Search Results: feet

Hostile architecture is an urban design strategy intended to prevent behavior judged to be unpleasant, inappropriate, or dangerous. But its side effect is to sap the vitality of urban life

Once there were the social ideals of architecture: a discipline whose goal is to define the physical context in which we live and which can encourage socializing. While design disciplines can guarantee dignified living conditions for everyone, they also have to aspire to accessible and shared beauty. Among the outstanding examples of how the attention of architects (and clients) can be directed towards the whole community – and not just to a wealthy few – are street benches: masonry and stone street furniture that provided public seating, placed at the foot of the main or secondary faces of historic buildings. The principal Renaissance palaces in Florence, such as Palazzo Medici-Riccardi and Palazzo Strozzi are endowed with these public furnishings.

What is hostile architecture?
Fast forward to the 2000s and we see the spread of an architecture whose purposes seem to be the opposite to those described above. Their goal is to make a given public place inaccessible, inhospitable and hostile. The name of this architectural trend is “hostile architecture”, “defensive architecture”, or even “unpleasant design”. It is a whole series of architectural devices – objects, furnishings, accessories or details – designed to discourage certain kinds of behavior on the part of the population, and in particular some less well-off categories – especially the homeless. Studs and spikes, bollards and dividers, as well as disturbing sounds and lights: hostile architecture creeps into existing built environments and changes their connotations.

www.salonemilano.it/.../hostile-architecture-problem-or-solution

It also keeps skateboarders away & reduces property owners potential liability for injuries plus lower premiums for installing it.

For some reason, various entities have dubbed the American public unique among the entire world and “not ready” for them. One thing they certainly share in common is the typical argument that tries to conflate the physical setting of a branch with its effectiveness: “

Postal banking does, however, face an additional, uniquely American obstacle; namely, the polarizing effect of involving the government in day-to-day life. The post office might seem like a rather benign place to put a bank in the U. K. or Australia, precisely because it’s seen as neutral. In the U. S., though, the effect is exactly the opposite.

Some think that because the government is involved, a postal bank would be unpleasant and inconvenient – “The DMV of banking.” Others would be concerned with the government putting its thumb on the scale of free competition. There are still others who worry about who would pay for it, or those who simply distrust the government for other reasons – both real and imagined.

The bottom line is: Once you change the question from, “How can banks expand service to less-profitable areas?” to, “Should the U. S. government start its own bank?” then you have taken a conversation about a smart business practice and hopelessly derailed it into one about political opinions, moral imperatives, and right versus wrong. That will be sorted out in a matter of years or decades, if ever.

In the meantime, the core concept behind either postal or agency banking – running leaner, more efficient branches through creative infrastructure and staffing arrangements – applies remarkably well to the problems facing brick-and-mortar banks today. Lower foot traffic, higher costs per transaction, and changing customer preferences can all be addressed this way; and banks in other countries have already done exactly that.