[darkpuma]

So called hostile design in fact reduces the incidence of confrontations between police officers and trespassers. Since it reduces the incidence of confrontations, and therefore violence, I think comparing it to "cracking skulls" is unwarranted.

[glangdale]

While I disagree with the article, most of the hostile design elements in the article are in spaces that are essentially public space. You can't be busted for trespassing for sleeping on a bench downtown.

[darkpuma]

From what I've personally seen, the vast majority of "hostile design" is employed on private property. Particularly on property owned by corporations or universities, moreso than private residences. It's pretty easy, and common, to sleep in a city park around here.

If a private property owner has trouble with people loitering or sleeping on their property, what options do they have? Call the police or hire a security guard, who will use [threats of] violence to solve your problem. Or using "hostile design" that non-violently but clearly communicates the desires of the property owner, thus avoiding any potentially lethal confrontation.

It seems obvious to me that "hostile" design is in fact the humanitarian approach.