Starley Cross Community Safety Project
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MANOR PARK ESTATE
The team has been given enough funding in order to be able to demolish and rebuild the manor park estate. This will allow me to rebuild the area in a way that will reduce both crime rates and fear of crime. My aim is to build the area in relation to CPTED and defensible space, encouraging residents to have a sense of community and pride, which if done correctly should inspire residents to care for the new and improved area. Thus leading to future generations of the Manor Park Estate living more harmoniously.
In order to effectively design the area, the components of defensible space will be used, ensuring that the design features being put in place work to reduce crime rates, as they have been previously used and assessed, with positive results being found for the areas which they have been implemented into.
Territoriality, is a big part of defensible space, and will be used within the rebuild of the manor estate. There will be clearly defined zones of territorial control and influence, with Newman’s (1973:9) hierarchy of defensible space being introduced, each arrow represents an entry/exit point which will be access controlled and will require a key or electronic pass in order to gain entry.
One thing that will definitely not be reintroduced is the mid-rise flats, as Newman’s (1972) analysis of the Van Dyke project shows, blocks of flats have many design features that enable crime to be committed. Instead the area will be blocks of houses that will have clearly defined boundaries between private and public space.
As stated earlier, in order to control who is able to enter the area, each community block will be access controlled, with residents having access to all areas leading to their homes.
Access control within the new Manor Park Estate will reduce the number of entrance/exit points to buildings and streets. These exit/entrance points will be secure, with each requiring a key or electronic passes in order to gain entry, making these places only accessible to legitimate users and residents.
Natural surveillance focuses on maximising residents potential to supervise their territory during the course of daily activities within the home and surrounding areas (Reynald 2015). This can be achieved in two ways:
Firstly, properties should face each other and overlook public space:
this therefore means that windows and doors should be orientated towards the street. Thus allowing residents to monitor activities taking place within the space outside of their homes, with very little effort.
Secondly, there should be little that can get in the way of direct lines of sight:
Surveillance can be obstructed by trees, plants and walls (Newman 1972).
The new area will incorporate this into its design in order to make surveillance easy for legitimate users and make committing crime more difficult for illegitimate users as they are under the constant supervision of residents (Reynald 2010). MacDonald and Gifford (1989) found that houses with clear visibility to the public street were the least vulnerable targets in the eyes of burglars and therefore the least likely to be targeted.
Increased natural surveillance would mean that there is less need for target hardening measures such as, CCTV, fences, locks and alarms. Too many target hardening devices can lead to the development of a ‘fortress mentality’ where residents withdraw behind their fortifications. This can work against CPTED strategies, which rely on residents keeping an eye on the streets and being active members of their communities (Cozens et al 2015:397). Withdrawal would mean that there are less capable guardians maintaining watch of suitable targets, and thus allowing motivated offenders to take advantage of the area and commit crimes.
Maintaining the area after construction will also be essential in ensuring that the area is seen as well cared for and controlled (Reynald 2015:76). If the area has a look of being run down and abandoned then it runs the risk of being differentiated and therefore more susceptible to crime. Wilson and Kelling (1982) came up with the ‘broken windows’ thesis of crime, which essentially suggested that if an area is not maintained and starts to become dilapidated, the residents within the area will start to care less for the area, and crime will ensue as a result. If the area is well maintained, it shows the community that residents care about the area, which reinforces community pride and the desire to use the communal spaces for events (Newman 1972).
Ursula Kelly (2010)
The Semi-Public area will be able to be accessed by all residents in the private areas, within this area we will be aiming to build a park with activities for the younger children, as well as a grassy area with seating, in which events can be held, this builds upon the ideas of second-generation CPTED, which centres around the social characteristics of the community, social cohesion and ‘collective efficacy’ (Sampson et al 1997). These interventions within the semi-public area, should encourage a sense of community, potentially causing residents to start taking care of the area, making it more pleasant for all users. With an increased sense of social cohesion, there would be diminished crime rates, due to that fact that residents are not only guarding their own property but also those of their neighbours.
These components together should have a negative effect on crime levels if used correctly. They are dual mechanism which 1. Empowers residents to become capable guardians over potential targets and target areas. And 2. To remove opportunities for crime as they are perceived by potential offenders (Reynald 2015).
However, as with everything there can be some issues with implementation. Results from previous studies revealed that even when places are designed with CPTED and defensible space concepts in mind, it does not mean that they will be defended by the residents, especially when there is social fragmentation (Merry 1981).
Reynald (2011) argued that defensible space can facilitate reduced crime through the capable guardianship of residents. This relies on residents to guard their property and surrounding areas, Reynald found that residents having the opportunity to guard their environment does not mean that they will automatically take advantage of the opportunity.
Maintenence
Cozens et al (2015)
CPTED
