Barbara Spyropoulos, Director, CPTED Canada
Truthfully, even with police officers on every corner, crime will never be completely eliminated. Reduction of criminal activity requires the wilful intent of the individual to do the right thing. Fortunately, this happens most of the time. Unfortunately, with the constant barrage of bad news, people perceive crime to be rampant in certain areas. They withdraw to their own dwellings and leave the streets to the bandits, thus turning perception into a reality.
To reverse this trend, one must do the hard work of replacing fear with empowerment. This must be done in collaboration with users of the space as they understand what the real problems are. Often ‘experts’ appear on scene and decide without proper consultation what the problem and the solution will be. The outcome is not always favourable.
So, too, with CPTED. When users of the space are treated as team members, CPTED solutions are generated almost automatically since CPTED is really a matter of common sense.
Take the Living Fence project discussed in a recent blog as an example. Recall that, to prevent trespassing, over 700 bushes were planted over a 2,000 m area to reinforce the chain link fence at the boundary of the rail lands.
The development of the Rail Lands Management Team not only brought together all agencies that were responsible for the safety of these lands, but also all their individual networks and the knowledge and resources they held. Together, they created a plan to reduce the incidence of trespass. To carry out that plan, a multitude of businesses and residents were brought on board. Their inclusion allowed the execution of the plan all while educating the public at large of the dangers of trespassing on the rail lands.
In short, a CPTED solution to a problem led to community mobilization that addressed the problem in the long term.
This can be seen at the Victoria Avenue site. The back entrance to an auto garage that was the subject of various nefarious activity was located at the end of this dead-end street. In addition, there was a raised structure there that the ladies of the night used to ply their trade, redefining the term, ‘bedroom community’.
At the end of the third weekend of planting, even our young offenders who had taken over the project were exhausted. The decision was made to plant the remaining rose bushes in the raised structure at the end of this street thus transforming it into a raised garden bed.
The neighbours anted up the project by augmenting the roses with flowers from their own gardens and even erected a lattice fence behind the structure.
In the evenings, folk took to sitting on their front porches, admiring the garden and socializing with their neighbours. This crowded out the undesirable activity and calls for service to police were greatly reduced. Ownership and empowerment triumphed where fear had failed.
A second site along what is known as ‘the laneway’ presents another example. This area consists of a block of streets with modest single-family homes that run perpendicular to the rail lands. The laneway runs parallel to the border of the rail lands, connecting these streets at the back end. Illegal dumping, vandalism and property theft were the issues as well as the general problem of trespassing.
To inform the residents of the plan, 12 Division held a Neighbours’ Night Out in the centre part of the laneway. The residents were enthusiastic about the suggested clean up and gardens, and many turned out to help with the planting and subsequent watering.
The laneway became the destination for dog walkers and folk out for an evening stroll. Old friendships were revived and foot traffic increased, again, crowding out unwanted activity. The local paper published an article about the project and a couple of days later, neighbours woke up to the disappearance of virtually all of the rose bushes. Moral of the story: keep your successes quiet and share information only with trusted sources.
So, was that a failure? Well, not exactly. Several years later, the problems began to reappear. On their own, neighbours decided to revive the original project, only this time they took it to the next level. At the end of each street, they constructed built-out gardens. These acted as a traffic calming measure as another problem for the residents had been speeding vehicles using the lane as a short cut to the main street. They also enlisted a new partner, Urban Arts. whose members (mostly local youth) painted murals on plywood panels that were mounted behind the gardens and served to define this community.
Again, eyes and ears increased on the street and problem behaviour was reduced.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the young offenders who truly saved this project in the first place. Their energy and enthusiasm for ‘their’ project was outdone only by their sense of accomplishment. In their eyes, they had created something powerful for their community. They brought their friends to help, and their relatives came to see what the kids had been talking about all week. One of them returned a couple of months later to finish off his community service hours. He told me very indignantly of some youth who had sprayed graffiti in one of the tunnels. I guess he forgot that he had once done the same thing, but I seriously doubt that he would be repeating his offence.
The point here is that if you give a person community service hours, it should be something that can make the person feel proud that he or she is making a positive contribution to the community – making up for the harm that was caused.
In each of these examples, a problem was defined collaboratively. The solutions embraced CPTED principles. The result was communities who were no longer afraid but were now mobilized and empowered to protect their neighbourhood. Unwanted behaviour reduced, calls for service down, enjoyment of life increased. A perfect marriage indeed.