A bird's-eye view of safety - Urban morphology and crime

Astronaut Tim Kopra took this night photo of Chicago from space. Beginning in the 1920s, Chicago became a center of research into morphology as a crime factor - photo courtesy NASA

by Gregory Saville

The promise of scientific discoveries never guarantees positive results. That is up to us and the wisdom of our choices. But without rational thinking, data and evidence, and decent research on the problems of our day, we cannot expect to reap the rewards that proliferate in the sciences. This especially applies for city building and crime prevention.

That brings me to what social geographers call urban morphology. Urban morphology is the scientific study of the macro geometry and physical form of cities and towns, such as street patterns, land uses, and population densities – basically modern urban land use planning. It was during my university classes in urban morphology that I first learned why architects and urban planners think so differently. 

An architect might design building windows facing the street to improve natural surveillance and decrease crime. But a traffic engineer might design a wide, one-way street to speed vehicles from one region of the city to another. Speeding cars make a street inhospitable and unwalkable, in which case no one bothers to look outside. So much for natural surveillance. 

Many times I have been asked to look at street crime and noted empty sidewalks, loud vehicle noise from speeding cars, and high vehicle speeds on a wide, one-way street. Morphology matters and recent criminological research confirms it. 

The traditional suburban cul de sac - Photo by Michael Tuszynski on Unsplash

CUL-DE-SACS

Take the cul de sac. Some criminologists claim that cul de sacs are the safest places to live because we get to know our neighbors which leads to territorial control and that cuts crime. Having lived on a cul de sac, I often questioned those assumptions. Were those assumptions actually based on scientific data or were they just a pocketful of anecdotes? 

In environmental criminology, I learned that cul de sacs were places of lower crime due to limited permeability, controlled access, and increased territoriality. Some studies supported that hypothesis.

Then new research challenged that hypothesis. One South Korean study showed how cultural factors can exacerbate, or mitigate cul de sac risks. Another study by Mateja Mihinjac in her criminology graduate research also challenged the cul-de-sac-is-good hypothesis. Her research indicated they had no impact. All this, of course, is how science is supposed to proceed:

Hypotheses are tested --> old theories fall --> new theories emerge.

Then I read the work of civil engineer, Charles Marohn, someone with decades of experience designing roads and streets. 

Marohn and his colleagues examined the fiscal side of street designs, including cul de sacs. They looked at the street engineering of cul de sacs and compared the fiscal costs of construction, maintenance, replacement, asphalt, and extruded curb costs, with other types of streets. The results were not encouraging. 

Cul de sacs were envisioned as safe areas
- Photo by Stephen Andrews on Unsplash

Another urban planner re-examined Marohn’s hypotheses and studied cul de sac street design costs in his own city. His research too was shocking. 

It turns out that cul de sacs make no fiscal sense. They are expensive to construct and difficult to maintain. Cities end up in the red when they attempt to cover costs. Tax revenue from residents does not come close to paying for cul de sacs. Costs for maintaining cul de sacs balloon as they age and they will eventually need huge property tax increases or federal subsidies – neither of which is likely. So not only are cul de sacs not exactly the crime panacea first thought, they are also fiscally unsustainable.

STRONG TOWNS MOVEMENT

This research is a product of the Strong Towns movement. Strong Towns researchers raise all sorts of important morphology questions that pertain to crime. For example, what about all the excessive parking lots in cities and their contribution to safety, crime, and fiscal sustainability? 

Many modern cities have excessive parking, mostly unused

In Dallas, Texas 25% of the entire downtown land use is for parking cars, often the same empty parking lots where people are assaulted and cars are easily stolen. When Strong Town researchers dug into the municipal costs to cover car parking, the result was alarming. These are costs that could be better spent on housing the homeless, responding to toxic street drugs, or better public transit. 

The Strong Town advocates have some intriguing design answers. Installing curbside patios to replace downtown parking spots is one type of repurposing that can help. For example, Toronto instituted curbside patios and found they produce 49 times more money than the street parking spots they replaced  – again, money that might be tapped for better livability results.

Street patios are inexpensive, bring more fiscal returns than parking spots,
and provide a popular livability option 

Charles Marohn is the president of the Strong Town movement and his book, The Confessions of a Recovering Engineer is a must for those interested in city design and SafeGrowth.

It emphasizes the role of scientific research and evidence in urban planning and design if we are to reap the kinds of successes in crime prevention that we see in other branches of science. 

Cul-de-sacs - crime and controversy

Road design and crime?

A recent email from a planner friend asked about reconfiguring a roadway: "I am working on rightsizing a suburban arterial. There have been some assaults and break ins. There is some speculation as to whether converting it from 6 lanes wide setbacks to 4 lanes with buildings up to the street will change this dynamic"

It made me think of other 6 lane, car-dominated cities. It also brought to mind some environmental criminology (EC) research supporting cul-de-sacs. The EC crowd is generally critical of New Urbanist  designs for grid streets and increased neighborhood permeability.

The New Urbanism version goes like this: If we narrow the streets and avoid wide boulevards to slow car traffic we will encourage a more walkable street. If we use grid designs versus cul de sacs we can better provide walkable locations for people, activate neighborhoods, and make them safer.

The EC version goes like this: Grid layouts increase permeability and let more strangers through and that increases the risk of crime. That's why corner houses have more crime! Cul-de-sacs have less crime than grids for the same reason.

Not exactly.

Environmental criminology and burglary

What most EC studies actually show isn't patterns of crime. They show patterns of burglary. In fact the preponderance of EC studies (at least in the early years) were on burglary and theft versus robbery, interpersonal violence, shootings, gangs or drug crime - the crimes people fear most.

Still, EC's burglary-obsession should not detract from the point. Tantalizing answers emerge elsewhere; within the library of Problem Oriented Policing projects.

The POP library lists hundreds of projects on a wide variety of crimes. They describe both physical place-based prevention combined with social prevention. In most cases it was not physical tactics - design-out-crime - that did the trick. It was the  holistic ones that did, tactics that carefully considered context first and design impact second.

Curvilinear suburban road design - where do you walk? 

Interestingly, one EC reviewer says this about context:

"Today, interior spaces within the home are dominant, and are commonly filled with electronic multimedia technologies and entertainment (also providing more opportunities for crime). The interior is now defined as the ‘leisure action space’ for both adults and children. This has led to exterior/public spaces being less used and this withdrawal has led to them being re-labeled and re-defined, often as ‘dangerous’ spaces."

Exterior spaces less used and defined as dangerous? If ever there was ever a context for New Urbanism, there it is!

Good design 

Good urban design should make exterior spaces less vacant, boring and unfriendly. It should create interesting walkable streets, places to go within walking distance, and a lively outdoors with ample social spaces for diverse people to socialize.

Urban guru Enrico Penalosa, and former mayor of Bogota during its widely-acclaimed redevelopment, finishes the thought: "The most dynamic economies of the twentieth century produced the most miserable cities of all. I'm talking about the U.S. of course - Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, cities totally dominated by private cars."

"The most miserable cities are dominated by cars" - Penalosa 

Oath of fealty and our HiDWON future

Sci Fi novel by Niven and Pournelle - Oath of Fealty. Our future?
photo Amazon.com

by Gregory Saville  

The world has 8,172,746,366 people and, since I wrote that sentence a moment ago, it has grown by tens of thousands. It grows every second. While the rate of growth is slowing, estimates place the global population at 10 billion by mid-century. Where, and how, will all those people live?

In many countries, housing and rental costs have skyrocketed. And in a country with an ethos of the “American Dream”, (now adopted in China as the “Chinese Dream”) the single-family home is becoming a thing of the past. In my city of Denver, the majority of new buildings comprise tens of thousands of high-density condos, apartments, or townhomes. The new building motto: Fewer cul-de-sacs, more density. 

Sadly, developers construct physical buildings at the speed of light, but they do not understand neighborhoods. When neighborhood planning takes a back seat to the home construction derby, absent any thought of a livable neighborhood, we are left with a bleak future. If you know anything about the history of CPTED, remember the crime catastrophe emerging from 1950s high-density public housing and modernist architecture. If you don't, read Newman’s Defensible Space! 

Giving rise to Newman's Defensible Space, the Pruitt-Igoe public housing apartments in St. Louis in the 1950s, before demolition.
High-density public housing with a new architectural style - modernism. 
- photo US Geological Survey, public domain, via Wiki Commons

HISTORY NEED NOT REPEAT

Are we building another crime-ridden, future catastrophe?

There is no shortage of city utopias in modern design publications. The cities they describe look futuristic and slick. They seldom describe what people will actually do to make ends meet or how they will live surrounded by thousands of others with nowhere to walk. Are there are stories about such places or the consequences of such places? There are indeed and every year, I ask the members of our SafeGrowth network to read a book that tells such a story. It is no utopia!

Larry Niven is an award-winning science fiction writer of the famed Ringworld series, among many other well-known novels. Larry Pournelle worked as an aerospace psychologist before launching into his writing career. Together they published Oath Of Fealty in 1981, a book considered among the top 100 best sci-fi novels. 

Oath of Fealty is a dystopian story set in the near future about a massive high-density structure called Todos Santos – a city within a city – surrounded by a crime-ridden and blighted Los Angeles. Todos Santos is an urban design concept called arcology, originally developed by architect Paulo Solare. In 2010, I wrote Arcosante – Our Future? about an actual arcology under construction in Arizona. 

[Note: I spoke to Paulo Solare in depth about his planning philosophy and I am certain he would be horrified by the Todos Santos style of arcology]. 

Dining area at Arcosante - a real-life arcology under construction in Arizona. Completely different from the arcology depicted in Oath of Fealty
- photo license Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 

TODOS SANTOS IN REAL LIFE

The Todos Santos arcology is miles wide and deep and a half-mile high. Solare told me he imagined arcologies as dense urban beehives with beautiful architecture and plenty of greenery. Because architecture in Todos Santos comprised an enclosed 3-D city constructed as one structure, it is easy to control access and establish territorial control (the basic principles of CPTED). Surveillance in all forms is a simple matter, especially with the permission (the Oath) of residents. Within such a high-tech, massive security castle (think of gated communities on steroids), controllers can protect a million inhabitants with their own security – as long as you swear an oath of allegiance to constant surveillance. 

Liverpool One development in the UK - photo courtesy of Wiki Commons 

In 2014 I wrote a blog titled A Few Years After Tomorrow about a development scheme in the UK to privatize 35 downtown streets, limit public streets, and control safety via a private security force and CCTV. Called Liverpool One, it was as close to Todos Santos as I could imagine back then – private corporations buying up the public realm and controlling security. Today, Liverpool One is now built, albeit with plenty of public access and without the private streets. It is not an arcology, but it does hold the promise of a safer future.

Oath of Fealty suggests that when faced with terrifying blight and crime (or at least the fear of them), a rarified, high-tech, comfortable life within the arcology is worth an oath fealty by residents allowing constant surveillance and monitoring to keep everyone safe. That lifestyle offers security that public police cannot provide because arcology dwellers choose to forgo their anonymity and privacy to secure their safety (at least, in the Todos Santos version). 

 

Promotional painting from the 1927 German film Metropolis - an urban utopia that came true. It looks remarkably similar to large, downtown skyscrapers today. 
- image Wiki Commons 

OUR HiDWON FUTURE

Oath of Fealty also suggests that those inside the arcology are shackled by Big Brother. They forgo their civic responsibility and collaboration with others to ensure safer streets – the very thing we work to reinforce in SafeGrowth programming. Instead, they trust technology and rely, not on each other, but on the Todos Santos corporation. 

It all sounds very AI-like in tone. An electronic parent is always watching...just relax and let your fears subside. Your Oath of Fealty will keep you safe. Trust the massive global expansion of public CCTV and security AI. 

I am calling the new high-density redevelopment movement, which lacks neighborhood building and relies on technology for security, the HiDWON movement (High-Density WithOut Neighborhood). Will this new HiDWON movement lead to Todos Santos-style cities? Is this future really so distant?

The wall and the window - Mystery in space

Reading studies on crime and place I was recently struck by a mystery among environmental criminology researchers who study CPTED, particularly territoriality (the wall) and natural surveillance (the window).

It brought to mind other concept errors in crime and place research, specifically crime generators, permeability, cul de sacs, and the Achilles Heel within routine activity theory. This time the mystery cycles around guardianship.

Here’s the storyline…

Researchers regale the power of natural surveillance to enhance guardianship. Guardianship presumes to increase the risk that offenders will be seen and caught. Natural surveillance has appeal because you can observe whether a space has lighting, sightlines and nearby windows. Because surveillance presumably will produce more preventive action by residents (or reluctance by offenders to show up), you can then measure what happens.

EYES ON THE STREET

Natural surveillance assumes that people who see something out of place will act, thereby providing guardianship. Thus it is “real”. It's an assumption borne out nicely in low-crime, upper income areas but not so much in lower-income, high crime areas where residents are afraid to step outdoors and when they do their presence doesn’t deter anything.

Fences, windows and flowers creating territorial control on a San Diego public walkway 

On the other hand researchers question the power of territoriality to enhance guardianship, mainly because they say territoriality lacks "definitional rigor" and it isn’t “real”. Floral decorations or landscaping…is that it? Maybe it’s access control, walls and gates? Even worse, territoriality varies from place to place. Horrors!

They suggest natural surveillance is preferable to territoriality because it seems more measurable. That’s how they solve the mystery of territoriality. They ignore or downplay it, label it with   definitional problems and claim it isn't "real".

THE SECRET

Historian Howard Zinn warns us about such storylines: “Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept without much questioning someone else’s version of what that reality is.”

Consider this: If territoriality isn’t real, then how is guardianship any better? And why shouldn’t territoriality vary from place to place?“The real world,” says Zinn, “is infinitely complex and constantly changing.”

Perhaps social science research methods are too simplistic to tell us anything complex? Perhaps it is guardianship that has a definitional problem, especially given territoriality’s much longer provenance.

What provenance? Consider Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities, Robert Ardry’s The Territorial Imperative, Edward Hall’s The Hidden Dimension, Oscar Newman's Defensible Space, and Alice Coleman's Utopia on Trial. And all that territorial work still continues today such as Kevin Leydon’s study on walkability and social capital.

MYSTERY SOLVED

CPTED practitioners seldom complain about such things because context always comes first.

For example in SafeGrowth practitioners and residents use a Risk Assessment Matrix for surveys, safety audits, site visits, and asset maps. Together they create a profile of the neighborhood and what residents feel about it. Only then do they determine to what extent designs enhance territoriality.

Overcoming "definitional rigor"?

Simple: Ask the residents and work with them to discover what they feel enhances their territorial control, a method known as action research and action learning. Mystery solved.