When minorities speak but we don't listen

Attack in farmland area at the outskirts of Ljubljana 

by Mateja Mihinjac

A few weeks ago, a brutal attack on an elderly farmer shocked the residents of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. News outlets quickly reported that the four men responsible for the attack were members of the Roma community.

In response to this attack—along with more than 15 years of ongoing incidents and threats from some members of the Roma community—residents in the farmer’s local area announced a peaceful rally to support the victim and draw attention to the unresolved tension.


Some locals even warned that if no steps were taken, they might form vigilante neighbourhood patrols. One MP went so far as to suggest that citizens join shooting clubs and acquire weapons to protect themselves.


Peaceful protests occurred supporting the victim 

These remarks were widely condemned by fellow MPs, the President of Slovenia, and the Shooting Association of Slovenia, which stressed that shooting clubs exist for sport—not self-defence.
Meanwhile, Roma representatives emphasised that the actions of a few individuals should not vilify an entire community.


This is just one of many incidents over the past two decades. What has led to this persistent divide between the Roma and the broader Slovene population?

WHAT GOT US HERE?

The Roma are an ethnic minority originating from northern India who migrated to Europe around 1,000 years ago. Today, 10–12 million Roma live across Europe, with an estimated 8,500 residing in Slovenia.
Tensions arise from a mix of historical, cultural, and systemic factors. Many Roma communities live in extended family settlements, often in informal housing lacking infrastructure. One EU report described this as “ethnic and social ghettoisation.”


European Union research on the Slovenian Roma population

Roma communities also face poor health outcomes, including high infant mortality and smoking rates among pregnant women. Education remains a challenge; a decade-old report showed that nearly half of Roma pupils had not completed primary school, often due to language barriers. This has contributed to high unemployment and ongoing reliance on social assistance, which in turn discourages social mobility.


Discrimination has also been a long-standing issue. Although progress has been made, the Roma Civil Monitor project points to persistent barriers: a lack of disaggregated data, limited institutional coordination, insufficient involvement of Roma in policy-making, and the absence of parliamentary representation.


As in other SafeGrowth projects where we confront minority-related crime and social division, these conditions highlight how deep-rooted challenges require community-driven solutions—not reactive measures.

Slovenia - a European country of scenic mountains and countryside -
rarely associated with violence 

WHAT MOVES US FORWARD?

Reconciling opposing traditions and value systems between minority groups and their broader population is not new. In SafeGrowth, we often need to reconcile many viewpoints and ideas that diverse people from the neighbourhood have, and then also find a common language between that neighbourhood community and organisations that they partner with.

Slovenia has also made some strides towards progress. 

In my next blog, I’ll explore Slovenia’s Framework, which aims to address the most critical barriers, including education, employment, and social dependency. These issues resonate in every country where we provide SafeGrowth programming. I will highlight policing strategies and multi-ethnic community policing programs that successfully reduce tensions and build trust between Roma communities and law enforcement.

I’ll share the story of one Roma village that became self-governing—a model that demonstrates what is possible when integration is built from the ground up. 

Stay tuned!

Gambling with the future

The shape of digital thinking - not always what it seems - Stockphoto 

Techno-solutionism 

(noun) tech·no·so·lu·tion·ism |ˈtek-nō-sə-ˈlü-shə-ˌni-zəm *
1: The idea that every social problem has a technical fix — a mindset that often bypasses community input, local culture, and lived experience in favor of data-driven shortcuts. 

by Gregory Saville

Do you know what’s happening in Las Vegas next month?

More gambling and fantasy — except this time, it’s not about blackjack or slot machines. It’s about our future.

The Ai4 Conference is next month — one of the biggest gatherings of AI developers, investors, and corporate clients in the world. It’s packed with major institutional players: banks, financial giants, data brokers, and tech developers. They’re not there to sound alarms. They’re there to map the future — one algorithm at a time.

But not everyone is buying in.

One of the voices at this year’s event is Geoffrey Hinton, widely regarded as the godfather of deep learning. He’s a recipient of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics, and he resigned from Google in May 2023 — not in protest of bad engineering, but in alarm over what his own research might unleash.

He’s not there to sell. He’s there to warn.

And if even Hinton is nervous about the direction of AI — especially when it comes to ethics, autonomy, and control — we should all be paying attention.

That includes those of us working in urban safety and crime prevention.

Geoffrey Hinton at his Nobel Prize ceremony
Photo by Jennifer 8. Lee, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

AI AND CPTED - THE SILENT CONVERGENCE

Artificial Intelligence is already reshaping how cities think about safety. I described this convergence in detail during my keynote address on AI and CPTED at the 2021 CPTED Conference in Sweden. It’s happening in ways both subtle and systemic: facial recognition networks quietly expanding in public places; real-time surveillance feeding data into centralized dashboards; algorithms determining who is suspicious and who is "safe".

We’ve raised alarms about these trends before on the SafeGrowth blog — in posts like:

• What 1980s Weather Models Taught Me About AI 
• Summoning the Demon: AI in Law Enforcement 
• The Pros and Cons of Using AI to Prevent Crime 

My keynote at the 2021 conference was titled: Artificial Intelligence, Smart Cities, and CPTED. A Threat to the ICA.

Keynote address at the 2021 ICA CPTED Conference - Sweden 

Much of this unfolds behind the scenes. And yet, it touches our daily lives, our neighborhoods, and the very public spaces that CPTED  seeks to protect.

The problem? These AI tools are often built through a corporate techno-optimist lens. One that:

• Prioritizes efficiency over ethics
• Amplifies surveillance capitalism
• Ignores spatial injustice
• Replicates systemic bias in code causing algorithmic harm

If we’re not careful, we risk building cities that feel more like open-air data farms than thriving communities.

Marriotte Hotel at the Las Vegas convention Center - location of the 2025 AI conference - photo by Marriotte

THE RESPONSE? ETHICS BEFORE ALGORITHMS

That’s why the International CPTED Association (ICA) has convened a new AI and CPTED Subcommittee — a global collaboration of criminologists, computer scientists, planners, ethicists, and practitioners (myself included) working to confront these challenges head-on.

I’m chairing this subcommittee, and after months of research and reflection, the ethical questions have crept into my consciousness like invasive roots spreading beneath the roadways of our communities. You don’t see them right away. But they’re there — widening the cracks.

We’re now finalizing a white paper to guide the CPTED field — a direction-setting document for how to responsibly navigate this new terrain.

RECLAIMING SAFETY IN THE AGE OF AI

This isn’t just a matter for data scientists or tech firms. There is a message shaping up for CPTED practitioners and residents alike. To me, that message goes like this:

We must call for oversight, ethical scrutiny, and community-driven approaches over digital or predictive models that falsely claim certainty without embracing uncertainty and probability. 

And above all - techno-solutionism must not prevail. Cities are not math problems to be solved by code. They are ecosystems of people, stories, and space — deserving of care, not automation. Despite what some experts claim, sustainable crime prevention is not a simple matter of quick situational fixes. Livability too is important.

We’ll be sharing more soon in our ICA white paper.

For now, the dice may be rolling in Vegas. But the rest of us?
We’re not gambling with our future.

The mastery of tradecraft in crime prevention - Why quick fixes fail

Independence Hall where the Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia

by Gregory Saville

On this July 4 Independence Day, I discovered something worth celebrating emerging from Philadelphia. And it wasn't the Declaration of Independence. 

Last week, I was dealing with a failed air conditioner during a brutal heatwave. Calling an A/C technician was fascinating. He was energetic, hurried, and confident (overconfident – it turns out). He glanced at the unit and announced it was too old to repair. He didn’t test the refrigerant, didn’t run diagnostics. He jumped quickly to a simple conclusion - it likely had a Freon leak requiring a full system replacement. The going rate? Over $8,000!

That was declined.

The next day, I called in a different HVAC technician — someone calm, experienced, and focused. He listened carefully as I explained the background of the A/C issue, then got to work. In under an hour, he had diagnosed the real problem, tested the system, checked the wiring, bypassed a strange connection, and replaced the dirty filter. The result? Cool air again — and all for under $200.

Something worth celebrating on July 4 - it all started with an air con

He also went a step further – he pointed to a website that ships replacement filters automatically, provided some education on how to self-diagnose simple AC problems, and made sure other parts of the system were not at risk. “That way, you can prevent future problems and self-repair when necessary.” 

That is mastery of tradecraft.

PRACTICING CRIME PREVENTION

It made me think, too often in CPTED, we meet the first kind of technician — fast talkers selling quick fixes at a high cost. What we need are more like the second — grounded pros who diagnose carefully, teach as they go, and work with the client, not around them.

Nowhere is the contrast between shallow fixes versus deep tradecraft more visible than in Philadelphia — between the neighborhoods of Kensington and Fairhill/St. Hugh.

Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood remains among the highest
crime communities in the city 

Kensington is infamous — a high-crime zone marked by open-air drug markets, encampments, and a long history of short-term government crackdowns. One of the most aggressive was Operation Sunrise, a year-long police campaign launched in 1998 that promised zero-tolerance enforcement aimed at gangs and drugs. Authorities were confident (overconfident, as it turned out).

The effort made headlines. It felt bold, but it didn’t last.

Early criminology research praised Operation Sunrise and its “place-based policing” model, highlighting short-term drops in crime and minimal displacement. But later analysis challenged the no-displacement finding and warned of widespread unintended consequences. One study concluded the operation failed to sustain lower crime rates and instead produced a “generation of fugitives” and widespread collateral harm.

Today, government research concludes that Operation Sunshine’s zero-tolerance policing and hotspot crackdowns failed to deliver sustainable safety.

The business towers of downtown Philadelphia.
Not far away, some of the nation's highest crime neighborhoods. 

MASTERFUL CRAFTSMANSHIP MISSING

There’s nothing masterful about these strategies. They are the equivalent of replacing the entire HVAC system when the real problem is a dirty filter, a lack of client knowledge and no self-capacity to resolve problems.

When you leave Kensington and travel a half mile north, you arrive at Fairhill/St. Hugh, a primarily Hispanic neighborhood anchored by the vibrant El Centro de Oro commercial corridor. 

In contrast to Kensington, the St. Hugh neighborhood has been growing and improving for a while and, while Fairhill has some crime and disorder challenges similar to Kensington, there is something very different happening. 

It is difficult to get the full picture from stats, and violent crime rates are notoriously difficult to measure, much less calculate. But by at least some estimates, the violent crime rate in Fairhill/St. Hugh is lower than in Kensington.

For example, one source claims Kensington's violent crime rate of 9.3 per 1,000 residents is 55% higher than the 5.9 rate in Fairhill/St. Hugh. Unfortunately, stats like this are bound to be imperfect and imperfect stats rarely tell the full story.

2023 Crime Density map for Philadelphia - Map from GIS Geography

Kensington and Fairhill neighborhoods overlay onto crime density map
- crime stats are notoriously difficult to calculate and tell only a small part of the story. In this version the dark red suggests higher crime rates in Kensington 

THE HACE STORY

Enter HACE, a community development corporation working in Fairhill/St. Hugh for over three decades. HACE was formed to combat disinvestment and preserve community culture. Their approach? Place-based strategies not limited to law enforcement. Instead, they use long-term investment, community leadership, neighborhood planning and strategies grounded in SafeGrowth.

Long before HACE adopted SafeGrowth, their results were stunning:

• Over $100 million in local investment
• More than 450 new housing units built
• 400+ vacant lots rehabbed and greened
• A community-run food distribution center
• Housing counseling programs that build generational wealth

Even more impressive, HACE now adopts SafeGrowth and crime prevention principles within their ten-year Goodlands 2025 plan — not as add-ons, but as core pillars of community design.

The neighborhood plan focuses on major areas of development activity, including housing, commercial corridor revitalization, improving the quality of life, and crime and safety. 

Celebrating the birthday of a Livability Academy member - a local police officer

They also train residents through SafeGrowth Livability Academies, helping locals become leaders in problem-solving, safety design, and civic engagement.

Academy classes lead local projects — clearing encampments, building safe walking trails, and working with police. Cops don’t arrest their way out of crime; communities and police build their way out, together.

PREVENTION TRADECRAFT

Masterful prevention tradecraft has a look: practical, visible, and led by the people who live there. It is grounded in self-help, local knowledge, rooted in evidence, and police are partners, not enforcers of one-size-fits-all solutions.

It’s patient work, unlikely to reveal itself to 6-month evaluations. Instead, it requires patience like slowly melting ice from frozen A/C lines. Like tracing faulty wiring until the real problem is clear.

And in neighborhoods, as in A/C systems, the difference between a temporary fix and a long-term solution is rarely visible at first glance — but unmistakable over time.

Homelessness: We have all the answers!

 

Helping the homeless - We have the tools to help
Photo Ed Yourdon from New York City, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

by Larry Leach

A quote recently hit me — something I’d been feeling for a long time. Malcolm Gladwell put it perfectly:


“The tools necessary to control an epidemic are sitting on the table, right in front of us. We can let the unscrupulous take them. Or we can pick them up ourselves and use them to build a better world.”

That’s exactly where we are with CPTED, SafeGrowth, and the broader crisis in our cities.

We have blogged on the topic of homelessness numerous times including Greg’s blog about the state of homelessness in 2024, Mateja’s blog on homelessness in a European city, and also in Australia, and Jon Munn's blog on the situation in Victoria, BC.

We already have the tools. We already know what works. Finland has proven it and last year we blogged on that country’s remarkable success.

Other countries have also been successful. The problem isn’t strategy — it’s will. What we face is not a lack of evidence, but a kind of Titanic denial — a refusal to accept who must act, and a reluctance to work together toward the solutions already in front of us.

The table is set. The only question now is: Who’s going to reach for the tools?

CANADA AND THE U.S.

In Canada alone, there are hundreds of Millions of dollars going to large agencies in the major cities and that can lead to different motives and outcomes with no one level of government or organization directly responsible or accountable for the outcomes. 

In fact many of these agencies, including shelters, detox, recovery communities, supervised consumption sites and housing get funding from civic, provincial and federal governments at the same time. Some agencies are involved in a number of these activities.

As we say in SafeGrowth, the experts are the people that live in the community. The closer decisions and actions are to the people in the community the better the solution will be for the residents.

U.S. homeless patterns - source: U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development 

 

Canadian homeless patterns - source Housing Infrastructure Canada

The trends show an inconsistency in addressing the problem. If we manage social issues, they will continue to manage us.  The rhetoric in the early 2000’s in Canada was “the plan to end homelessness” in every major city with goals and target dates. 

An example of this was Calgary’s plan to end homelessness in 2008. It was a 10 year plan. Calgary’s was the first to get to the 10 year mark and there are some learnings that can be found in detail here. 

WE KNOW THE ANSWERS 

We Already Know the Answers — So Why Aren’t We Acting?

Seven key barriers to ending homelessness were identified in 2018 — and in 2025, nothing has changed. These barriers include: lack of affordable housing, poor coordination, overreliance on short-term fixes, economic downturns, funding gaps, rising newcomer populations, and weak data systems.

Not one level of government has taken direct responsibility for addressing them, and progress remains glacial. Any attempts to move forward are, as the saying goes, a day late and a dollar short.

But the solutions already exist — and Finland has shown the world how.

I had the chance to visit Finland and meet Juha Kahila, head of international affairs for Y-Säätiö, the country’s largest non-profit landlord. Juha regularly speaks in Canada, sharing insights with governments and agencies.

Y-Säätiö - Finland's 4th largest landlord committed to the Housing First program 

Finland is clearly different from Canada or the U.S., but some of their most effective policies could be adapted here — if we had the political will.

Most importantly: Finland made municipalities fully responsible for outreach, housing, and support services — not through grants, but by directly employing everyone involved. These same municipalities also manage healthcare, with outreach teams embedded in health clinics. Homelessness, addiction, and mental health are treated as connected health issues.

Finland shelter for homeless

The results? Helsinki reduced its shelter beds from 6,000 to just 600 — not by building massive new facilities, but by transitioning people into housing. When I toured one of their low-barrier shelters, I saw modest rooms with no more than 12 beds each, and upper floors dedicated to transitional housing for men, women, and couples.

Small-scale shelter spaces. Integrated mental health support. Full municipal accountability.

THE WAY FORWARD

By no means are these the only changes that need to happen, but the two simple ideas of making one level of government fully responsible for the sector and making it closer to healthcare can make a HUGE impact of the seven reasons the Calgary Plan to end Homelessness didn’t achieve its intended outcome. 

Making our shelter spaces smaller and turning some of the spaces into housing addresses the remaining factors that made the initiative fail.

By addressing these changes, we’ll know who is responsible to address the issue and make the necessary changes and our communities will be safer and more connected and can spend more time working on social cohesion rather than trying to address the social disorder that impacts many residents in many communities. 

With no one in charge, we will continue to suffer a patchwork of well-meaning agencies and small volunteer groups trying as best they can, with little to no coordination.

It’s not complex. We already know what works.


The only thing missing is action.

Beyond the basics: How SafeGrowth and Third-Generation CPTED reimagine community safety

 

The 2025 CPTED conference and SafeGrowth Summit in 

Palm Springs, California

by Mateja Mihinjac

Last month, we held our 2025 ICA International CPTED Conference in Palm Springs

alongside a SafeGrowth Summit with our global network.

Our conference theme — Community Building and Empowerment: A Holistic CPTED Approach — framed much of the discussion. As Greg Saville and I prepared our conference session months earlier, we identified three essential criteria for CPTED to be truly holistic:

• It must be proactive
• It must be integrative
• It must be grounded in community building.

Both SafeGrowth and Third-Generation CPTED meet these benchmarks — and our session explored exactly how.

Expanding on the latest developments in Third-Generation CPTED at the
2025 ICA CPTED Conference

PROACTIVE 

A proactive approach means tackling the root causes of crime before it happens. CPTED exemplifies this by using strategies that both reduce opportunities for offending and encourage local communities to take an active role in prevention — dissuading potential offenders while reinforcing pro-social behavior.

Thinking proactively about crime problems is powerful because it relies on anticipating the problem by taking proven measures to prevent it in the first place.

INTEGRATIVE

I’ve written about reductionist approaches to understanding and responding to crime in a blog a few years ago.

In that blog, I claimed that crime prevention professionals and researchers need to approach the problem by working together in an integrated way to fit solutions to the context, economy and politics of each neighbourhood. We can achieve this by thinking pragmatically about the problem(s) and integrating physical, social and psychological approaches to the extent each of them is required to respond not only to symptoms of the problem but to also address the underlying reasons that have culminated in the crime problem(s).

Trees, forests, hillsides, meadows, mountains - the bio-physical world integrates ecosystems naturally. The social world needs theories that do the same. 

This element is vital to holistic crime prevention because it brings together different perspectives to better understand the problem — and to craft the most effective, tailored solutions.

BASED ON COMMUNITY-BUILDING

People from communities that are cared for, care for each other. This is why investing in neighbourhood communities – both financially and through building social capital – pays major dividends in the long run. This is nicely demonstrated in Larry Leach’s blog in which he writes about the importance of strong bonds between the residents to help address addiction, a major issue that affects many neighbourhoods and may manifest in an overflow of drug-related crimes.

Community building that is both engaging and empowering is therefore a key element of holistic crime prevention because it ensures that those most affected by the problems in their neighbourhood get empowered to play an active partnership role in addressing those problems.

How well do CPTED and SafeGrowth satisfy these criteria? 

Conference participants worked on designing CPTED elements 
into a local park during site visits

CPTED

Greg and I conceptualised the theory of Third-Generation CPTED as a holistic and integrated approach. 

With this we intended to demonstrate CPTED can contribute powerfully to safer and more liveable neighbourhoods that move beyond merely satisfying basic biological and safety human needs, which First-Generation CPTED can be effective in securing through its proactive nature in addressing crime problems. 

We also argue that Second-Generation CPTED, has the power to address the social level needs and build neighbourhood capacity. This is done collaboratively with those within the neighbourhood and with other stakeholders to address local problems, but it still falls short at the “integrative criterion”. 

By adding a psychological dimension to CPTED’s established physical and social layers, we aimed to address the complexity of modern neighbourhoods — places where safety and livability go hand-in-hand with deeper human needs like self-actualization and transcendence. We propose this can be achieved through four pillars of sustainability: health, social, environmental, and economic.

Lt William Hutchinson, Palm Springs Police, is fully trained in the SafeGrowth/CPTED method.
He helped facilitate site visits for conference participants

SAFEGROWTH

As a neighbourhood safety planning method inclusive of CPTED, SafeGrowth has a strong foundation in all three elements.  

By planning safe neighbourhoods where local residents take an active and empowering role, proactivity and community building are the heart of SafeGrowth. Neighbourhood safety teams learn how to identify problems and develop solutions to existing problems. That is how they build a long-term plan of priorities to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

Integrative crime prevention planning must, by definition,
involve residents from the neighbourhood

The integrative nature of SafeGrowth happens by embedding CPTED at all levels of safety planning and by using scientifically-proven crime prevention and social programs that align to each neighbourhood’s problems. There is no cookie-cutter approach in this method. Any program the neighbourhood adopts is directly tailored towards addressing that neighbourhood’s needs. 

The integrative power of SafeGrowth lies in its fusion of CPTED with science-backed prevention and social programs tailored to each neighbourhood’s unique challenges. These aren’t one-size-fits-all solutions — they’re built from the inside out, by and for the community.

I can no longer imagine addressing complex crime issues through unilateral responses. My hope is that holistic thinking — about both problems and solutions — becomes the new normal, so we can create responses that last.

Dignity by design - Rethinking MCM as we build affordable housing

Villa Hermosa in Palm Springs, successful multi-family housing in an MCM design - photo SchoolOfNight, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

by Gregory Saville

Across cities today, the rush to build affordable housing has triggered a frantic urgency: condo and apartment boxes going up fast — but communities left behind. We’re good at erecting buildings — we’re terrible at building neighborhoods. 

Urban design is the first step in that direction.

I’ve spent much of my career walking the streets of neighborhoods where people have little say in the shape of their lives. I’ve worked with gang members, people with disabilities, and residents of subsidized housing. I’ve spent time with youth growing up in trailer courts and high-rises, and I’ve taught students who return to homes where safety is a daily question.

This isn’t a story about where I live. It’s a reflection on what I’ve learned — and how I came to believe that dignity, beauty, and safety should be for everyone. 

THE MCM LESSON

Over the years, I’ve lived in a range of residential styles — some ornate, some utilitarian, some deeply personal. Each space taught me something about how we inhabit place. But the one home style that’s stayed with me most? Mid-Century Modern — MCM.

Not the high-concept, glass-and-steel showpieces in architecture magazines. I’m talking about modest versions — “mid-century modest”: clean lines, functional layouts, floor-to-ceiling windows, open flow to the outdoors. There’s something profound about living in a space where sunlight is intentional and walls don’t dominate. Many of the original architects thought MCM was perfectly suited for residential design – but they lost the plot when it came to scale.

MCM tiny homes provide another affordable housing option - photo via Pinterest 

That simplicity is deceptive. It’s not just aesthetic — it’s psychological. When architecture aligns with the people, not against them, something opens. That absence is glaring in today’s multi-family construction — in cities like Denver, Baltimore, Toronto, Calgary, and Washington, D.C., we’ve forgotten how to build for belonging.

Here’s the thing: design shapes behavior, but scale shapes belonging.

HOPE RISES

In our forthcoming book Hope Rises, we dedicate a full chapter to urban design and architectural history — and how those forces led us to high-crime neighborhoods. Our co-author Dr. Carl Bray, an urban design and heritage planning expert, crafted that chapter with depth and clarity.

When I studied planning, I learned how mid-century modernism reimagined cities — often with tragic results. Tower blocks, land-use segregation, sterile plazas. The urban renewal era promised progress but destroyed communities. Entire neighborhoods vanished. Families were displaced. The irony was brutal: in trying to design better lives, we designed lonelier ones.

We saw it in Toronto’s San Romanoway project in the early 2000s – a story that shows up in Hope Rises. It was in St. Louis, at Pruitt-Igoe, decades earlier. It showed up in the voids Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman wrote about. And in the birth of CPTED — and later, SafeGrowth — as direct responses to the failures of MCM at scale.

But all was not lost.

Danish co-housing in MCM design, open connections to greenery
- photo The Cohousing Newsletter 

Early Danish co-housing used MCM designs
- Skraplanet Co-housing, Denmark

DESIGNING FOR DIGNITY

At the human scale, mid-century design still holds beauty. Done right, it is warm, open, and connective. Like all great housing design, it combines privacy and community.  

MCM uses courtyards to ensure privacy, but loses big fences. It uses walls of windows to ensure connection. Minimalism, flow, connection to nature, indoor-outdoor blending — these aren’t luxuries. They’re tools. In the right hands, they nurture calm and in the right neighborhoods, they support cohesion.

I’ve seen this in co-housing communities — especially early Danish projects designed in the MCM spirit. Affordable. Modest. Yet beautiful and deeply human. Places that offer dignity without needing prestige. That invite safety without fortressing themselves off from the world.

One of the MCM homes in the Skraplanet co-housing neighborhood 

And that brings me here:

Everyone deserves to live somewhere that reflects care. Not opulence. Not perfection. Just care.

Dignified housing isn’t about square footage. It’s about scale, light, safety, and the freedom to feel at home in your own skin. That’s not out of reach. It’s a matter of priority — and the will to design for people, not profits.

We can build dense, multi-family housing. But we must also build neighborhoods with beauty, foresight, and with purpose.

So if you’re living in a space that feels like it was never meant for you — if the broken windows and broken systems suggest you’re invisible — you’re not the problem. The design was.

And that means we can redesign. We start by listening to the needs of residents. Then we build not just structures, but stories of place. And maybe we finish with homes that start to build a community in the truest sense — quiet, steady, and whole.

That’s what SafeGrowth is for.
That’s what our work is about.