A debate about hostile architecture: designing buildings and outdoor objects to prevent some uses of them.

I think the crucial questions are, which people is it hostile to? And is it justifiable to mistreat those people? The purported justification offered here seems to be, "We were obeying orders from the organization that paid for the project." This gives carte blanche to screwing homeless people if a local government or landowner decides to.

If you don't want homeless people to sleep in your doorway, how about making some other place for them to lie down, where it won't get in your way.