Comparing the Ideas of Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman - Essay Example

Essay Topic: Compare and contrast the ideas of Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman in their approach to safety and security in urban neighbourhoods and centres. Which do you think is the most appropriate? Justify your answer. The close proximity of urban neighbourhoods to cities and cities’ tendency to be high crime areas has engaged criminologists and theorists in discussions about maintaining urban safety and security (Marzbali et al, 2011). Jacobs and Newman both made valuable contributions to the idea of urban safety by connecting crime control as well as the fear of crime to urban design and the common activities manifested in daily living (Wekerle, 2000). The idea of defensible space originated out of the ideas of Jane Jacobs in 1961 and was further developed by Oscar Newman in 1973 (Greenberg et al, 1982). Both Jacobs and Newman ultimately argued in favour of creating boundaries in urban neighbourhoods for crime prevention strategies, although in slightly different ways. Jacobs is largely credited with articulating the “eyes on the street” theory of crime prevention in urban neighbourhoods, while Newman is credited with expanding upon Jacob’s theory and developing what has come to be known as defensible space (Carmona, et al, 2010, p. 151). Essentially, Jacobs argued that keeping our eyes on the street provides a significant remedy for keeping our streets and neighbourhoods safer and more secure. Newman used the term defensible space to expound upon Jacob’s theory and argued that the infrastructure of urban areas with high-rise buildings created danger because people who occupied these places were helpless to defend, identify, see their entire property. Eradicating fear of crime and prevention crime was therefore solved by creating boundaries that segregated the streets from the streets (Carmona, et al, 2010). Thus both Jacobs and Newman contributed to the theory that urban design is a valuable method for reducing the fear of crime and preventing crime in urban neighbourhoods by recognising and responding to the idea of creating boundaries between areas that were in close proximity to high crime areas: the city. Jacobs (1961) proposed that by increasing neighbourhood participation at the street level would help residents to control their surrounding streets. The rationale for this theory was that the more eyes directed toward the streets would act as a deterrent to crime. Jacobs (1961) argued that placing bright lights on streets is not enough unless there are eyes trained on the area. She argued that eyes are the primary method for crime prevention and cautioned that crimes to occur in well light areas while crimes will not occur in a dark area that is well attended, such as in a “darkened theatre” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 42). Jacobs (1961) explained that crimes: Virtually never occur in darkened theaters where may people and eyes are present. Street lights can be like that famous stone that falls in the desert where there are no ears to hear. Does it make a noise? Without effective eyes to see, does a light case light? Not for practical purposes (p. 42). Streets for the purpose of keeping a watchful eye are figurative expressions for Jacobs (1961). Streets can mean any means by which citizens get from one location to another and thus streets according to Jacobs (1961) include elevators, corridors or any kind of thoroughfare in modern high-rise buildings which are described as “derivatives of Radian City” (p.42). Elevators, corridors and other thoroughfares in and around high-rise buildings are streets because their main purpose is “eliminate streets on the ground and permit the ground to become deserted parks” in areas where “the tree was stolen” (Jacobs, 1961. p. 42). These substitutive streets create dangers in that they are accessed by residents who may or may not know one another. Moreover these substitutive streets link these buildings to the actual streets and therefor the public at large. These substitutive streets are more dangerous than public streets because they do not have the watchful eyes that public streets have and thus “lack the checks and inhibitions exerted by eye-policed city streets” (Jacobs, 1961, p. 43). Atlas (1991) agrees with Jacobs assessment of the dangers of urban living in what Jacobs (1961) termed the “blind-eyed” streets (p. 43). According to Atlas, criminals have the same ideas about these substitutive streets and are more inclined to use areas that are hidden from public view further segregated from public and police detection and apprehension by the presence of fences, walls and other physical barriers. Deterrence in these areas works well when there are watchful doormen, elevator attendants and other persons who serve as look-out personnel (Atlas, 1991). In other words, Jacob’s (1961) idea of eyes on the street translates to mean increased human activities in the areas of the corridors, pathways, elevators and other means by which residents and strangers alike have access to high-rise buildings or urban neighbourhoods. Thus Jacobs (1961) advocated that with a varying degree of people on streets or in places accessible by the public, at different times which essentially took place during day time, indicated that eyes on the street had a deterrent effect. One only had to take into account that fewer crimes took place during the day. This is not because of lighting, but primarily because there is always someone present and with this means eyes were always watching, making detection and apprehension more probable. For Jacobs (1961) this meant that ironically, larger and busy city streets were safer because the increased activities on the street acted as a form of common and ad hoc form of policing in urban areas where individuals are merely conducting their daily activities. Jacobs’ (1961) eyes on the street theory provide an important doctrinal basis for Newman’s idea of defensible space. Jacobs (1961) essentially argued that ordinary citizens can inadvertently contribute to crime prevention in much the same way as conscious policing. Similarly, Newman (1973) argued that housing design may: Release latent attitudes in tenants which allow them to assume behaviour necessary to the protection of their rights and property (p. xii). Newman (1973) also argues in a way that is similar to Jacobs (1961) theory of eyes on the street that, maintaining defensible spaces motivates occupiers to perform a “significant policing function, nature to their daily routine and activities” and this would serve a significant deterrent “against anti-social behaviour” (p. xii). Newman’s (1973) defensible space theory is similar to Jacobs’ eyes on the street theory by definition. Newman (1973) defines defensible space as: A surrogate term for the range of mechanisms – real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved opportunities for surveillance – that combine to bring an environment under the control of its residents (p. 3). The only discernible difference in the theories of Jacobs (1961) and Newman (1973) is that Jacobs focused attention on how urban living can foster and create criminal activities and how increasing activities in urban living can counter criminal activities. Newman (1973) more directly focused attention on how urban living can be an important tool in crime prevention. Newman (1973) essentially identified four opportunities in urban living for preventing criminal activities. First, the “physical environment” itself provide “zones of territorial influence” (Newman, 1973, p. 50). These zones automatically engaged citizens in a way that created opportunities for surveillance and the conscious creation of boundaries. While this is similar to Jacobs’ (1961) eyes on the street theory, Newman (1973) expands on Jacobs’ (1961) by adding that keeping one’s garden and building tidy would also signal the constant presence of the occupier and thus would act as a deterrent to crime. In other words, Newman (1973) goes farther than Jacobs (1961) by adding that a neighbourhood or residence that was physically neglected could attract criminals and thus increase the chances of criminal activity. Newman’s (1973) second opportunity for crime prevention in urban living is expressed in terms of opportunities for surveillance and is thus very similar to Jacobs’ (1961) eyes on the street theory. Here Newman (1973) like Jacobs (1961) directs the focus on how occupants of urban dwelling places can consciously serve as look-outs. What distinguishes Newman’s (1973) theory from Jacob’s (1961) theory is that Jacobs (1961) appears to advocate for unconscious observations while Newman (1973) advocates for deliberate and conscious observations of the neighbourhood. In other words, Jacobs (1961) argues for increasing activities with the appearance of watching, while Newman (1973) argues for deliberately keeping an eye out on the neighbourhood. Newman’s (1973) third opportunity for crime prevention in urban living is: ...the capacity of design to influence the perception of a project’s uniqueness, isolation and sigma (p. 50). Thus, Newman (1973) like Jacobs (1961) identified the way that urban designs may be such that they appealed to criminals. Like Jacobs (1961), Newman suggested that how residents acted in these areas could also act as a deterrent or may encourage criminal activities. For instance when residents were inactive, their neighbourhoods could act as crime magnets. However, when residents were active, criminals would perceive the chances of detection and apprehension were higher and thus committing crimes in these areas were too risky. In other words, both Jacobs (1961) and Newman (1973) recognized that the physical characteristics of neighbourhoods could be used by criminals to increase their activities and recognizing this, residents could safeguard against this by minimising the appeal of their residence as crime magnets. This would be accomplished by surveillance and maintenance (Newman, 1973) and increased activity (Jacobs, 1961). Newman’s (1973) fourth opportunity for crime prevention is described as: the influence of geographical juxtaposition with ‘safe zones’ on the security of adjacent areas (p. 50). Like Jacobs (1961) Newman (1973) proposes that increased activities of people in the narrow confines of the neighbourhood in a way that mirrors the activities of the busy city creates safer urban living. For Newman, it is the physical design or urban dwelling places that contribute to criminal activities. In particular Newman (1973) argued that: ...the physical form of the urban environment is possibly the most cogent ally the criminal has in his victimisation of society (p. 2). It can therefore be argued that both Jacobs (1961) and Newman (19730 recognized that residents of urban neighbourhoods could contribute to neighbourhood safety and security by creating a community in which the perceptions were that residents were always on the look-out for outsiders and criminal behaviour. Newman (1973) merely added to and not detracted from Jacobs’ (1961) eyes on the street theory. Newman (1973) added the dimension of conscious surveillance and neighbourhood up-keep to Jacobs’ (1961) active citizenship in the substitutive streets of the neighbourhood. Bibliography Atlas, R. 1991. “The Other Side of CPTED.” Architecture and Security, March: 63-66. Carmona, M.; Tiesdell, S.; Heath, T. and Oc, T. 2010. Public Places – Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Greenberg, S.W.; Rohe, W. M. and Williams, J. R. 1982. “Safety in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparison of Physical Characteristics and Informal Territorial Control in High and Low Crime Neighbourshoods.” Population & Environment, Vol. 5(3): 141-165. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House. Marzbali, M.; Abdullah, A. and Razak, N. February 2011. “A Review of the Effectiveness of Crime Prevention by Design Approaches Towards Sustainable Development.” Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 4(1): 160-171. Newman, O. 1973. Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London, UK: Architectural Press. Wekerle, G. 2000. “From Eyes on the Street to Safe Cities [Speaking of Places]”. Places, Vol. 13(1): 44-49. Read More