ofc. Even just a few years after I started, when I was still very young, around 20, I made grown (and somewhat drunk) men give a little shriek as they thought I would crash the car when driving in places where they thought a car wouldn’t fit (because people were picked up usually from in front of a bar, and bars can exist in the weirdest places.)
So with that logic in mind, my question is why would you, as a chair user, ever want to back in to this bench, when you could just park next to it, effectively lengthening the bench?
Put 1,000 hotel rooms, but only 5 are made for accessibility? Your store has a wheelchair ramp, all the fuck at the end of the building near the loading docks?
Not a problem in the EU/Finland (idk which the regulations comes from) We got building regulations.
Shit, even paving walkways, in fucking modular concrete squares, suck ass: when (not if) the front wheels get stuck, especially if I’m being pushed, my ass gets launched.
I would’ve been proud if this wasn’t a problem either, but as someone who regularly pushed chairs, I’m so goddamn disappointed in my own city. They remodelled the market square for a parking garage they wanted to build below it. Corruption and capitalism wins and after years and years of talks, more years of building and millions of euros, we got an utterly shit market square made of roughly 40cm x 40cm tiles which won’t stay the fuck down because of the soil. I haven’t had to push a chair through that yet but I dread it for any one who does, be they pushing their own chairs or getting pushed. Hell, I’ve almost fallen down several times and I like to think I have good awareness in general.
It would be bad enough when a completely abled person falls off their feet, seems it would be much more devastating to someone in a chair, let alone if they’re traveling solo. Thankfully it’s literally the busiest place in the city, so at least anyone who gets hurt will get help quickly, but still.
It used to be centuries old paved stone, as stable as, well idk, something really stable. Perhaps a bit bumpy for a chair user, but honestly only a tiny bit, dad used to take lots of his customers in chairs there for coffee. He had his own taxi-van with a chair-lift in the back, that’s how I started as a taxi driver, working for him. And he started because his dad (my grandpa) had the first taxi the town I was born in. My father chose to prominently tape “Gentleman of the Road” in the back of the van. For aura farming when he wouldn’t start accelerating to speeding just because some dick was hurrying him up. He really impresses upon me the need to keep the car stable. But whenever he didn’t have customers in there, just me, it wasn’t as smooth, as he raced on the slippery backroads like the pro he was.
It sucks ass being disabled, but god damn it’s like the dumbest people get assigned to accessibility planning.
I do empathise and honestly while I criticise a ton of things about Finland, infrastructure for disabled access is really one thing I can’t help but be somewhat proud of. Let me see if I have a photo I took perhaps last year. It might be my previous phone and then it’s lost. (Actually binned my old phone by accident, a top of the line flagship phone that only had the sim-reader faulty gooooooooodammit I still blame myself so much for that fuckup.)
Oh I do have the photos, yeah.
This is an outhouse with disabled access, along a nature path of which roughly 60-70% is available with a chair. The route goes around a small lake and while it is regrettable the whole path isn’t available, I think even a majority of it being available is a win. Half of it is this well maintained gravel footpath that you can sort of see the material there, but around a third or so is really craggy forest on the beach on the other side and I’d argue the amount of nature you’d have to completely get rid off to pave that part as well, the places designation as a “nature trail” would really lose something. Mainly the view from the main side of the lake, which would affect disabled people as well.
It would look better, allow for easier access, and be cheaper if the bars connecting the two park… chairs were simply not there.
It is also hostile to the ambulatory disabled. Taking away a seat they could rest on.
That’s going to be used by teens for finding new ways to sit and show off their balancing skills until it inevitably breaks, gets vandalised because it’s already broken until it ends up surrounded by dumped household waste and rats. The budget for cleaning up is used up for making that monstrosity in the first place, so it remains there as a blight on the landscape.
Now, I had read this title as “horticulture architecture,” and I was wondering if a tree was supposed to go in the middle or something or where the tree pun would be.
There’s a perfectly good bench in the background that the homeless can still use.
This raises the terrifying possibility that somebody actually did buy this with the goal of inclusivity.
