It has become universally acknowledged that large cities are the focal points of crime and deterioration. The words "inner city" (1) conjure up images of "crack houses," slums, street crime and violent gangs. Unfortunately, Uniform Crime Report (2) statistics indicate that many of our cities have unacceptably high rates of reported crime. The fact that this was not always the case should dissuade us from the temptation to believe that these conditions are inevitable.
The key element in the urban mosaic is the residential neighborhood. If crime and its accompanying deterioration cannot be controlled in the neighborhood, the stability of the entire city is threatened. Ironically, it is the success of commercial centers that sets the stage for the social and economic breakdown of associated residential neighborhoods. Once adjacent neighborhoods break down, the viability of proximate commercial centers is in turn threatened. A vicious cycle of growth and collapse is established.
Initially, the downtown, or urban core, was surrounded by stable, residential neighborhoods. The commercial and residential elements were in balance; however, as the success of the commercial center stimulated intense use and development, the two elements were thrown out of balance. Residential neighborhoods and commercial areas began to compete for space. The intensity of the land use in the commercial center overwhelmed the relatively lowintensity land use of the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
At this point, we need to examine the dynamics of a viable, residential environment. A stable residential neighborhood is dominated by the residents who live in the community. Neighborhood streets are designed for, and dominated by, local residents and their guests. The public common areas are used by residents for recreation and casual socializing, with most of this activity taking place on tree canopied neighborhood streets and sidewalks. Residents and visitors easily recognize the geographic boundaries of the neighborhood. Because the neighborhood environment is under the amiable dominion of its residents, visitors are acknowledged as guests. (3)
A functioning neighborhood expresses the residents' longterm commitment to the neighborhood in its physical surroundings. Homeowners and established residents maintain the public areas that border personal property. Sidewalks are edged and swept, and swale areas are maintained as if they were extensions of personal property. The neighborhood streets are public in the legal sense, but functionally they are maintained as semiprivate extensions of neighborhood homes. Healthy, functioning neighborhoods are physical byproducts of selfdetermination which reflect a pride of ownership.
Successful neighborhoods informally police themselves. Disruptive behavior is rejected. The presence of a suspicious vehicle or person is easily noticed. The criminal element, ever watchful for targets of criminal opportunity, unconsciously senses the powerful environmental cues which indicate that suspicious behavior will be observed, questioned and reported (4). Local law enforcement officers are part of such a community. As such, they act as extensions of the neighborhood's collective will and, thus, respond in accordance with the neighborhood consensus.
This description of successful, viable neighborhoods is not based on fantasy. Such neighborhoods still exist, but for too many of us the idea of a successfully functioning urban neighborhood stirs up feelings of nostalgia.
What forces transformed our once viable, urban neighborhoods into dysfunctional repositories of crime, fear and deterioration? In large established cities, the commercial centers developed with an intensity that gradually, but inexorably, broke down the social forces that naturally controlled residential neighborhoods. Urban residents made decisions on shopping, dining and entertainment by "going downtown." In many instances, downtown was a few blocks walk or a short bus ride. Local collector streets provided vehicular access to downtown. The competing elements were now juxtapositioned in such a way as to assure the ascendancy of the commercial center at the expense of adjacent neighborhoods.
The following scenario describes the gradual deterioration of a once viable urban neighborhood. The commercial center expands into a regional and then a national commercial center. Local neighborhood streets become convenient access routes to downtown. Increasingly, persons who do not live within the neighborhood use neighborhood streets as convenient access routes through the area as major traffic arteries approach gridlock. It becomes increasingly more difficult for neighborhood residents to identify strangers. Gradually, neighbors abandon their use of the streets and sidewalks for impromptu socializing.
As downtown traffic increases, neighborhood streets are targeted for expansion. The "improvement" of neighborhood streets marks the turning point in the competition between commercial expansion and neighborhood stability. The "improvement" of neighborhood streets translates into the construction of additional lanes of traffic to alleviate congestion and to fuel the rapidly expanding downtown. The mature trees that once lined neighborhood streets and served as focal points for spontaneous socializing are uprooted. Manicured swales that bordered neighborhood sidewalks become paved lanes of traffic.
Neighborhood street expansion sends a shock wave through the neighborhood psyche. The neighborhood street trees and swales served as powerful symbols of neighborhood stability and ownership. Residents cared for these symbols as extensions of their private properties. The dramatic realization that areas long believed to be extensions of ones' private domain are indeed part of the public prerogative, brings into question the neighborhood's collective right to elfdetermination. As a result, the residents have withdrawn their surveillance over the neighborhood's public areas, and suspicious behavior is no longer observed and reported.
Neighborhood streets are now dominated by nonresidents traveling through the neighborhood. The presence of strangers is no longer questioned, as their presence is now the norm, rather than the exception. (5) Crime and the fear of crime, become the focus of neighborhood concern. Residents no longer have a sense that their neighborhood is a viable place in which to invest for one's posterity. The neighborhood has ceased to be a place that affords its residents a sense of security. The two pillars of neighborhood stability physical and economic security have crumbled. The suburbs become the alternative to the eroding urban neighborhood.
In a selffulfilling prophecy, residents leave the urban neighborhood they perceive to be unstable, virtually assuring neighborhood instability. (6) Those who remain attempt to protect themselves by fortressing their homes with fences, walls, dogs, window bars and burglar alarms. In the absence of an effective, selfregulating social environment, increasing demands are made that the police return control of the neighborhood to its remaining law abiding residents. However, the area tax base has eroded to the point where resources are no longer available to sustain an extended professional police presence. The sensitive environment of the residential neighborhood has yielded to the intensity of the expanding downtown.
Is this the price that must be paid for progress? We could entertain such a cynical view, if not for two facts. First, many urban neighborhoods have deteriorated to the point where the criminal element, which has come to dominate them, now threatens the economic viability of the downtowns these neighborhoods surround. Second, the suburbs, once the sanctuary of expatriate urban dwellers, are now competing with the newly developing "edge cities," beginning the destabilization process anew. (7) Recognition of these facts makes it clear that the residential neighborhood must be protected if stable, longterm economic growth and development is to be possible.
Successfully planned strategies for the protection of neighborhoods must be based on the uniquely specific characteristics of the individual neighborhood. Three elements are essential to any successful neighborhood plan: neighborhood residents, the neighborhood environment and the local police.
The residents of a neighborhood must be organized to establish consensus building. This usually means an incorporated homeowners association, complete with elected officers and committee members. Neighborhood organizations that develop solely in response to crime are seldom able to sustain the vigor required to implement a neighborhood master plan successfully. Neighborhood residents must understand the unique characteristics of their respective neighborhood, and the neighborhood's geographic position relative to its surroundings. Residents must educate themselves in the principles of environmental crime prevention, and take the offensive by focusing on a set of essential neighborhood goals.
The physical environment can enhance or inhibit the natural social functioning of a residential neighborhood. (8) A sense of collective ownership and selfdetermination are supported by local neighborhood streets that are used almost exclusively by neighborhood residents. Limiting both vehicular and pedestrian access to neighborhood streets is one of the most effective strategies that can be used to minimize the destablizing effects of intense nonresidential, transient traffic. Creating both real and psychological boundaries along the perimeter of a neighborhood reinforces in the minds of both residents and visitors that the neighborhood is a distinct entity. Entrances can be constructed at the limited neighborhood access points to create "thresholds" that separate intensely used, open public space outside the neighborhood from semiprivate space within the neighborhood. The number of environmental strategies is limitless.
The process that leads to the development of a successful neighborhood master plan involves a considerable amount of education in environmental security or "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design." (9) A successful master plan depends on a neighborhood consensus. The sometimes painful process of building a neighborhood consensus forces diverse groups to form a common bond, if only for the limited purpose of assuring the neighborhood's ultimate survival. Therefore, the process of developing and implementing neighborhood strategies is as important to neighborhood stability as the chosen strategies themselves. (10) The police, unaided by the public they are sworn to serve, have a minimal impact on neighborhood crime. Many dedicated law enforcement officers find this a bitter pill to swallow as well as a harsh reality for many of us who are overexposed to the melodramatic exploits of celluloid law officers. Bank robbers, murderers, drug kingpins, rapists and professional burglars are the types of criminals on law enforcement's most wanted lists. The career criminal establishes a method of operation that attracts the full attention and resources of the police. However, these are not the types of criminals that destabilize and ultimately destroy residential neighborhoods.
Neighborhood residents fear disorderly people, opportunistic thieves and burglars, while police officers do battle with the few hardened criminals who conduct daily skirmishes with the basic tenants of civilization. The difference between neighborhood concerns and the focus of law enforcement minimize the opportunity for the establishment of a meaningful dialogue between the police and the law abiding public. A considerable effort has been made by some police officials to reestablish a connection with the public. "Community policing" is the term that best describes this effort. In any event, police officers must become agents of the community's consensus and extensions of the community's will. The inherent competition of an increasingly diverse American society demands that the police be a moral force of order. The nation's founding ideals demand that law enforcement officers expand their role as crime fighters to include the roles of problem solver, community activist and neighborhood advocate. (11)
The control of the neighborhood environment by its residential community, supported by the police, will not only stabilize neighborhoods but will also help establish a symbiotic relationship with the downtown commercial core. Stable urban neighborhoods will offer a sense of community and will house residents with sufficient financial resources to support such institutional investments as universities, central libraries, museums and theaters. In turn, the concentrations of regional resources in the downtown provide institutional amenities to nearby urban residents and outlying suburbanites alike.
In 1987, the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Tom Gustafson, introduced legislation supporting the application of "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" strategies in Florida's cities. This legislation, known as the "Safe Neighborhoods Act" (12) identifies the proliferation of crime, automobile traffic, competing land uses and other factors, as causes of the deterioration of our business and residential neighborhoods. The act provides for the creation of Neighborhood Improvement Districts, (13) and requires the districts to prepare Neighborhood Improvement Plans to address their problems. (14) Florida Statute § 163.513 codifies the concepts involved in the establishment of environmental security (15) and requires that each improvement plan include analysis of these elements.
The act also provides for the creation of a Safe Neighborhood Trust Fund to provide funding for "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" (16) (CPTED) planning in our cities' neighborhoods. Planning grants, in varying amounts, are awarded to those cities that present the most viable plans. In the five years since the passage of the "Save Neighborhoods Act," a number of Florida's neighborhoods have applied the principles of CPTED to successfully stabilize their environments. The recent economic woes of the state have unfortunately resulted in a failure of the legislature to fund the Safe Neighborhoods Trust Fund for the last couple of years. Notwithstanding the lack of funding, the principles of "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" remain an important viable option for neighborhoods to lead the way in establishing secure and flourishing cities.
1. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines inner city" as follows: 'The sections of a large city in or near its center, especially when crowded or blighted."
2. The Uniform Crime Report is published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The UCR lists the number of certain felonies reported to the police nationwide. These felonies include homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson.
3. See Appleyard, Donald 1981. Livable Streets, Protected Neighborhoods. (California: University of California Press, Ltd.).
4. See Greenberg, Stephanie; Robe, William; Williams, Jay 1985, March. Informal Citizen Action and Crime Prevention at the Neighborhood Level (Synthesis and Assessment of the Research). (Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).
5. See Krupat, Ph.D. Edward 1985. People and Cities: The Urban Environment and Its Effects. (Massachusetts: Cambridge University).
6. See Lemann. Nicholas 1986, June. The Origins of the Underclass. The Atlantic.
7. See Diegmueller, Karen 1988, May 30. Huddled Masses Yearning for Space.
8. See Greenberg, Stephanie; Robe, William; Williams, Jay 1982, May. Safe and Secure Neighborhoods: Physical Characteristics and Informal Territorial Control in High and Low Crime Neighborhoods. (Washington, D.C.: Department
of Justice. National Institute of Justice).
9. See Wallis, Allan. and Ford, Daniel 1980. November. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: An Operational Handbook. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).
10. "See 1987. Guide to Neighborhood Master Plans. (City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida).
11. "See Wilson, James, and Kelling, George 1982, March. The Police and Neighborhood Safety. The Atlantic.
12. Fla. Stat.. § 163.501 163.523 (1987).
13. Fla. Stat., § 163.504 (1987).
14. Fla. Stat.. § 163.516 (1987).
15. As defined in Fla. Stat., §163.503(5) (1987).
16. As defined in Fla. Stat., § 163.503(6) (1987).
Return to SBD Homepage
E-mail SBD