The Swedish urban planner and designer asked Bored Panda to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of her job but was otherwise happy to shed some light on the entire debate regarding safety and security. Bored Panda was interested to get her opinion as to where safety lies in the hierarchy of priorities for someone like her.

"Safety is self-evidently a top priority to an urban designer. I doubt this hierarchy is ever questioned besides the occasional self-centered architect and designer who de-prioritize safety in favor of an original design. However, if a space is to be usable and livable, at least a threshold of safety compliance has to be achieved," she told us.

At the same time, the expert noted that there may be instances where governments might decide that, unfortunately, safety 'should' be overlooked for a "more cost-effective choice."

"Each government establishes and enforces safety guidelines that the built environment must follow," the expert told us, adding that the discussion then moves on to what safety entails to different governments and societies.

"The concept of safety and security in urban design conversations usually primarily refers to crime prevention (for example, decent night-time lighting, CCTV cameras), transportation infrastructure safety ( traffic accident prevention, walkability), or more social aspects like livability (how the environment can foster a healthier and more inclusive society)."

According to the urban planner, small-scale objects like railings on a bridge or warning signs "usually follow straightforward building regulations and do not generate much debate."

The expert stressed that the perception of whether or not something is 'safe enough' will differ from government to government and society to society.

"Meanwhile, judging ethically, ‘safe enough’ cannot be achieved until there are absolutely no more traffic accidents and other types of injuries caused by the built environment. Therefore, an urban designer will always strive to achieve more safety."

The urban planner and designer also added that she sees an issue with the tagline that the r/ArchitectureForAdults subreddit uses, about how only 'morons' would feel unsafe. "Adults, too, can suffer from clumsiness. Even intelligent adults are not safe from this curse."

At the time of writing, r/ArchitectureForAdults had exactly 3,761 members. We hope that the community grows and expands over time because the content they share is very interesting. It’s also good mental prep for when you go traveling abroad!

You can’t expect every single place to have the exact same safety standards that you’re used to. You have to focus and not wander about daydreaming when you’ve got tiny stone steps in front of you, railings that don’t even come up to your knees, and double-decker buses that you can just hop on by grabbing the pole.

From the perspective of r/ArchitectureForAdults, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice beauty and ingenuity for the sake of safety. The subreddit claims that all of these designs are “unsafe for morons but safe for everyone else.”

Though, personally, I feel like it’s ridiculous to have railings too low. Safety and beauty can coexist, you don’t necessarily have to sacrifice one for the other, I feel. And, to be honest, just because a design is unique doesn't automatically make it beautiful.

Whatever your feelings towards safety, you can’t deny that there are certain minimalist trends sweeping the world. Designs are starting to look and feel homogenized. Not just in architecture and in corporate art but also in urban spaces, as well as corporate logos. Everything’s starting to feel a bit too functional, with less emphasis on the form.

Consumer psychology specialist Matt Johnson, a professor at Hult International Business School and Harvard University, very recently explained to us why we’re seeing a certain level of design homogenization, especially in terms of brand logos. He saw a few reasons for this trend that has led to fewer unique designs being used.

“The first is that as we move towards a more digital environment, there’s a need to make brand logos as legible and as easy to identify as possible. The consumer’s attention is strained even more in the online world, so logos can’t afford to be disfluent or challenging to process,” he told Bored Panda earlier.

“Secondly, there also may be a growing realization of the ‘fluency effect’: the relatively robust behavioral science phenomenon that the more fluent a font is written in, the more likable and trustworthy the message. As more brands become familiar with this phenomenon, they may want to test new, more fluently written logos to capitalize on this effect,” the professor told us.

“While this logo trend is seen across a wide array of industries, there may be only one or two within each industry that may make this change, since if everyone did, they would not be differentiating as well. There may be a broader implication of this: if companies begin to recognize that consumers, at least in digital environments, prefer more basic logo designs, brands will rush to be the first in their industry to do so to plant their flag first. While all brands want to be at the razor’s edge of consumer preferences, no brand wants to be seen as the copycat of their competitor,” Professor Johnson noted.

“I imagine the general trend will persist, especially in the digital environment. If it turns out to be the case that more basic, legible logos are more suitable for online preferences, we may also move to a system where each major brand has at least two distinct brand logos: one in the digital world, and one for the physical world. This is already happening to a certain extent since many brands that have gone to a more basic font haven’t completely jettisoned their originals and retained them for specific uses,” the consumer psychology specialist said.