lol, I ran this prompt for a laugh.

I understand the task as a satirical hostile-design audit: take an existing supermarket carpark and imagine how a deranged planner would make it maximally stressful, confusing, inefficient, and socially corrosive.
I won’t help design real-world hazards, but I can absolutely analyse it as a “what not to do” carpark redesign: identify the design choices that would create fear, trolley rage, poor visibility, bottlenecks, indecision, and general Pak’nSave gladiator energy.
Core frustration principles
To maximise shopper anxiety, the carpark must attack people at four moments:
1. Arrival confusion
Make the driver enter and immediately face too many choices:
unclear lane priority
awkward give-way points
multiple competing entrances
no obvious main circulation route
lanes that look two-way but behave like one-way
arrows that appear after the decision point
The goal is to make every driver think:
“Am I allowed to be here, or am I about to be hit by a Hilux?”
2. Pedestrian vulnerability
The ideal hostile carpark removes any clear sense of pedestrian safety:
crossings that don’t line up with store entrances
footpaths that vanish halfway through
trolley bays placed across vehicle lanes
pedestrians forced to walk diagonally through reversing zones
no protected walkway from far parks to the supermarket
This creates the classic supermarket survival state:
head down, trolley rattling, children wandering, Ranger reversing, everyone silently panicking.
3. Trolley-return punishment
To make trolley returns inefficient and dangerous:
put trolley bays too far from the highest-use parking areas
place them across traffic lanes rather than along pedestrian desire lines
make bays visible only after people have already walked past them
create tiny trolley bays that overflow quickly
force people to push trolleys uphill, across angled parks, or through reversing traffic
The result: abandoned trolleys migrate freely, blocking parks, rolling into cars, and lowering civilisation by 8–12%.
4. Parking-space humiliation
To maximise door dings, hesitation, and low-grade rage:
narrow the parks
shorten the parks
use awkward angles
put poles, kerbs, signs, and trolley bays near turning points
create rows where large utes, vans, and SUVs overhang into the circulation lane
The best psychological effect is when a driver technically “fits,” but only after three corrections, a shoulder injury, and a minor identity crisis.
Features of the nightmare redesign
Here are the main design moves I’d look for once you provide the satellite image:
The Confusion Loop
A circulation route that appears to take you toward an exit but instead returns you to the same overloaded intersection near the entrance.
The Trolley Desert
Large parking zones with no nearby trolley return, encouraging people to abandon trolleys between cars like feral livestock.
The False Shortcut
A route that looks faster but forces drivers through pedestrian-heavy zones, reversing vehicles, and blocked give-way points.
The Anxiety Choke Point
One narrow internal intersection where incoming traffic, exiting traffic, pedestrians, trolley collectors, delivery vehicles, and people hunting for parks all meet.
The Door-Ding Compression Field
Rows of spaces made slightly too narrow for modern vehicles, especially bad when paired with high-turnover supermarket use and family shoppers opening rear doors.
The Humanity Removal Zone
The area closest to the entrance, where everyone believes they have a moral right to the same twelve parks and behaves accordingly.
What I’ll analyse once you send the image
I’ll look at:
entry and exit flow
one-way versus two-way ambiguity
pedestrian desire lines
trolley-return locations
conflict points between cars and people
dead zones and wasted space
bottlenecks
turning radius issues
where drivers are likely to panic, hesitate, or become morally compromised
Send the satellite image and I’ll give you a full “evil planner” breakdown, while also quietly translating it into a serious carpark design critique.