More than fifty years have passed since Oscar Newman published Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City in 1971, but the foundations of so-called safe urban design have changed little. Nor is there a feeling that the security of our public space from crime can be improved too much by urban planning. Even if it isn’t. Especially when it comes to so-called “subjective security”. This means that people feel safer using streets, squares or parks. In addition, it has been shown to help reduce so-called “casual crime”.
There are several methods to make cities safer from crime. The best known of all is the Crime Prevention Through Urbanism (CPTED) method. This form of prevention through environmental design is recognized worldwide as highly effective. Especially with regard to increasing subjective safety. There is even an international association where you can find references, courses and different types of resources on their website. Women are the demographic that suffer most from urban violence, so a very important impetus for these approaches came from feminist organizations, as explained in the UN report Safe Cities and Safe Public Spaces.
Urban design should avoid hidden places, poor lighting or corners in public spaces that are invisible to neighbors and passers-by.
What are the key elements of the CPTED method? The first, natural surveillance, which is fundamental. But for the community to help control crime, it needs to be enabled. Therefore, the principle of “see and be seen” is fundamental. Urban design should avoid hidden spots, poor lighting or corners in public spaces that are invisible to neighbors and passers-by, be they public transport stops, canopies, hedges or trees.
The second point to consider is what is known as “access control”. It is about promoting and promoting the control of access to certain spaces so that there are no multiple entrances and exits that could encourage the offender to flee after the crime has been committed. Of course, this does not mean that it is necessary to fence off the specific space and post a security guard at the entrance. So it’s not about creating gated communities. On the contrary, it is about strengthening identity with public space and involving the community in its design and maintenance, since it is the community that best knows its uses and needs.
Structural crime does not depend on how we shape our urban areas, but it can reduce opportunistic crime
The maintenance of these public spaces is a critical issue. There is a theory called “broken glass” introduced by Wilson and Kelling in an article published in 1982 that links the increase in crime to its visible signs. As mentioned in the same article, it is based on an experiment conducted by Professor Phillip Zimbardo in 1969. He left two abandoned cars, one in a rich neighborhood and the other in a poor neighborhood. Over time, that in the poor neighborhood was destroyed and that in the rich neighborhood was intact. But then he decided to break a glass that separated them. Soon it was just as destroyed as that in the poor area. If nobody cares about the deterioration, then it increases geometrically.
This was demonstrated in the New York subway in the 1980s. In a train station with a high crime rate, very extensive maintenance work was carried out, damage repaired, graffiti removed and everything cleaned. Due to the excellent results, it was decided to extend it to the entire subway, which significantly improves security against petty robberies and thefts, but most importantly increases subjective security.
subjective security
This question of subjective security may seem of little importance. But it’s a crucial element, not only because it improves objective safety – by getting people back on the streets and those places less lonely, increasing natural alertness – but also because it contributes to creation contributes to a healthier city. The public space of modern cities is increasingly becoming an uninhabitable place. Space is being made available for cars, asphalt is replacing the natural surface and the green areas are becoming smaller and smaller.
If nobody cares about the deterioration, then it increases geometrically
But although they are not very well known, we have tools to improve this situation. It is obvious that no matter how much we create a safe environment, crime will not go away. Structural crime does not depend on how we shape our urban areas, but it can reduce opportunistic crime. And above all, to make us feel safer in the streets, parks and squares of our cities. And this is important for everyone, but basically for older people.
Nor should we forget that women have fundamentally driven these initiatives. And don’t just denounce specific problems. For example the “Map of the Forbidden City for Women” from the Town Hall of Basauri, which was followed by many others such as that of Hernani or Donostia. Although their mission was essentially to raise awareness, they were at the forefront of a greater interest in public safety. Thanks to his impetus, we have design tools that allow us to walk the streets more safely.
Jose Farina Tojo He is Professor Emeritus and Professor at the Polytechnic University of Madrid.
Follow PLANETA FUTURO on TwitterFacebook and Instagram and subscribe to our “Newsletter” here.