Comparison and Contrast: Jane Jacobs Sidewalks: Safety - Essay Example

 Jane Jacobs offers a of sidewalks that suggests they are a vital, living, breathing part of all streets, large or small. She suggests that sidewalks are extensions of city streets, while also serving as extensions of the lives of residents, patrons, and businesses conducting themselves in close proximity to the streets. Sidewalks provide a means of getting from point A to point B in many large cities where walking is the most common means of travel within a specific area. Jacobs further suggests that safe streets and safe buildings begin at the sidewalk. Sidewalks are the most visible area to all who use them. Therefore, sidewalk safety should be an extension of the people who use them or are located in close proximity to them. If all those around a specific area of sidewalk can see everything that goes on, they should be able to protect those who use the sidewalks from any type of harm. Jacobs’ description of the purpose of sidewalks alludes to the type of activity that occurs beyond their boundaries. It can be assumed that if sidewalks are unsafe and riddled with crime, so are the streets and businesses within close proximity. Jacobs describes three different factors that have lead to unsafe sidewalks. When evaluated more thoroughly, it becomes evident that no one specific action or occurrence is to blame. Instead, it appears that a combination of causes leads to unsafe sidewalks. This combination of occurrences has not occurred overnight. It has occurred slowly over time, as various aspects of society change. The first point of discussion is the fact that people seem to have lost the sense of community or pride in community. Jacobs describes many incidents on the streets of major cities such as Boston and New York, where residents, bystanders and proprietors have intervened when crimes have occurred or have begun to occur. An example in Boston adds to the concept of community pride. An area of relative safety is the North End of Boston, where, according to Frank Harvey of the North End Union, “I have been here in the North End 28 years and have never heard of a single case of rape, mugging, molestation of a child or other street crime of that sort in the district” (Jacobs, 1993, p. 33). Harvey continues to elaborate that even unreported crime is known to residents of the district in which he resides. In comparison, the Elm Hill district, which was once a vital and desirable district of Boston in which to live and conduct business, has become riddled with crime of its sidewalks and extensions. The key factor is this comparison is pride of community. The Elm Hill district is run down, so there is little effort put forth by its inhabitants and few passers-by, to keep it safe. Residents and shop keepers of specific areas who invest time, effort and money into an area tend to want to protect their physical and emotional investments. In order to do this, they must protect each other from harm or crime. They are more watchful of the activities in the neighborhoods where they work or live. They look out for each other and those who come to their district, because they have an interest and benefit in doing so. Today citizens are taught to be aware of their surroundings, regardless of which sidewalks, districts, or areas they visit. This does not excuse local residents and business owners from keeping a watchful eye. Many communities and business districts have formed neighborhood watches to prevent or deter crimes from occurring. This practice is similar to those that likely occur in the North End of Boston. There is less reliance on law enforcement as a first line of defense and law enforcement organizations generally encourage group watches. With a changing society and increase in ‘street crime.’ law enforcement workers are overwhelmed and unable to police every street in every district. The second factor discussed by Jacobs is the shifting of people or populations in such a manner that people are complete strangers to each other. Society has become increasingly mobile, in terms of visiting neighborhoods and districts away from where they live. This behavior makes it much more difficult for those living and working within a specific neighborhood or district to determine who belongs and who does not. There are fewer familiar faces, less continuity, and little in the way of typical habits to identify what seems out of place. Today, rather than becoming suspicious of someone inhabiting the sidewalks based on looks, citizens are taught to be suspicious of certain behaviors. They are taught to be leery of adults who spend too much time or take more than a little notice of children. They have been told to watch for packages which are not set down in close proximity of their handlers. Children are taught not to talk to street vendors selling the wide array of foods, goods and toys. The messages can be confusing. If owners or workers of local shops and businesses cannot be trusted, than nobody can be trusted. Due to greater frequency in job changes, transfers, and changes in family status, society is much more mobile, increasing the likelihood that a new neighbor will move into a neighborhood overnight, undetected. Neighbors may move out unexpectedly as well. Though members of neighborhood watches are taught to learn habits and patterns of their neighbors, it becomes a much more challenging task when neighbors move in and out frequently. Sidewalks are not used to meet the new neighbors as much as they have been in the past. It is more likely that the neighbors next door will be introduced at the school open house or at the local auto repair shop, if at all. Society has become mobile and busier. Moms juggle careers with family responsibilities. There is less time for the social aspects of living in a particular neighborhood. As Jacobs (1993, p. 36) points out, “You can’t make people use streets they have no reason to use. You can’t make people watch streets they don’t want to watch.” With busier lives, it is less a matter of not wanting to watch or use the streets, than a matter of not having the time. Though this aspect of today’s society is not likely to change, it does make it easier for crime to be committed. When children are sent out to play in suburban streets where parents believe little crime occurs, there is less fear. Parents and entire neighborhoods may let down their guard and become easy prey for certain types of crime. Though residents of suburban sidewalks believe that fewer people equals less risk, it may be quite the opposite. Less use and watching of sidewalks becomes an invitation for crime, which may likely go undetected or undiscovered until after it is committed. The third factor Jacobs discusses is the concept of Turf or areas which restrict who may and may not enter. It is common practice to build communities that are secured, gated or otherwise separated from the rest of the community by some type of physical barrier. Housing projects for the less affluent are often located in undesirable locations, where there is little access to stores, medical clinics and other businesses necessary for daily living. Such actions commonly taken by city planners sends a message to those inside, that they are less valuable than the rest of society. Though there is some argument as to whether this phenomenon itself leads to an increase in crime, there is little doubt that such practices deter outsiders, including law enforcement and other service providers within the community. Not only are the residents of such housing projects restricted in terms of outside access, they are labeled by the rest of the community. Those who believe they are of less value to society may be more likely to commit crimes. Those gated communities built for the middle class or more affluent citizens with specific districts or neighborhoods send a similar message. Those who do not belong inside are less valued. Such action can lead to feelings of hostility and resentment, which further leads to crime. When residents rarely step outside a gated or restricted area, there is also less monitoring of the sidewalks and streets. Residents are extremely unaware of what goes on, even within their own block. It also may send the message that outsiders are somehow less deserving of the protection of watchful eyes. Jacobs describes the various situations which make sidewalks unsafe today. They are legitimate arguments, as there are fewer communities and neighborhoods that possess the ability to monitor streets and sidewalks. In many situations, sidewalks are no longer extensions of the streets or businesses and residences connected to them. They are places where unwanted or negative actions are more likely to occur than anywhere else. They are open public places that belong to everyone but are protected by nobody. Even when some possess the ability to watch and help protect sidewalks, they do not feel obligated to do so. The stories of assaults taking place in large metropolitan parks while residents of high rise buildings hear and close their blinds or windows, failing to call or protect the victims, are common today. There is no single cause for this type of human behavior. Society has been conditioned over time to accept individual risk and ignore those living nearby. The examples that Jacobs uses show that when neighborhoods or districts possess few barriers and inhabitants possess a sense of belonging, they are watchful of each other. They have invested in their spaces and possess a sense of ownership of spaces such as the sidewalks, as extensions of their homes and businesses. Reference Jacobs, J. (1993). The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Chapter 2, pp. 29-54. New York: Random House. Read More