The emergence of environmental design, as a way of providing safety, or removing ‘threat

The emergence of environmental design, as a way of providing safety, or removing ‘threat’

Though there are many historical examples of how the physical environment has been adapted to control a space, such as Haussmann’s reconstruction of Paris in the late 1800s (Savic and Savicic, 2012, p. 10), Jane Jacobs’ 1961 book: ‘The Death and Life of Great American Cities’ became the earliest documented

acknowledgement of how the built environment can be used for crime prevention. Jacobs argues that space can be designed for crime reduction by increasing natural surveillance; she suggests “there must be eyes upon the street” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 45). Here, Jacobs argues that if a space is designed to be overlooked, people will notice when things are happening, and consequently, they will react when necessary (figure 6). She suggests that “they [those who watch over the streets] observe everything going on. If they need to take action, whether to direct a stranger … or to call the police, they do so” (Jacobs, 2011, p. 48).

Figure 6: A diagrammatic representation of natural surveillance. Source: Minneapolis 2040

This is supported by Whyte (2012, p. 19) who suggests “good places are largely self-policing”. He identifies the Seagram plaza (figure 7) as a model space for inclusive design. Whyte emphasises how the Seagram’s relaxed management, and well-placed seating, allows for many different types of people to feel secure in the space. Consequently, these people look after the space, and often intervene with ‘unacceptable’ activities before the management are required to do so. This contrasts with spaces such as Bryant Park (figures 8 and 9) which, at the time, was well known for criminal activity. Whyte (2012, p. 19)

1983. He states how spaces which are “designed in distrust get what was anticipated and it is in them, ironically, that you will most likely find a wino” (Whyte, 2012, p. 19). Here, Whyte is suggesting that hostile architecture may increase ‘undesirable activities’, as opposed to prevent them, and Bryant Park was an example of this. This is because in its attempt to remove ‘undesirables’, hostile architecture also tends to force the ‘desirables’ out of the space. Consequently, a quieter space emerges, something that is often favourable to the ‘undesirables’ in our society.

Within this analysis, it may be argued that spaces which have been designed in such a way as to encourage self-policing and natural surveillance often perform better than their ‘hostile’ counterparts. Thus, it is important to understand why this is the case, and why hostile architecture is still enacted, when research suggests it may even make a space more dangerous. As the next chapter will highlight, perhaps the reason for the increase in hostile, or defensive, architecture may be due to rising crime rates, and the public fear which is associated with this.

Figure 7: A film still taken from Whyte’s 1988 study of the Seagram Plaza, showing how the plaza is inviting to all and works well to provide public space. Source: Whyte (1988)

Figure 8: The entrance to Bryant Park, before its redesign in 1983. Source: OLIN (1981a)

Figure 9: Bryant Park, diagram of criminal activity – arguably caused by its large walls which were erected to prevent the behaviours. Source: OLIN (1981b)