"Cars are isolated from owners; the public realm abuts private space; the
large amount of communal green space lacks ownership, purpose, and influence; the
layout is ludicrously permeable, providing offenders with complete anonymity and
opportunity to wonder around, familiarizing, searching for vulnerable targets,
offending and escaping," says West Yorkshire Architectural Liaison Steven Town.
"At what point is a stranger's presence inappropriate, suspicious, or
challengeable?" In a New Urban development, "residents quickly lose confidence,
whilst offenders become ever bolder and contemptuous. The design has
unintentionally taken control from residents and handed it into the hands of the
anti-social."
Peter Knowles, the architectural liaison officer of the Bedfordshire Police
Force, recently compared developments designed to New Urbanist standards with
those designed to Secured by Design standards. The developments had about the
same population densities and income levels, but variable levels of subsidized
"affordable" housing.
Knowles' analysis concluded that crime was more than five times greater in the
New Urban developments than in the Secured by Design developments. This included
nearly eight times as many home burglaries, more than five times as many stolen
cars, more than five times as many auto break-ins, and nearly four times as much
criminal damage. Dealing with crime in the New Urban neighborhoods cost the
police three times as much.
Knowles also found that increasing the amount of subsidized, low-income
housing in a neighborhood from 20 to 30 percent increased crime in both kinds of
neighborhoods. But it increased crime by 40 percent in the New Urban
neighborhoods and only by 12 percent in the Secured by Design neighborhoods.
Stephen Town points to a development of 21 homes built on a cul de sac that
was virtually crime free after it was built. Then planners constructed a bike
path through the neighborhood to a nearby shopping center. Burglaries increased
to nine times the national rate and residents described their neighborhood as "a
hellhole."
American urban planners seem totally oblivious to Defensible Space principles.
Numerous cities have been influenced by planners to forbid cul de sacs and
large-lot developments and to promote mixed-use developments, narrow streets, and
other New Urban designs. Most of these rules apply to new developments, but
planners have also set their sights on reconfiguring existing developments to
these standards. Cul de sacs are to be connected by pedestrian paths if not by
streets, and zoning codes are being rewritten to allow mixed uses in
neighborhoods that currently have just single-family dwellings.
| When planners constructed
a bike path through the neighborhood to a nearby shopping center, burglaries
increased to nine times the national rate and residents described their
neighborhood as "a hellhole." |
|
When Peter Knowles' report
was published on the Web, American New Urbanists were quick to deny that it
applied here. Robert Steuteville, the editor of New Urban News, says, "[W]e are
not aware of any reports of significant or elevated crime in any of the more than
200 sizable New Urban communities."
Of course, this may not mean that such crime does not exist; it may only be
that New Urbanism is so politically correct that no one has yet dared report it.
U.S. urban planners have shown a complete lack of interest in whether the people
who live in New Urban developments really drive less, as the planners claim. It
would be surprising whether any planners bothered to find out what their ideas
did to local crime.
The American equivalent of Secured by Design is a program called Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). But this program lacks the focus
and research that backs up Britain's Secured by Design. Documents prepared by
CPTED advocates say very little about what kind of designs will reduce crime. One
CPTED newsletter even endorses New Urbanist principles without ever saying how
banning cul de sacs and requiring stores in every neighborhood of 500 homes will
create defensible space.
Even if planners pretend not to understand Defensible Space, most Americans
are fully aware of the benefits cul de sacs, separated uses, and visible parking
have for their security. Neighborhoods strongly resist efforts by planners to
connect cul de sacs or insert bike paths or commercial uses in their midst. In
Portland, new homes in neighborhoods built following New Urban designs have sold
slowly, even given the huge subsidies offered by local officials smitten by
planners' utopian dreams.
As one proponent of Defensible Space says, New Urbanism is "filled with
religious and so-far unsubstantiated beliefs." We know that is true with respect
to auto driving. One study done by New Urbanists themselves compared several
urban areas and found that the one with the highest population density, most
intensive transit service, and most pedestrian-friendly design also had the
highest per capita driving.
In April, a new anti-New Urban group called the American Dream Coalition will hold a
national conference on "Preserving the American Dream" in Portland, Ore. West
Yorkshire Architectural Liaison Stephen Town will review New Urban developments
in that city and describe the situation in England. Perhaps this will lead to
some objective research on crime and New Urbanism in the U.S.
|
| |
