There is indeed some intriguing research published in Randal Atlas’ new book 21st Century Security and CPTED about a UK study on new urbanist versus Secure By Design neighborhoods. That study is marred by a misunderstanding and poor conceptualization of what those two forms actually are. Atlas himself reports on his own research on gated communities and security and found them signifantly wanting.

I’m a big supporter of research (being a researcher, I admit my bias). But ultimately we may wait decades for conclusive research. As I’ve said on my SafeGrowth blog, we must guard against the ROTO crowd (Research-On-The-Obvious). ROTO studies distract us from the common sense reality of street safety.

Jane Jacobs had it right 4 decades ago: a functioning, vital and engaging local neighborhood combined with increased positive activity on the street. That’s it!

If design encourages those activities, serious street crime will diminish. If it walls off, forts-up, or distracts from this – it won’t.

I’ve added the International CPTED Association to the resource list above, and through that organization found Cozens’ paper New Urbanism, Crime and the Suburbs: A Review of the Evidence. I would like to follow up by reading some of the sources cited in the paper.

However, what I notice in Cozens’ paper is many of the same issues I discussed in this blog post. One, there is little or no evidence from new urbanist projects that are recognized as such by new urbanists. Let’s get actual evidence from actual new urbanist developments. Two, well-connected street layouts are just one element in a comprehensive strategy of design principles practiced by new urbanists; there is little relevance in criticizing new urbanist techniques by isolating this one factor out of context. Three, crime impacts are important, but so are all the other benefits of well-connected street layouts, such as reduced traffic crash risk, faster emergency response, more walking, biking and transit use, and superior quality and vitality of the civic realm. Finally, as you say, what about the sterilizing impact on social life and culture? Do we really want to head toward a built environment that resembles a maximum security prison?

Surely there must be a middle ground where the costs and benefits are reasonably balanced, and where alternatives to gating and disconnection may be invented and developed. I think most participants in this debate agree the social and physical contexts are the most important issues, and that one-size-fits-all responses generally yield inferior results.

Gates, walls, alleys, lights, public vs private space, numbers of turns, and so on and so forth. All important things, to be sure. But pleeeese…let us not sterilize the environment away from the most important factor of all – the social lives and culture of those who actually live in that environment.

How many times do those folks who spend their lives studying, building, and writing about safe cities have to repeat the simple message that – when it comes to city safety – it is the social space that matters most. Vital and functional neighborhoods…that’s where where is at!

…I found this research done in England (cue the cries of “this doesn’t apply to Alameda because it’s in England!) using Space Syntax to evaluate street connectivity and factors like crime, some results are logged in this report:…