some type of adult girl

figdays:

“Proboscis Monkey” Figure // VallaVicaDesign 

(via gayhaircut)

twixnmix:

Mariah Carey and Patrick Swayze on Saturday Night Live on October 27, 1990.

(via democraticsenator)

prof-vermouthea:

rikodeine:

rikodeine:

ultrafacts:

The Camden bench evolved from designs developed for Camden Borough Council. It is designed with today’s street seating needs in mind, such as resisting criminal and anti-social behaviour:
• Deters rough sleeping – ridged top and sloped surfaces make it difficult to lie on.
• Deters drug dealing – no crevices in which to hide such materials.
• Deters bag theft – recesses along the bench’s front and back allow people to store bags behind their legs out of harm’s way.
• Reduces littering – there are no flat surfaces or crevices where litter usually accumulates. Dirt and water flow off.
• Easy to relocate (for example, to move it away from a problem area) – there’s no need to bolt the bench to a foundation and built-in lifting eyes allow the bench to be moved easily by truck crane.

Source: [x]

Click HERE for more facts

read a really good article about hostile architecture the other day http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-hostile-urban-architecture/

Not to start shit but how come people can grasp this concept fairly easily but can’t understand critiques of how architecture structures how we experience the world and relate to each other? If you can appreciate this why is it so hard to extend that to consider, for instance, how the practical mandate to have a car is also a form of control?

because the former design and intent are clear, while the latter contains an abstraction that can be hard to see. you see how the bench and spikes deter homeless people from sleeping, but when you commute to work or to the store or to a friend’s you don’t see how capital and state have colluded to place things far enough from you that you cannot walk, but then offer no or insufficient public transportation so you need to buy a car. the design of a city cannot be seen by the naked eye, and thus its intent and even its consequences becomes an abstraction for most people, and when you talk about how car and gas companies colluded with the government to kill public transportation you sound like a “conspiracy theorist,” and media has taught people to be suspicious of conspiracy theorists and so this material analysis is ignored, while the bench offers no abstraction for city planners to hide behind

(via shinvermouthea)

rikodeine:

prof-vermouthea:

rikodeine:

rikodeine:

ultrafacts:

The Camden bench evolved from designs developed for Camden Borough Council. It is designed with today’s street seating needs in mind, such as resisting criminal and anti-social behaviour:
• Deters rough sleeping – ridged top and sloped surfaces make it difficult to lie on.
• Deters drug dealing – no crevices in which to hide such materials.
• Deters bag theft – recesses along the bench’s front and back allow people to store bags behind their legs out of harm’s way.
• Reduces littering – there are no flat surfaces or crevices where litter usually accumulates. Dirt and water flow off.
• Easy to relocate (for example, to move it away from a problem area) – there’s no need to bolt the bench to a foundation and built-in lifting eyes allow the bench to be moved easily by truck crane.

Source: [x]

Click HERE for more facts

read a really good article about hostile architecture the other day http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/unpleasant-design-hostile-urban-architecture/

Not to start shit but how come people can grasp this concept fairly easily but can’t understand critiques of how architecture structures how we experience the world and relate to each other? If you can appreciate this why is it so hard to extend that to consider, for instance, how the practical mandate to have a car is also a form of control?

because the former design and intent are clear, while the latter contains an abstraction that can be hard to see. you see how the bench and spikes deter homeless people from sleeping, but when you commute to work or to the store or to a friend’s you don’t see how capital and state have colluded to place things far enough from you that you cannot walk, but then offer no or insufficient public transportation so you need to buy a car. the design of a city cannot be seen by the naked eye, and thus its intent and even its consequences becomes an abstraction for most people, and when you talk about how car and gas companies colluded with the government to kill public transportation you sound like a “conspiracy theorist,” and media has taught people to be suspicious of conspiracy theorists and so this material analysis is ignored, while the bench offers no abstraction for city planners to hide behind

You really are a good teacher y'know this is a great explanation

(via iampikachuhearmeroar)

90377:

Bog Trail by Shane Garlock

(via witchydarling)