[michaelt]

You're getting downvoted because armrests only act as 'hostile architecture' when they stop people lying down to sleep, and the beggars on the tube are visibly not sleeping.

The beggars are constantly moving, and only ask for money on trains that are in motion, in order to evade the staff. Those that want to stay in one place set up just outside the station entrance.

Furthermore, a tube platform is a poor place to sleep, not only because the staff will move you on and the trains are really noisy, but mostly because the tube is closed at night.

I do agree that some-human was wrong to say "People without a home do not have access to the platforms" though, as you're right that it's possible to access the platforms without paying. But some-human was right in the broader context of the thread - whether the armrests constitute hostile architecture - that we do not see rough sleepers sleeping on tube platforms.

[helboi4]

Yes, I was responding to the claim that "People without a home do not have access to the platforms". That is all. That therefore rules out that as the main reason that homeless people are not sleeping rough in tube stations. I never mentioned anything about the hostile architecture. That was someone else, so I do not deserve a downvote for it. I was only addressing the claim about access, so that we could discuss the real reasons for the lack of rough sleeping in the tube, not fantasy ones.

In reality the reason is because the authorities want to stop them and they do this through policing the platforms obviously but hostile architecture is put in place to make sure they don't have to be searching for homeless people all the time in the first place. It's a joint effort, obviously.