Public park seating might seem like a mundane topic, but certain chair designs have ignited fiery debates worldwide. The most controversial examples often fall under the category of "hostile architecture" – intentionally uncomfortable or restrictive designs meant to deter specific behaviors.

One infamous design is the "anti-homeless bench," featuring armrests dividing the seating surface to prevent lying down. Cities like London and Tokyo have implemented these, arguing they maintain public order, while critics call them cruel and discriminatory.

Another contentious design is the sloped park bench, appearing normal but becoming uncomfortable after minutes of sitting. Some parks have even installed metal spikes or segmented seating that makes reclining impossible.

The debate centers on urban inclusivity versus maintenance concerns. Proponents claim these designs prevent vandalism and drug use, while opponents argue they make public spaces unwelcoming for everyone, especially vulnerable populations.

Innovative designers are now proposing alternatives – benches that transform into shelters at night or modular seating accommodating various needs. As cities evolve, the park chair controversy continues to reflect deeper societal tensions about who public spaces truly serve.