From fear to familiar - Reclaiming Oppenheimer Park through SafeGrowth

Source: Google Earth imagery, Oppenheimer Park, Vancouver, Canada.
Screen capture by G. Saville

Guest blog – Ekin Buran & Dixon Ng

Ekin Buran is Programs Manager at the Strathcona Community Policing Centre and Dixon Ng is Victim Services Worker at the Chinese Community Policing Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia. They were two of five members of a SafeGrowth team  from a training program in Vancouver last year. Both have worked in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for over three years, focusing on community safety and crime prevention. Through their project work, they apply SafeGrowth strategies to the community they serve and care about. This story describes one of their projects.

***

Oppenheimer Park sits on the unceded territory of the Coast Salish Peoples in Vancouver’s historic Japantown. The baseball field where the Vancouver Asahi once played is still active today. The Asahi were a Japanese Canadian baseball team based in the Powell Street area from 1914 to 1941 and became a symbol of perseverance and community pride during a period of widespread discrimination. Totem poles, cherry blossom trees, and cedar trees remain part of the landscape, reflecting both Indigenous and Japanese Canadian history.

Yet despite its deep history and ongoing community life, Oppenheimer Park is often discussed mainly in terms of safety, especially by those less familiar with the space. Media coverage and public discussions frequently focus on encampments, drug use, and police presence, shaping how the park is perceived before people ever visit it.

Our goal was to begin a planning process that could change that perception by building on the park’s existing strengths. Over the past year, following a multi-month SafeGrowth training workshop organized through the Strathcona Community Safety Association, our team began applying the SafeGrowth approach in and around the park.

Walkways in the park on a quiet day

Recognizing that meaningful crime prevention and safety programming is a long-term effort built on collaboration and trust, we began by focusing on relationships. Using the SafeGrowth approach and principles from Third Generation CPTED, we identified two initial goals: 1) to strengthen partnerships among organizations already working in the neighbourhood; 2) to engage more residents by helping them become familiar with the park and its assets.

LEARNING FROM THE PARK 

Our team of five works across four organizations in the neighbourhood, and at least one of us is in and around the park almost every day. We walk through it, meet people there, and park nearby, which gives us a close view of how important this space is to the people who use it.

Our research included observing park activity, conducting safety audits and CPTED assessments, and interviewing park users, nearby residents, and local organizations. Our guiding question was simple: how might safety grow from the relationships, strengths, and sense of belonging that already exist in the park?

We found strong appreciation for the park, clear interest in greater community use, and the Fieldhouse acting as an important anchor for positive activity. We also observed that fear of serious violence appeared stronger than reported incidents, with most calls involving property-related offences.

A survey commissioned by the Vancouver Police Department found that 74% of respondents were concerned about crime in Downtown Vancouver, and more than one-third said those concerns led them to avoid neighbourhoods such as the Downtown Eastside, which includes the Oppenheimer Park area. 

Some data was available through a survey commissioned by the Vancouver Police

Our research uncovered that:

• There is a strong appreciation for the park as a place to rest, connect, and spend time outdoors

• Many people expressed care for the park and a desire to see more neighbours enjoying it

• The Fieldhouse is one of the park’s greatest strengths, providing coffee, workshops, and an indoor gathering space that anchors positive activity

• Fear associated with violent crime was not proportionate to actual risk according to the data which revealed most incidents involving property offences rather than serious violence.

INITIAL COMMUNITY-BUILDING STEPS

Strengthening Local Partnerships

To achieve this goal, we began introducing ourselves to surrounding businesses, community groups, housing providers, daycare centres, and the Oppenheimer Fieldhouse. We wanted to learn more about organizations already active in the neighbourhood and explore ways to collaborate and strengthen connections between groups that do not always interact.

These early conversations helped build trust and created a foundation for joint activities in the park.

Summer Playground Event

In partnership with the Fieldhouse and a local daycare centre, we co-hosted a Summer Playground Event in 2025 that brought more than fifty families into the park. Following this event, another daycare approached us about hosting a similar activity, which is now planned for summer 2026.

Last year's summer playground event to activate the park.
Another is planned for this summer. 

Neighbourhood Walking Club

We organized group walks in and around Oppenheimer Park to encourage participants to spend time in the space, learn about its history, and connect with one another. During these walks, residents shared that the park felt less intimidating than they had previously believed. Spending time in the park together helped participants feel more comfortable and begin to see the space as more welcoming.

Walking club around the park - building familiarity and dispelling fears 

Community Workshops and Gatherings

We began participating in the Fieldhouse’s monthly community gatherings and co-leading workshops, including emergency preparedness sessions, fraud awareness workshops, seasonal events, and informal coffee chats. These activities created opportunities for community members to gather, meet their neighbours, and socialize in a familiar setting.

A number of Fieldhouse programs helped provide crime prevention
education and pro-social activities 

LOOKING AHEAD 

Early results are promising. Seniors already using the park expressed interest in joining future walks. Dozens of neighbourhood families attended park events, and additional daycare providers have requested similar activities. Residents are becoming more comfortable using the park for everyday visits, increasing casual use and natural surveillance. The Fieldhouse continues to grow as a focal point for pro-social activity and community interaction.

These early steps reflect a broader SafeGrowth principle: Safety grows when familiar faces, shared activities, and local leadership become part of everyday life.

Our long-term goal is to sustain this work by increasing resident leadership and involvement. Lasting change in Oppenheimer Park will not come from one event or one project, but from continued presence, relationship-building, and shared responsibility. Oppenheimer Park is gradually evolving into a more connected and welcoming community space shaped by the people who use it every day.

Is CPTED placemaking?

Placemaking with community gardens in Calgary's East Village - site location
of this year's walking tour at the 2026 CPTED Conference

by Larry Leach

Is CPTED placemaking? 

I had that question asked of me in a recent meeting when I was describing CPTED. At first, I was taken aback. It seemed surprising CPTED is still unknown these days. But it is a legitimate question. 

The question took me down a path looking at how CPTED is increasingly viewed through a placemaking lens in some quarters and as a technical security tool, in others. It is basically the difference between 1st Generation CPTED and 2nd Generation CPTED. 

In Calgary, since 2025, there has been several funding opportunities for placemaking, beautification, and space activation. Programs such as Good Places Project Grants ($500-$15,000), supports murals, seating, and small public space improvements. 

Others, such as those through the Federation of Calgary Communities ($2.8 million over three years), seeks neighbourhood events, and resident-led initiatives focused on social inclusion and connection. Some grants are modest, but collectively they create real opportunities for communities to shape their own spaces.

At the same time, some funding streams support traditional secrurity measures with few references to community-building. These include cameras, security infrastructure, and other hard-target improvements by the Civic Partner Community Safety Grant ($2 million), are traditional1st Gen CPTED tactics. 

Empty parking lot in Calgary - dark, risky, and in need of attention.
But what kind?

Some funding avenues seek youth programming to prevent gang involvement and support local organizations, such as the Alberta Crime Prevention Grant (up to $150,000 per year). Others such as the Neighbourhood Grants provide up to $1,000 for resident-led projects focusing on social inclusion, anti-racism, and community connectivity. 

Are these grants for CPTED? Perhaps not in the traditional sense, but in more advanced forms, they fit perfectly into the capacity-building program objectives of SafeGrowth.

FUNDS EXIST

Contrary to popular perceptions, it turns out there are many available resources if you look hard enough. Keep in mind, the opportunities here describe only the government-related grants in my city. They do not cover opportunities in the non-profit sector, philanthropic groups, and corporate good-neighbour funding. 

We have discussed many times in this blog how funding can emerge from unexpected sources when a community organizes itself properly and learns grant writing skills. These sources include small amounts with big impact, such as the growing phenomenon of micro-grants recently examined by the Council on Criminal Justice study “Small Grants, Big Impact: How Microgrants can Boost Community Safety and Justice.” 

They also include sources for multi-year funding from diverse sources. For example, one 2018 blog describes how a non-profit, community development corporation in Philadelphia has, through their 10-year neighbourhood plan, leveraged multiple funding sources for over $100 million to build over 200 units of affordable housing over the years.

Placemaking near Amsterdam's Historic Museum - sometimes popups can activate a place with eyes-on-the-street - photo Flickr, CC BY-SA 3.0 

HOW TO KNOW WHAT WORKS

There are plenty of great funding opportunities, even if many are small in scale. The challenge is deciding which approach is appropriate. A mural, a bench, or a neighbourhood event may strengthen connection and informal guardianship. In other situations, cameras or access control may be justified. In many cases, the real need may be something else entirely.

How do you know if a neighbourhood needs cameras and fences, or whether there is a risk for gang activity? How do you know if there is something else the community needs? How do you answer those questions? 

Some CPTED programming mentions risk assessment and some CPTED projects include research. But not all, and certainly not enough. That is what led to the growth of SafeGrowth and its action-research/local expert method of community research to answer those questions. 

 

Look at the stats and the maps - but ultimately the best way to learn
an area is to walk with those who know it day and night.

We use the resident experts who live in the community to tell us what the community needs are. The truth is, without collaborative community/expert risk assessments, we may be solving a problem that may not exist or - more importantly - we may miss the problem that needs fixing but has no funding.

Without a careful look at local assets, risks, and community priorities, it is difficult to know which direction makes sense. That is why the International CPTED Association produced a white paper on CPTED methodology in which they insist that CPTED must evolve beyond design checklists and check sheets. 

That process may lead to placemaking. It may lead to targeted security measures. Often it leads to a mix of both. The key is that the solution emerges from the community context rather than being assumed in advance.

So is CPTED placemaking?

It can be.

The problem isn't the underpass

Poor underpass design, placement and maintenance are only part of the problem

by Mateja Mihinjac

Few examples of pedestrian public infrastructure have as much potential to go wrong as pedestrian underpasses. Nearly every city I’ve visited has at least one that has become problematic.

I have blogged on this in the past such as underpass graffiti and homelessness. But the problem is bigger than that. The problem centres around participatory design and ongoing stewardship.

Underpasses can separate pedestrians from traffic, but many urban designers treat them as a last resort. New Zealand Transport Agency guidance notes that at-grade crossings are usually preferred because they keep pedestrians visible and the street active, which supports perceived safety.

Underpass in Ljubljana, Slovenia - a much too-common example of neglect and fear in underpasses around the world 

The tradeoff is predictable. Underpasses often feel isolated, attract neglect, and can be hard to use for older adults, people with disabilities, and parents with strollers.

Research on fear of crime consistently shows that enclosed pedestrian tunnels and underpasses can generate strong perceptions of danger when lighting, visibility, and maintenance are poor.

Because of these concerns, street design guidelines increasingly favour at-grade crossings such as raised crosswalks, traffic calming measures, and pedestrian-priority streets that keep pedestrians visible and integrated into everyday street activity.

A SENSE OF DISGUST & INFRASTRUCTURE LIABILITY

A few days ago I came across an article about one of the underpasses in Ljubljana that has been problematic for years. Recently, the city has decided to close it completely. The underpass runs beneath a busy arterial road and connects a large shopping mall with nearby residential buildings and local services. 

This pedestrian underpass in Ljubljana was built to protect people from traffic. Today, it is closed because it became unsafe to use. 

I remember using the underpass several times a few years ago. Each time I dreaded it. The tunnel was dark and smelled strongly of urine. One entrance was covered with graffiti tags. A section of the corridor was often flooded with stale smelly water. People loitered there for long periods. 

On one occasion a couple of years ago, a man in the underpass approached me asking if I offer “special services,” after saying he only wanted to ask me a question during my walk to the shopping mall. More than fear, the experience produced a sense of disgust — the feeling that this space had been abandoned by those responsible for managing it.

A closed underpass - why were problems allowed to grow in the first place?  

After years of decay, the city eventually closed the underpass completely. What makes the situation even more striking is that the tunnel sits next to one of the most prestigious residential developments in Ljubljana, currently the tallest building in the city.

The article reports the decision to close it came from “professional assessment of the current state of the infrastructure, safety risks and the sensibility of its continued use”. It also reports on people’s complaints concerning the homeless, faeces, urine, syringes, vandalism and rubbish that kept accumulating in the underpass. 

No decision has yet been made whether this closed underpass will eventually reopen. It raises questions: What engineers are responsible for this? Who are the decision-makers? What are they saying? How did they neglect this for so long? One can only imagine what conversations are going on behind closed doors. And that leads to the true problem- the design process! 

IT ISN’T THE UNDERPASS…IT’S THE PROCESS

When cities close infrastructure because it feels unsafe, something usually went wrong long before the first complaint. This is not simply about lighting failures or graffiti. It is about a system that failed to monitor, maintain, and adapt.

Some cities are beginning to recognise that infrastructure like pedestrian tunnels cannot be evaluated by engineers alone.

Steven Eisenhower bicycle Tunnel, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
- photo Steven Vance, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

A useful example comes from Toronto, where the Glen Road Pedestrian Bridge and Tunnel Environmental Assessment incorporated extensive public consultation. Community feedback helped identify safety concerns and guided improvements to ensure the infrastructure actually worked for those expected to use it.

PRACTICAL LESSONS LEARNED

From a CPTED and SafeGrowth perspective, the Ljubljana underpass displayed several familiar warning signs. Poor natural surveillance created hidden spaces, weak territorial reinforcement meant the area felt like it belonged to no one, and low activity levels reduced informal guardianship. Over time, maintenance declined and limited community engagement allowed problems to persist largely unnoticed.

None of these issues appeared overnight. They develop gradually as stewardship declines.

Modern CPTED guidance recognises that design alone cannot maintain safe places. Ongoing stewardship and community involvement are essential. Technical guidance such as the Queensland Transport and Main Roads Department’s underpass design guidelines provide useful direction.

Australian urban design guidelines developed by social planner Wendy Sarkissian

SafeGrowth engages residents and local users in diagnosing problems and shaping solutions. Community knowledge often identifies risks long before they appear in official reports. Without that feedback loop, infrastructure can slowly decay into places people avoid.

SafeGrowth emphasises participatory safety planning, where residents, practitioners, and local agencies discuss design and management issues together. In these processes, the social planning principles championed by social planner Wendy Sarkissian remain especially valuable. 

Pedestrian underpasses are not inherently unsafe but closing them may sometimes be necessary. The real question is why the problem was allowed to grow in the first place.

Safe cities do not maintain themselves. They depend on stewardship and the people who care enough to protect them.