 |
| Residents take back their neighbourhood by access control of their roadways |
by Mateja Mihinjac
What happens when a community installs retractable pillars to block vehicular access into a neighbourhood of terraced blocks and local businesses? Access control is one of the fundamental principles of 1st Generation CPTED, established in 1972 by Oscar Newman in his book Defensible Space and employed judiciously by CPTED practitioners.
In one particular neighbourhood in my home city of Ljubljana, Slovenia, the issue of vehicle access control has been a contentious issue for several years. It regained interest a few weeks ago when a child was almost run over by a car while playing in a neighbourhood area intended for pedestrian use. Many have welcomed the installation of pillars, but others feel it a hasty decision lacking the preceding discussion. They seek more thoughtful consideration about the effects on senior residents, those with mobility issues, and the delivery of goods and services.
 |
| No entry for private vehicles in the neighbourhood |
THE ENGAGEMENT TRAP
Soon after the installation of the pillars, emotional reactions appeared on the community Facebook group, as well as in local news, which reported reactions as “warm-cold”.
Some residents echoed sentiments such as “people would even drive directly to their apartment if they could” suggesting that people have become spoiled and accustomed to comfort. They welcomed the decision and praised the mayor for it.
Others maintained the move was made due to the nagging of a few who had the loudest voice but had no right to decide on behalf of the majority. They thought the right of access to their property was violated. They also reminded the “house rules” are already in place for each block. While these rules don’t seem to operate well in practice, it is clear the process of engagement was not managed well.
Residents were not asked to partake in the discussion and they felt the decision was imposed on them. In SafeGrowth we are very familiar with this phenomenon and in our new forthcoming SafeGrowth book, we describe this as the engagement trap - listening to the loudest voices, consulting too late in the process, or insincere tokenism for political expedience.
 |
| Emergency vehicles waiting for access |
POST-FESTUM DISCOURSE
A few weeks later, the residents engaged in a more productive dialogue to try to find a solution that would suit the majority. The local government has also requested input and suggestions from the residents to find the most workable solutions.
Some suggestions have been implemented such as retracting the pillars for two hours during early morning hours for local business deliveries. The new decree also envisions special one-time access permits for house renovations or large item deliveries, or repair services since a number of residents have expressed concern about access.
Now that the emotions have somewhat calmed down and the residents are starting to adjust to a new regime, many are calling for patience and cooperation in identifying the solutions.
Some residents have even proposed this might be an opportunity for the introduction of new local businesses. For example, introducing a local delivery person(s) to assist with transporting goods from the surrounding shops either on foot or using micro-mobility options. Another example – expanding delivery lockers used by shipping services at the edge of the suburbs since they are now unable to deliver goods to people’s doorstep.
Local government has already introduced “Kavalir”, a small electric golf-cart-like vehicle that drives between the neighbourhood and adjacent produce market on a daily basis. This service is free of charge and primarily intended for those with mobility issues.
 |
| Terraced residences included narrow pedestrian corridors intended for pedestrians, not vehicles |
AVOIDING TOKENISM
It is commendable that the municipality responded so quickly to address this local problem, but it is discouraging to see how frequently decision-makers fail to initiate effective discourse with the local residents until complaints arise.
The inability to engage residents, or the use of the engagement trap to substitute for authentic engagement, leads to more problems and confusion. All of that can be avoided from the start of the process with authentic communication. Time will tell if this is yet just another attempt at tokenism or a lesson in civic engagement.
1 Reply so far - Add your comment
Hi Mateja,
Thank you for your insightful blog post. Your delineation of the retractable pillars installation in Ljubljana parallels my experiences and research in Dutch urban landscapes, where the quest for traffic safety often intersects with social safety and neighborhood livability. Through various projects in The Netherlands, such as my work on Social Safe Urban Design(e.g.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323676869_Sociaal_Veilige_Stedenbouw_De_ruimtelijke_potenties_van_de_Utrechtse_wijk_Kanaleneiland#fullTextFileContent), I've observed that original street network designs, which encouraged a balanced mix of to- and through-movement, were often disrupted by subsequent traffic reduction measures like pillars and roundabouts. While initially appearing community-friendly by potentially reducing car traffic and creating additional spaces for social interaction and play, these measures, from a social safety standpoint, may inadvertently disrupt the natural movement fabric, diminish mixed-use spaces, and reduce the 'eyes on the street', a key principle for fostering social safety. Your post aptly highlights the nuanced challenge of balancing traffic and social safety—a task that becomes considerably intricate when integrated with community engagement and participatory urban planning approaches.
Warm regards,
Manuel López
Post a Comment