วีดีโอ

@angelamargya1974 exactly, wouldn't claim is perfect but we should not ignoring the valuable lessons out of it ;)

Hahaha, sounds about ;)

For the sound, I am not sure maybe, for the way we look, it could totally be true. Thank you for the relevant and deliberate expertise on the appointed topic

Well true, but this one is slightly more comfortable

Children care for us if we care for them :)

Come on losen up a bit, it is goof for the immunity 😉

Because if there is no playground, there is a potential for the while neighbourhood to get tired, if you know what we mean

What? It is a quality space! 👌🏼 😁😁😁😁

@ for sure, for sure! I was happy to know people care about each other! 😁😁😁👍🏻

@KharitonovRoman people, noooo! The petrol companies are those thoughtfully care about us. :)

@@stripping_architecture OMG! 😳 how could I forget about the main mission of petrol companies to care people and provide space and public services for free! 😁😁😁

You can sleep on it, can’t you?

@maosama3695 well it is way more comfortable than plenty of other benches. But if you share this in ironic sense, ofocurse we always say it could be way better.

We, hahahaha

Hey thank you so much for the kind feedback. Happy to hear you liked the illustrations. We do have to mention that the text we were reading is interpretation to some of the illustrations found in the book. There are 70 illustrations with 70 diagrams stripping the concept in self learning method and there is additional 50 pages of text- framework. We must say this is part of our learning curve and as you mentioned we are trying to generate solid arguments that make sense from multiple perspectives. But it is a continuous learning process that has potential to provoke thinking. Thank you 😊 💓

Thank you. We thought these points are sort of easy for explanation, yet they present hidden topics that we don't talk about much.

Hey there, thank you for your reflection. We do have to say that your reaction is a bit too broad and wage. We have a slight feeling that you are taking a wrong turn, but we might be mistaken. If you specify your analysis and challenge us to give you feedback on your reaction we would happily do it. Have a great day and thank you for spent time on this video.

@zuzanna6581 happy to hear that. Damn it we keep getting comments how we are underrated :) 😀 😃 🙂. But that is a good sign though. Slowly but surely these videos will get more exposed. 😉 😜 Thank you so much for the encouraging words ❤️

Exactly, there is no logic behind it. Well put.

Hey thank you so much for this insightful info. You really triggered our curiosity. We'll check it out ASAP. Thank youuuuu

Yeah exactly. And I don't agree with the notion that somewhere being unfenced automatically means its a public space for anyone to do what they want. It does become more complicated when its government owned.

@@aidanwelch4763 I don't think spaces being government own really do complicate things, at least not as far as the hostile architecture goes. A public space just means that the space is open for the use by members of the public, it doesn't mean that there are _no_ restrictions of that use, or that people can do whatever they want in the space. But I think people get upset when uses of public spaces by marginalized people get limited because we have internalized that this is the only place where they can go. But, honestly, we should be asking _why_ this is the only space we've left these people.

@@dalegaliniak607 Yeah my point about it being complicated when its government owned is a matter of whether a government should be involved managing spaces for exclusively specific people or even just specific purposes. Someone who gets drunk and wants to get loud in an area is still a tax payer just as the residents are.

@@aidanwelch4763 I get what you're trying to say, but I do think that it's less complicated than it seems. The government _already_ dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces. Just, say, try to block off a couple lanes of a busy highway to play pickleball and see how quickly the police move you on, despite being a tax payer there as well. Governments, ideally, are trying to maximize the effectiveness of the use by all those involved. In this case, they are trying to balance the needs of the bar guests to have a walkway home, with the needs of the residents to have an expected level of quiet to sleep. They _could_ attack the problem by trying to, say, issue tickets to anybody being loud, but simply removing benches to discourage the walkway as a hangout is probably both more effective and less invasive.

@@dalegaliniak607 "The government already dictates the limits of fair use of shared spaces." Yeah, and those dictatotions aren't uncontroversial. Plenty of people aren't fans of how their houses got eminent domained to build a highway.

Many things you said here are so valid and helps very constructively the debate. Thank you for that much appreciated

Imagine they weren't tenants and instead had rented-to-own, or managed to buy their apartments. What would you say the solution is then?

@@aidanwelch4763 One avenue might be to petition their council to adapt nearby businesses' closing hours during the week and to redirect loitering towards more isolated areas (benches are a cheap and reliable way to do that). Also, if they owned their flats, they would be allowed to make any changes necessary to enhance soundproofing and would be more likely to be able to afford it. I'm pretty sure that the fact that this is social housing from the 80s has a lot to do with how much of an issue noise is, as modern or well renovated units in masonry buildings (the type you'd find in Europe) can block out loud traffic and voices almost entirely : noise, like most other forms of pollution, is mostly a poor people problem - thus making it a mostly political, and therefore collective, issue.

@@pacolibbrecht1262 1. Some residents in some areas shouldn't be able to control the hours of buisiness blocks away. 2. In dense multi-use areas there may be nowhere nearby more isolated where benches could go. Or there may already be benches in other people but not all people choose to go there. 3. While still having windows its difficult to attain perfect sound proofing. People may also not feel safe walking around their home at night with drunk people hanging around.

@@aidanwelch4763 1. Businesses should be held accountable for the externalities they produce. If no other compromise can be found, there is no reason to let them continue to benefit from bothering local residents for free. Bars don't necessarily have to be open late on weekdays to be profitable. 2. That may or may not be the case, I don't know that area. Possibilities for redirecting loitering and creating public spaces that are welcoming to all at all times should at least be considered rather than rejected outright. Some people see the public space as a place to move around and never to stop. I disagree with this vision. It's a place to meet, a place for the community to live together. Once again, this difference is directly tied to one's notion of the commons and how privatisable they should be, it's a left vs right thing. 3. I'm currently renovating an old town house in a European city centre and I disagree with this claim. Good double glazing windows work proper miracles when they are well installed. Not to mention triple glazing. The trick is to use a two-way ventilation system to avoid direct air intakes above windows, which bypass any other soundproofing you might have done. Mind you, this is just common practice in energy efficiency renovations in Europe, especially for multi-family housing. As for safety concerns, they were not raised in the video. A place is always safer when it is more lively, so if safety was the main concern, the tenants should actually be installing benches under their windows. Creating an empty dark alley seems like an easy way to get mugged really often if there are real safety issues in your area. If the only reason for installing hostile architecture is that the locals don't feel safe around "undesirables", and not noise or any other real, demonstrable disturbance that isn't a mere product of prejudice, I think the city council should send staff to dismantle the installations.

Yes, you also have a good point. We honestly don't know if the residnets here called authorities help in the beginning and if that was efficient. Also, I will note this even though each case is different. Calling the police is not always equally effective when called by different groups of people targeting other group of people. I am not saying this the case here or at your example I am just saying it is noted that police treat differently different people especially in respect to the race and financial power.

If you move near a pub don't complain about the noise, you moved there

@@roryr8 What if the pub moves near you?

@@aidanwelch4763 Most pubs in the UK have been around for years. If the pub wants to movenear you then you have a say when the license is being considered. Don't move near pubs/clubs/racecourses then complain about the noise

@@roryr8 The impression I got is that a lot of the residents there were elderly and may have lived there for a long time. I don't know the situation of this specific area, but big nightlife areas change over the decades.

I general there is no bench there at all at this spot, so If you would liked to sit it won't have been possible. All the items are by the people living there. On the other hand yo lu are right they are illegally placed items that reflect some inequality. Probably the problem could be tackled in a different way, and while public space is to everyone, we must use it reasponsably and with respect towards others, especially towards those with more fragile state. At least that is our oppinion and it is open to be challenged or modified .

@@stripping_architecture There are less and less benches in the street. I would sit there, clearly. When it hurts, you sit where you can.

I understand your annoyance, but what solution would you propose? Those people shouldn't live there? Well it's social housing, so there's not a lot of choice in that aspect. They just have to deal with it if they live there? That would imply people not having the right to a full night of sleep because of their financial situation. Also how is this hostile to poor people? These people generally fall under the category "poor people", that's why they live there. They're making the best of the situation they're in, and that sadly means that compromises have to be made. And since the government isn't paying for a solution, their choices are limited.They can't realistically accommodate everyone, so the choices are between: A) accomodating the odd person that might need to sit down for a minute while walking through their street. and B) accomodating the hundreds of people living there, that need to not be woken up several times a week in the middle of the night so they can live their life normally. Don't be angry at these people, they're not the problem. Be angry at those that ruin it for people like you by hanging out in a residential street in the middle of the night, causing disturbance. Without them, there would be more benches and places to sit too.

​@Benlarcher49 this is not public space, this is behind peoples homes. Drunkards and druggies come here

@@cosmodewit I do not think that you understand my annoyance, unless you are living it too ;) In my city, the more there are benches and places to sit, the more there are people, such as old folks and so a sociocultural and age mix. I do not have to propose anything, I am not an architect ;) I, myself lived in social housing. I was even raised in a really poor district in France. Public spaces were used to share, have meal together. Public are for commons and the privatisation of public spaces are an environmental and social annoyance by the way. Who said they cannot live here, appart from you in your question ? Cause I never said this... The problem is taken totally backward... If "annoying people" people move from this place, the noise will be somewhere else. Why are some people here ? Where could they be instead without annoyance ? What else they could do ? Do they have needs not fullfilled ? Have they all been identified ? What have been done for this ? What to build or to put in place for this ? Every case is different, but there are pleny of different approaches... During the day, as I said disabled people, old folks and poor people are the victims. By poor people, I mean the poorest, homeless or undocumented people who are not welcomed anymore, . No bench, not even a small place to sit. By the way, I am poor considering the french standard, but I have not forget about solidarity. I am not angry and never said so. It seems you are making insinuation and speculation about quite a lot of things. The abundance of question, which I don't recognize myself in, looks like to me more like a "Gish gallop" variation. The same for giving only two choice with a topic you define by yourself, it's called a fallacy. We can easily find other ways (Thank to sociology, "new Urbanism", "Sustainable Business Strategy", communication...).

@SickEntertaining we are sorry for this , we don't say we master this but at least we tried to give our genuine thought. According to us the people who are trying to get some rest during the weekends are often being hindered by parting people enjoying the fruits of the consumerism. That is not OK in our perspective. Is this sollution the best, not really but is the people reaction in the moment

They are just showing perspectives of people. Don't be biased.

Thank you for the insights and for contributing to the debate. In our perspective, we tend to avoid dogmatic approaches. But as we said the fine line depends of the sporadical local dynamics. Maybe that was the best portrayed by Floor ( the narrators) when she was comparing hostile arcing with defensive, and when her doubts were expressed with the following words: I see this in a sort of different light. So what can we say, every thought is welcome and worth for considering.

As we always say, it worth considering these urban strategies throught different layers.

@@stripping_architecture in the Netherlands you can see a lot of proper hostile architecture, but there is indeed a difference if it's from locals and neighbourhoods with nightlife

You are absolutely right. This is something to be further researched. What is interesting is that people who gather between the social housing blocks are mostly dependent on the surrounding bars. So by not sitting there they are kind a constrained to the general street. But we could be wrong.

Hahhaha, we have to admit, while editing the video that was the cutest moment. Loved it.

It could be. Honestly worth differentiating these things. As it was mentioned in the video, we ( at least we ) can not find much literature about these topics, and all what we can do is to get educated on some research publications, blogs or short video formats. Therefore we are sure that this debate can be enlarged with the purpose of defining the ultimate values or principles.

@stripping_architecture It's definitely a complicated situation that's come around as a reaction to a somewhat floored layout. The foot traffic that empties out of nightclubs staying around a bit longer is the problem whereas the foot traffic in the day probably makes it feel much more pleasant and safe. Really the nightclubs are in the wrong place or should have something that disperses foot traffic somewhere else. I think nothing in life can be perfect and so the residents have made a decent solution to the problem.

Hey there thank you so much for the input. To be honest we don't really understand your reflection, but that could be because of our messy English. However, we can say that we also struggled a bit to define the borders between these urban strategies and to create certain kind of definition. What is for sure, that really every case should be carefully and indepdentely observed. In that way for sure we are not going to agree on many aspects but at least we will be able to understand the nuances instead of impulsive reactions like we often see. We are so happy to see that people like you and other are interested to go between they layers of these subjects and think deeper about it.

I agree that the distinction seems arbitrary. Functionally it doesn't matter who installs spikes to keep people from sitting somewhere. Maybe this becomes clearer, if we look at a classic example of hostile architecture: The deliberately uncomfortable public bench. The intention is to keep people form lingering too long, which usually targets homeless people and other "undesirables". Arguing that there is a fundamental difference whether people living nearby put up spikes or whatever to make the benches uncomfortable, or the local government does it because local residents tell them to, does not make sense in my opinion. It actually rubs me the wrong way to use government=bad vs. residents=good framing, when ultimately it's the same thing, done for the same reason, to benefit the same people.

@@user-td3yi1mq7p I agree that this is hostile architecture, but I think this example shows how hostile architecture can be more complicated than just it being bad. The video brought up that this was created in direct response to people coming out of the bars at night, who would frequently use the alley as a hangout spot late at night, interrupting the residents' sleep. There are a lot of ways the residents could have responded to that, say by calling for the shutdown of bars or completely blocking off non-resident traffic to the pedestrian walkway (the full-NIMBY approach), talking to the bars to see if they can talk to patrons, leave a sign, etc (I have zero clue if they tried this or not), or the hostile architecture, which seems like a compromise between the two approaches.

@@stripping_architecture That's fair and thanks for the video. I do think it adds nuance to the conversation. I think I largely agree with what @user-td3yi1mq7p and @dalegaliniak607 are saying- that its not an entirely black and white thing, but I don't think the solution is having two terms that describe the same thing but one has a positive connotation and one a negative one. I think doing that can strip out the nuance

@@stripping_architecture Thanks for the video, I appreciate that it adds nuance. I just meant to say that I think creating a separate term for the same thing when it's "good" strips away nuance. It means that one becomes a compliment, and the other just becomes an insult- without really looking at the nuance of it in the first place.

Hey thank you for the kind words, we are slowly getting there. We believe :)

Exactly, we have to say it is very nuanced and hard to differentiate. It really depends from case to case and we beleive that in the focus should be the group of people that needs understanding, compassion and sympathies. In this case the residents from the social housing units. Completely understand what you mean. If this was done by high income class defending their city-villa would have been different.

Yeah.... Right....

:)

Very much following that line. Nicely summarised

Very good point. Even though that can be a sign for a broader gentrification, the one that is already well establish. However sometimes, in some neighborhoods, "heavy duty" locking systems, especially on some of the businesses may mean the early signs of gentrification. And there are multiple reasons why: - there is no trust between the new business and the local dynamics - the new business is attractive robbery target due to the financial gap - insurance companies refund you with insignificant amount in case of robbery if you don't have protective equipment. So interesting how locking bars can mean different things in different contexts.

Exactly, so that means the house will remain haunted for a long long time :)

Pitty is not bit more popular

that is brussels btw