“Hostile benches” installed in a public park in Tokyo’s Shinjuku Ward in March caused a stir on social media, but such equipment is nothing.

These benches have various ways to discourage homeless people from sleeping on them. Some have a curved base, while others feature metal bars in the middle or are short widths from the foreground to the back.

Taro Igarashi, a professor of architectural history and theory at the graduate school of Tohoku University, has been arguing against benches that are designed to exclude homeless and other vulnerable people from society since he published “Kabobi Toshi” (Overprotective city) 20 years ago.

In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun, Igarashi, born in 1967, said hostile benches have lost their raison d’etre and that people should raise their voices to change the situation.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

* * *

Question: Are hostile benches now something taken for granted?

Igarashi: I also mentioned surveillance cameras in “Kabobi Toshi,” but I get the impression that they, too, have been accepted by the public.

However, seeing how (hostile benches) were installed in a Shinjuku Ward park and became a hot topic on social media, I felt they had remained less known to the public.

Hostile benches have been used in the United States for about 80 years, but their number started to increase in Japan in the 1990s.

You also don’t see many trash bins in public places now, do you? That’s because they were removed from train stations and other public facilities as part of anti-terror measures following the sarin nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system in 1995 by the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult.

Bin removal spread to small cities in outlying regions that should be at little risk of terrorism.

I assume young people who grew up in such an environment hardly know why there are no trash bins.

The same can be said about hostile benches. It is fair to say that they are installed with no apparent reason.

Q: They are also referred to as “hostile art” because some look like objects. What do you think?

A: I have argued that these products shouldn’t be called pieces of “art.” After all, they’re “designed” for a purpose.

But now, I feel the word “hostile” has been taken out of context.

Q: What do you mean?

A: It’s because they are being installed around the country while their exclusionary purpose has long been forgotten.

Administrative officials and other stakeholders who install them just pick them from product catalogs that omit their intended functions. As a result, only poorly-made “useless” benches that are hard to use for anyone remain.

There are benches you can’t lie down on or find troublesome to sit on. So, all of us, including disabled and elderly people, have pieces of our hearts chipped away without even realizing it.

MAKING EVERYONE UNHAPPY

Q: Are you saying we are creating spaces where we can’t rest even if we are exhausted?

A: It is a situation similar to how public livelihood assistance issues are handled. It’s like saying: “There are some illegal recipients of welfare benefits. Illegality is unacceptable. So all recipients must be strictly dealt with.”

Homeless people and others who sleep on (public) benches are regarded as fraudsters, and we all choose to gradually become unhappy instead of giving a tacit nod of approval to some of them.

When I was small, many wounded and disabled soldiers frequented Tokyo’s Ueno Park. But no one told them to go away. I think the public felt a sense of guilt toward those who “served our country.”

When they were replaced by homeless people as time went by, they became subject to exclusion.

Q: Didn’t that also coincide with the spread of neoliberalism?

A: There was a growing trend toward the principle of self-responsibility while neoliberal values became widespread. Public spaces were viewed from the standpoint of the service industry.

And because there is a lack of understanding in the philosophy of public places, unfavorable things are easily excluded once there is a complaint.

NEEDED COMPLAINTS

Q: Isn’t it necessary to promote understanding among members of society?

A: Of course. Unfortunately, however, I feel we’re in no situation where we can talk about public interest and its philosophy.

And even if I do, I’m sure it will come down to superficial debates, like labeling it right or left. I don’t think it makes much sense to do such a thing.

In fact, what we must do is call on administrative officials to replace benches that are hard to sit on. After all, this society is motivated by complaints.

Q: Are you saying we should change the reality first before changing the philosophy?

A: If it’s a commercial facility that seeks to improve its table turnover rate and pursues other profits, it can do whatever it wants, like installing chairs that are hard to sit on.

But now, such concepts are incorporated into public spaces.

When you walk from Tokyo Station to the Otemachi financial district, you won’t even find places where you can sit free of charge anymore, not to mention hostile benches.

If you want to sit down, you have no choice but to go to a cafe or something. You wouldn’t mind doing so if you are healthy, sound and well-off, but that’s not how public spaces should be, right?

It is ideal for the understanding of public interest to be widespread.

But while children’s voices are described as noise in some cases, there are even parks with mosquito-sound generators to deter noisy young people by using high-pitched sounds that only they can hear.

Children and young people have also become subject to exclusion. We’re in no situation to learn the philosophy.

Q: Can we recognize how absurd the situation is without sharing the philosophy?

A: When I assign my class at the university to write reports about hostile benches, they find many of them. Once they realize what hostile benches are, they can find them one after another.

And when they look around, they realize how our society is filled with hostile benches.

That’s where we can start thinking about the philosophy of public spaces.