by
Tom McKay
One of the things that I like most about CPTED is its broad appeal across diverse user groups. That, along with its big net “proper design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime as well as improve the quality of life”1 definition, can give it a “duct-tape”-like quality of 1001 creative, applications or uses.
For Police Services, it’s greatest appeal tends to be when it is used as a problem-solving tool to address and/or prevent on-going problems. This provides an ideal opportunity to collect some great before and after photos which can be used in a variety of ways. They can help the practitioner hone and prove his/her craft which, when coupled with a statistical comparison in the now “evidence-based”2 world of most police services, can be developed into a pragmatic case-study, good-news story and/or otherwise help to validate and/or promote its use. I regularly used successful CPTED applications while at Peel Police to prove, present and promote the case, long before evidence-based policing was conceived. As for the Police Service, success is typically measured statistically by a reduction in crime and a corresponding reduction in repeat calls for service.
For municipalities, Business Improvement Areas (BIA’s) and Crime Prevention/Sate City groups, CPTED success is more people focused. It therefore, tends to be used when addressing poorly used locations and environment suffering from fear-induced, avoidance behaviour, be it stoked by a poorly located access point, lack of light, less than timely maintenance and/or an under or lightly-used site. After-all, why build public buildings that people are afraid to use. For these service providers, CPTED success can be measured by traffic counts thus helping to ensure the critical intensity of people to effectively discourage criminal activity and, in the process, help reduce the “fear and incidence of crime”. The same can be said of landlords, retailers or other end-users. None of these groups can be expected to enjoy success for very long, without people being willing to access their site or their city or town.
And what about the plethora of developers, designers, engineers, planners and consultants, each with their own motivations and reasons for designing purpose-built environments that attract and sustain people where they can “live, work and play”. For these professionals, CPTED success can be measured by the development of legacy projects that not only meet but exceed the expectations envisioned for the site and, in the process, enhance their professional reputation. CPTED, when all is said and done, has often been described as simply “good design” which is a fundamental design outcome.
That brings me to my idea as to what CPTED success looks like, and that is an unobtrusive, “everyday” improvement in the quality of life which is so subtle that most people would not recognize it as an intervention of any kind, in favour of “seeing it as part of ordinary life”3. Such was the case with the window ledge of a family restaurant located adjacent to the set of doors which served as the transit entrance for those who arrived by bus at a local mall.
The window-ledge served as a place to roost for youth who liked to hang-out in and around the area before the flower box (shown above) was added after Police received a complaint from the restaurant manager. The manager had advised of customer complaints whereby the youth performed crude gestures and acts directed at restaurant patrons while sitting on the window sill. This included giving patrons “the finger” and even spitting on the glass while the restaurant’s customers tried to enjoy their meals.
This ultimately led to the window-box recommendation, that was built to follow the off-set frame of the windows. The intent of the box was to occupy the space that the youth were previously using to sit. The net result was an enhanced and more inviting look to the restaurant with no more complaints about teen behaviour.
This was eventually followed by a second window-box along the next sill, the decision for which was made by the restaurant alone. As I never talked to the restaurant manager nor heard of another complaint, I will never know their motivation behind the second window-box so I’m left to only speculate whether it was meant to simply enhance the routine use and enjoyment of restaurant goers, attract attention to the restaurant or perhaps deal with some displacement? Regardless, any intervention that is so subtle that it leaves the person who made the original recommendation pondering its purpose when it is extended, is what CPTED success looks like to me! And best of all, we were able to accomplish this without resorting to hostile architecture, which should be never be contemplated when lesser interventions will do.
So I hope that the next time you find yourself admiring some flowers or an otherwise well-ordered place, you think to ask yourself, is there more to its presentation than meets the eye? And while you’re in a reflective mood, why not ask yourself, what does CPTED success look like to you? Afterall, what better way is there to aid in understanding while validating and promoting the concept along with you.
And as for CPTED Canada, we are always interested in having people share there CPTED success stories in the form of a blog which may lead to a request for a presentation to the membership. And please don’t forget to register for the Spring Conference starting in January, to be held at Seneca College in King City on April 25th. The conference’s CPTED Success Story theme is sure to ignite that CPTED passion in all of us, I know it will with me.
1 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Crowe, Timothy D., Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991, pg. 40.
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_policing
3 Wayne Nishihama, Dec. 14th, 2023 CPTED Canada conference meeting