The Urban Lighthouse Project
Urban Intervention Report James Nicholas Freijah
Title: The Urban Lighthouse Project - Urban Intervention Audience: Melbourne City Pedestrian Traffic
Locations: Corner of Swanston and Victoria Street, State Library Forecourt Date: Saturday the 29th of March Duration: 0700 - 2100
Intervention Summary: To inspire social engagement through creative, eye-
catching and provocative urban installations. The intervention consisted of taping out controversial statements and a creative lighting display on public footpaths in Melbourne’s Central Business District (CBD). In addition to mapping individual interaction with site, the intervention proposed questions regarding the impact of street lighting and CCTV surveillance cameras on creating a safer urban environment, particularly after dark. In conclusion, the intervention integrated the narrative of The Urban Lighthouse project to begin engaging public opinion. Can creative street lighting installations and/or crowdsourcing CCTV surveillance for public viewing contribute to a safer urban environment?
003 _ Introduction
James Nicholas Freijah
Site 1
Site 3
Site 2
Left: Diagrammatic plan of intervention locations. This plan is not to scale. Left page top right: 2 images indicating site 1 before and after intervention was set up. Above: 2 images indicating site 2 before and after intervention was set up. Right: 2 images, top is a photo of the former Police Headquarters in Russell Street after the 1986 bombing. Below is an image of the lighting installation displayed in the State Library of Victoria Forecourt.
Site 1: RMIT Design Hub, corner Swanston and Victoria street. Security cameras were installed post construction and not initially intended as they disrupt the seamless, repetitive style of the facade. Increased vandalism (smashing of circular panels) and the inherent risk of the public easily climbing the structure meant CCTV surveillance was necessary. I chose to lay down an intervention outside this building because it is a strong example of private surveillance used to protect private space, contrast to how ‘The Urban Lighthouse Project’ proposes CCTV surveillance to equally protect people in public spaces and private property by an openly transparent, holistic urban surveillance network, placing ’eyes on the street.’
Site 2: The State Library of Victoria Forecourt, Swanston Street. This space experience high pedestrian traffic, an excellent place to observe passerby interaction with the intervention and engage in discussion with those who stop and activate the space through their inquisitive nature. This public space also has two CCTV cameras overlooking the street and forecourt, easy to recognise and motivate discussion. Highlighting the contemporary nature of the issues this project tackles, the relevance of the statement, ’you are being watched,’ and question being asked, do you feel more secure in the CBD knowing you’re under CCTV surveillance? Site 3: The final site was suppose to be on Russell Street, outside the former Police Headquarters of Victoria, installed after dark. In addition to taping the statement, ‘a well-used and well-lit city street is apt to being a safe city street’ and proposing the question, If Melbourne CBD has a 24 hour culture, would you be more inclined to visit and stay longer in the city after dark?, this intervention incorporated a model lighting installation designed based off of the 1986 bombing of the police headquarters. For the sake of acquiring data, this intervention was run out of site 2. 005 _ Site
James Nicholas Freijah
Top: Diagrammatic plan of the intervention intended for the State Library of Victoria Forecourt Left: Perspective sketch of the intervention at the State Library of Victoria Forecourt. The sketch identifies two ways ‘you are being watched’ in a public urban environment; subconscious watched/policed by surrounding passersby and CCTV surveillance.
Project Narrative: Hi, my name is James. I’m a 4th year Architecture student at the University of Melbourne. My studio this semester is founded on the principles of Crowd-funding Architecture, a framework that allows projects big and small, personal and community driven to obtain financing through donations. Growing on my belief that Architecture plays a significant role in building for social change, Crowd-funding projects give society the power to dictate built form and create Architecture in primary response to community benefit. My project, coined ‘The Urban Lighthouse Project,’ is in direct response to the contemporary social problem of unsafe urban centres after dark. The Urban Lighthouse Project reflects statistics identifying the increased ‘rate-ofcrime’ found in urban centres. A correlation between inadequate lighting and unsafe streets within the urban environment, characterize negative social behaviour and a loss of cultural identity. The project proposes an architectural solution to revitalize safety and security in the city after-dark. The Urban Lighthouse Project proposes Crowd-funding lighting installations, that offer urban activation (linking cultural activity) and lit public space for security after dark, in conjunction with a an observatory, or metaphoric lighthouse. This later component consists of crowd-sourced CCTV surveillance footage from the urban centre, in addition with video camera footage integrated within street lighting installations to exhibit a live feed of the city. Like a lighthouse guiding ocean vessels to safety away from the danger of land, the observatory diffuses the public eye, watching the urban environment holistically, constantly and creatively to impart a safer, culturally rich and lively urban environment after dark. 007 _ Design
James Nicholas Freijah
Deserted = Unsafe
Well-Used = Safe
“A well-used city street is apt to being a safe city street. A deserted city street is apt to be unsafe” Jane Jacobs
“It does not take many incidents of violence on a city street to make people fear the streets...And as they fear them, they use them less, which makes the streets still more unsafe” Jane Jacobs
“...there must be eyes upon the streets, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the streets” Jane Jacobs
“The sight of people attracts still other people” Jane Jacobs 009 _ Diagrams
James Nicholas Freijah
“Good lighting offers reassurance to people who wish to use the sidewalk at night, who then become street watchers simply by their presence” Jane Jacobs
The notion of crowdsourcing CCTV surveillance footage and streaming it live, draws on the localised concept that “... there must be eyes upon the streets,” and applies the theory on a city wide scale, increasing the likelihood that somebody is watching.
011 _ Diagrams
James Nicholas Freijah
10:00 - 10:15
13:20 - 13:35
15:15 - 15:30
Survey sample size Took no notice
20:15 - 20:30
Looked but kept walking Followed arrow to CCTV camera but kept walking Stopped and engaged the intervention
Data Collection - 15 Minute Observations: Reactions were varied, but overall positive and conclusive. This exercise involved recording the reactions of every passerby in a 15 minute period. The reactions recorded included, (A) ‘taking no notice of the intervention,’ (B) ‘seeing the intervention but not stopping to gain a greater understanding,’ (C) ‘again seeing the intervention and not stopping however casting their gaze to the CCTV surveillance cameras pointed out,’ and actually (D) ‘stopping to engage the intervention - activating the space.’ This exercise was conducted four times during the day; Test 1 at 10:00, Test 2 at 13:20, Test 3 at 15:15 and Test 4 at 20:15. The results are creatively diagrammed on the left.
Proportionally, in test 1, 2 and 3, the majority of people reacted ‘B,’ followed by ‘A,’ ‘D’ and ‘C’ respectively. On average 28% of passersby did not engage the intervention, however a majority 72% of passersby did! Although this interest was varied and many individuals did not engage with the space at such an emotional/intellectual level as others, the results are a clear indication that society responds to creative public art expressions. If one is able to reach out and engage an individuals already inquisitive nature, one has the power to draw a crowd.
Test 4 on the other hand produced differing results to Tests 1, 2 and 3. In this exercise the intervention incorporated a model lighting installation. Reactions in this case saw the majority of passersby in group ‘D,’ followed by ‘B,’ ‘C’ and ‘A.’ Less than 3% of individuals did not engaged the site in one way, shape or form, from visual to the physical embodiment of space in time. That is a staggering 97%. The most exciting observation was that 48% of passersby were actually stopping and activating the space. This result is a clear indication of how creative lighting and provocative street art can engage public interest and effectively activate urban space. In addition, the 48% in group ‘D’ formed a constant crowd around the installation and effectively drew more and more attention to the intervention, reducing numbers in group ‘A’ to below 3% and justify Jane Jacobs statement that,
“The sight of people attracts still other people”
This exercise effectively legitimized the proposition of creative lighting installations to inspire social interest and cultural activity by activating space after dark, creating a safer urban environment because of increased use.
021 _ Observations
James Nicholas Freijah
Passersby contributing to the social media response board, answering question such as; do you feel more secure in the CBD knowing you’re under CCTV surveillance? If Melbourne CBD has a 24 hour culture, would you be more inclined to visit and stay longer in the city after dark? and sourcing public opinion a transparent CCTV surveillance network, holistically watching the city and its people as opposed to privatised security vision, integrated with a creative lighting scheme for the city For the full list of responses please visit #theurbanlighthouseproject Ebony “there are both pros and cons, there is the potential to create a safer environment but also to be misused” Fodusempire “no, violence and general shittery occur regardless of cameras. Promoting friendly behaviour is one answer but anti social types will always exist. All we can do is minimize it as much as possible. Art is a step forward” Sal, Tessa and Kyle “no, are concerned they could
be watched by the wrong people. Believe the project can create a safer urban environment” Isabella “Lighting makes a space safer after dark” Sebastien and Mary “appreciate the theory behind lighting brining people to the street and in turn increasing safety, however not fans of CCTV surveillance” gmk888 “i feel safe with open source CCTV” Jake and Tal “project proposes benefit to safer more secure streets! Perhaps if the lighting installations incorporated distress buttons on site and in exhibition space, the response time to issues would be better and contribute to one for filling their role of social accountability, the bystander affect” Yvonne “yes, want the increased safety of the proposal but concerned with the big brother effect” Mia “yes a safer urban environment because they scare bad people” Mila and Edgar “proposal sounds feasible, live feed as artwork”
Megan “yes with proposal” John, Jess and Ellen “No, you do not know who or if someone is watching but yes with proposal because it is the public watching like here on the street” Oscar Hoffman “yes if open source and publicly controlled” Bikes_of_3000 “yes, the only people with something to hide are paranoid” rcasey28 “yes” Emily “yes for creative lighting” Hannah and Bec “yes” Zoe “No, invasive. Issues are deeper” _Timothymore “No, security cameras only help after the fact, the real social problem is not at this level” Rafi “yes with crowdsourced public viewing availability, this proposal is a step in the right direction” Haziq “yes if it was open sourced and publicly available” jfreijah “CCTV cameras contribute to a perceived feeling of security, they can be engaged/used more effectively
Data Collection - Talking on the Street: Potentially the most val-
uable information was collected by me actually approaching passersby that stopped to engage with the intervention. Feedback was varied, but every opinion was valid and thought provoking, sometime rasing more questions than what they were suppose to help answer. An initial observation was consistency of responses reacting to the overall scheme for creating a safer urban environment. They all accepted, if they did not already agree, the premise of a lit environment having the inherent quality of making a space safe, that people watching people were policing each other at a localised subconscious level and receptive to the concept of translating this idea to an urban scale.
The only real concern raised regarding the lighting proposals was that later on today was earth house, raising awareness of light pollution and here I was calling for increased urban lighting. Through discussion, Bikes_of_3000 and I, came to the resolution that smart street lighting would be most effective. Solar powered and LED globs would provide adequate lighting while also promoting environmental sustainable building practices. Concerns were raised regarding CCTV surveillance. Firstly, public outcry to identify who is watching? Secondly, if someone is watching 24/7 and thirdly, how that information is stored and used? These questions hinder the current system of CCTV surveillance, casting a negative stigma over the devices functionality to provide urban security.
On another level, passersby indicated that CCTV cameras did not make them feel safe and secure because of their nature of being secondary to the fact. Commonly used to publicise crime captured on tape and the persecute offenders, CCTV surveillance does not stop the act and help the victim in real time like a natural bystander might, or deter the crime from happening in the first place, primary to the fact.
The most confronting public observation, regarding the project proposal, was the fact that both the lighting installations and observatory building are surface level treatments for creating a safer urban environment. This architectural solution does not addressing the social circumstances which lead to acts of violence. However the proposal does not justify merely being a deterrent, as it is designed to inspire social engagement, activating spaces within the urban context to draw in more people, placing more eyes on the street to create a safer more secure environment and culture of violent free public urban space.
023 _ Observations
James Nicholas Freijah
025 _ Photos
James Nicholas Freijah
‘The Urban Lighthouse Project’ argues that increased rate-of-crime on city streets fosters the perception of an unsafe urban environment, reducing public activity which is further detrimental to creating a safer more secure city context. Governance primarily address this issue in the form of increased police visibility and secondary measures such as CCTV surveillance and public street lighting to deter criminal activity.
One major concern raised during the intervention was that ‘The Urban Lighthouse Project’ similarly offered surface level treatment to what is a deeper social problem. In reflection, as true as this seems, the project has greater potential to become more than just another deterrent. Designed specifically for increasing public security, the concept draws attention to and creates awareness of this contemporary problem and proposes to construct a foundation for creating safe public space by attracting more people to the city. Building on the premise that “the sight of people attracts still other people” and “A well-used city street is apt to being a safe city street,” the proposal envisions creating a rich urban culture, not completely free of violence but significant enough to change social behaviour at a deeper, more involved emotional level. Regarding police enforcement, statistics indicate that crime in urban centres do decreased, however after the point where normal enforcement had broken down, their presence detracts from the cultural activation of space as one alters their behaviour furthermore. The project proposes a utopian position of self-policing and self-regulation as the final stage for creating an ideal safe and secure urban environment.
The premise behind safety in numbers comes from the notion that complete strangers are subconsciously watching each other and behaving in a manor suitable to inhabiting a public space. The project’s proposal to crowdsource CCTV footage, engages this concept from its local scale and applies it on an urban scale. Knowing your being watched on a deserted street like you would be on a busy street, the culture, safety and security is transferred. The intervention identified the necessity for this footage to be completely open sourced and publicly accessible, creating a platform of transparency so that the power created is not misused.
027 _ Conclusion
James Nicholas Freijah