Crime Has Been Lost in Urban Discourse. We need to bring it back.

[TheNiche]

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. For all of the things you claim are not being discussed, I say that they are. Houston is investing in crime analysis programs, is constantly debating the merits of different patrol strategies (car, bike, foot, horse, neighborhood policing), and debates where to place new substations or storefronts from time to time. Your gripe appears to be that they have not invited you to the meeting. I do not find your absence from planning meetings to be cause that crime fighting is not being discussed.

I am constantly surprised by the statements of the uninformed on matters that I happen to know are being addressed. For whatever reason, crime and police matters seem to draw the most comments. Not a day passes that I do not read something from left field about what the police and city are doing or not doing. Your comments on Houston in this thread strike me that way...that because the RDA has not had a design competition to design the crime proof urban dwelling, Houston is not taking crime seriously. If you were actually in a position to be involved in the discussions, you might see what is being discussed.

Red, I swear to you that WAZ is right. (And as you well know, I don't make a habit of backing him up.) There are other fields where this subject matter is discussed obsessively, and you're involved in them. But in the real estate development and architecture circles, crime as it relates to urban form is swept under the rug. It shouldn't be, but it is. It isn't a subject that most residential or commercial tenants care about...and when they do, there are proprietary measures that tend to get implemented. It's just not as sexy an issue as pure aesthetics or pseudo-environmentalism, unfortunately.

[RedScare]

I don't dispute that statement at all, which is the basis of my statement. WAZ, an architect, is simply not involved in the discussions. But, rather than call out architects and developers, as you have, he deflects criticism from his own industry by blaming all of the others who actually DO discuss these matters.

And, let's face it, there isn't THAT much to discuss in the public sphere in addition to what is already being done. The police and the city do what they can (generally), but the planning departments cannot order most buildings torn down, nor can they order very expensive retrofits (although they do THAT as well, as evidenced by the rules on convenience stores regarding unobstructed windows and surveillance systems). The big issues, the ones WAZ is complaining about , are issues within his own industry. Rather than blame 'urbanists', how about we talk about why architects are still designing secluded courtyards in apartment complexes, when we know they are magnets for crime? Why does the city planning department need to pass an ordinance for something that architects should already know?

This is my gripe with this thread premise...that it is the city planners' fault. It is not. It is the fault of individual developers and their architects, and as you and I's example on courtyards proved, it is not a black and white issue.

Many of these issues (I dare say MOST) are not even best solved by city planners or 'urbanists'. Take auto theft. Auto theft rates dropped dramatically, not because of anything a city planner did, but because American automakers began making ignition systems harder to defeat, and by marking parts, making them harder to resell. But, there are also statutes that make it illegal for owners to leave their car unlocked or keys in the ignition, since these are the most common ways theft occurs. How about burglary? Most common sense solutions are also the best. Leave a car in the driveway, so it looks like you are at home. Keep a barking dog in the house or in the yard. Trim shrubbery away from entrances and windows. What do these have to do with city planners, or even architects, for that matter?

The only crimes that can realistically be affected by city planning are those committed against strangers on the street, such as robbery. Even there, it is better dealt with by individuals than the city. Certainly, METRO can look at the design of its transit stops, making them well lit, clean and with unobstructed views. Wow, I solved METRO's problem in one sentence. But, what does the city do with parks? I can think of some very expensive solutions that I would not pay for, but the most obvious is free. Encourage citizens to be aware of their surroundings, and not hang out in parks at night. How tough was that?

[AtticaFlinch]

So crime is an illness; and urbanists should stand back and let the doctors cure it? What if that disease is incurable?

I’m not sure I would accept your illness analogy. Crime is its own beast. It has some elements of a disease. It also has some elements of weather. (Crime patterns resemble weather patterns to me). And then there’s the perception of crime; broken window theories; the obvious link between urban blight and perceived crime. Like my list of questions, this one goes on and on.

I wouldn't read into the disease metaphor too deeply. I used it to illustrate a point. I didn't intend for it to be the point. I'm pretty sure I've used the term "window dressing" several times in this thread to describe what you propose, and that's the point. Unless you address the underlying issues that promote a culture of criminality, no amount of feel-good demolitions or police walking a beat will do anything to eliminate or reduce crime. It may reduce the visibility of crime, but it won't reduce the actuality of crime.

[names]

Get a job already, I think your losing it bro.

Wow.. I'm truly sorry if this offended you. I've recently been laid off and am just frustrated by the arch profession atm. I read that you have enlisted and I hope you do well on your ASVAB. Good luck and take care.

As far as crime research is concerned perhaps organizing a study of high crime nabs could be done in pursuit of finding the positive deviance to construct a real time theory towards turning the tide of crime.

[TheNiche]

Wow.. I'm truly sorry if this offended you. I've recently been laid off and am just frustrated by the arch profession atm. I read that you have enlisted and I hope you do well on your ASVAB. Good luck and take care.

No harm done. You were right that my earlier comment was devoid of tact. I couldn't help myself at the time...and am easily distracted by Zeppelin lyrics.

And you're also right that I need to find something to do with myself.

[RedScare]

I'll take crime in Seattle (or, rather, the lack thereof) over the crime in Houston anyday. Should I be a fan of "Urbanism" ?

Lack thereof? Surely you jest. While Houston has a higher rate of homicides and aggravated assaults, no doubt owing to our love affair with guns, Seattle, on the other hand, is a veritable den of thieves. Their rates of burglary, auto theft and larceny dwarf ours. Imagine, the walkability city has a higher rate of auto thefts than the auto-centric city. Who knew?

[N Judah]

Lack thereof? Surely you jest. While Houston has a higher rate of homicides and aggravated assaults, no doubt owing to our love affair with guns, Seattle, on the other hand, is a veritable den of thieves. Their rates of burglary, auto theft and larceny dwarf ours.

Let the bodies hit the floor / let the bodies hit the floor!

Yep, no jest, not funny. I meant what I said, alright.

You know, it's easy (*really* easy) to find a gun in WA state, too!

Imagine, the walkability city has a higher rate of auto thefts than the auto-centric city. Who knew?

It's actually not that far fetched. Much nicer cars + I am pretty sure there are a lot of people there who don't bother to lock their car doors.

[RedScare]

Personally, I would enjoy Seattle in spite of its higher rate of crime, not because of it. But, that's just me.

[N Judah]

That would in fact be quite different from the mentality of the Seattle residents, who just enjoy the city without "spiting" anything!

[RedScare]

What a coincidence. That is exactly how I enjoy the city of Houston.

[N Judah]

But, that's just you?

[TheNiche]

But, that's just you?

No, me too.

[LTAWACS]

No, me too.

Count me in.

[jfre81]

So....yes, I don't buy the "urban = crime" story one bit. I think NYC now has one of the lowest if not the lowest violent crime rate among major cities? And that's about as urban as you can get.

If two rednecks out in BFE have a dispute over a tractor and one of them pulls a gun and blows the other away, it's pretty much of the same nature as that girl's murder in Seattle. Crimes that are a result of interpersonal strife (e.g. domestic abuse/assault/murder etc.) can't much be prevented. Now, getting killed out in the open with guards watching might be a problem that can be solved by allowing those guards to actually intervene, which isn't an urban problem but a policy problem. But if it happens behind closed doors, there's not much that can be done.

I do agree that property crime in Seattle may be higher because of a general perception of "safety" there. We all want to think we live in some utopian paradise where you can leave your doors unlocked, but anyone who does that is liable to get a rude awakening. No wonder all the smalltime burglars and car thieves go to the suburbs - it makes sense to go after low-hanging fruit where people's guards are down. Then people there act like there's a sudden crime wave and they want to move further out or whatever, when their own complacency is the root of the problem.

[TheNiche]

So....yes, I don't buy the "urban = crime" story one bit. I think NYC now has one of the lowest if not the lowest violent crime rate among major cities? And that's about as urban as you can get.

If NYC were so geographically large as the City of Houston such that it included portions of New Jersey, then it may not retain it's ranking. ...that is, if the ranking is accurate, which I sort of suspect is the consequence of some statistical manipulation. The concept of "crime rate", for instance, isn't necessarily cut-and-dry where city vs. city comparisons are concerned.

Also depends on how you define "urban". Does the vicinity of Houston that is off of Laura Koppe Rd. count? It's in the City of Houston, a "major city", but it's certainly low-density.

[AtticaFlinch]

But, that's just you?

I'm pretty much in love with Houston. Then again, I don't need other people to think it's cool in order to enjoy it myself.

If NYC were so geographically large as the City of Houston such that it included portions of New Jersey, then it may not retain it's ranking. ...that is, if the ranking is accurate, which I sort of suspect is the consequence of some statistical manipulation. The concept of "crime rate", for instance, isn't necessarily cut-and-dry where city vs. city comparisons are concerned.

Also depends on how you define "urban". Does the vicinity of Houston that is off of Laura Koppe Rd. count? It's in the City of Houston, a "major city", but it's certainly low-density.

It's incredibly low-density, but still it has crime. So... maybe crime isn't an urban discourse topic afterall?

[WAZ]

This will be my last post to this thread. I just wanted to end with two notes.

First, I am certainly criticizing other architects. In the 1990s it became fashionable for architects to study, dissect, and dream about cities. Architects and other urbanists talked about transit, flooding, density, urban streetscapes, the environment.... But somehow crime never entered into the discussion.

Second, window dressing matters. If you think that the built form of cities has no impact on crime, you're missing the point. Perceived crime has as big an impact on neighborhoods as crime itself. People need to BE safe in their neighborhoods, but they also need to FEEL safe in their neighborhoods.

[jfre81]

If NYC were so geographically large as the City of Houston such that it included portions of New Jersey, then it may not retain it's ranking. ...that is, if the ranking is accurate, which I sort of suspect is the consequence of some statistical manipulation. The concept of "crime rate", for instance, isn't necessarily cut-and-dry where city vs. city comparisons are concerned.

Also depends on how you define "urban". Does the vicinity of Houston that is off of Laura Koppe Rd. count? It's in the City of Houston, a "major city", but it's certainly low-density.

I wouldn't call anything outside 610 and even portions inside "urban." Just because a large city annexes something doesn't make it urban. It is still (decayed) suburb. There is really nothing that sets it apart from, say, the 1960 area to the north which is in unincorporated Harris County.

Wouldn't think the geographic size matters much, especially if we keep it on a per-capita basis. In raw numbers NYC will have more murders and robberies than Houston, though not per capita, and for its compact size you might be more likely to be close to one happening, but you're less likely to actually be the target. If that makes any sense. NYC still has upwards of three times Houston's population.

If urban form (using the term quite loosely in this instance) has any effect whatsoever on crime, I'd think low-density sprawl would be harder to keep a good police presence especially with manpower issues like HPD has dealt with as of late. That's a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of that ground is old suburban areas once perceived as "safe" but whose original residents have long left it for something newer.

[AtticaFlinch]

This will be my last post to this thread. I just wanted to end with two notes.

First, I am certainly criticizing other architects. In the 1990s it became fashionable for architects to study, dissect, and dream about cities. Architects and other urbanists talked about transit, flooding, density, urban streetscapes, the environment.... But somehow crime never entered into the discussion.

Well, sorry to have offended you, but you wanted a conversation about crime and how urbanists can do something about it, and that's what you got. Just because we didn't all nod our heads in agreement with you doesn't mean you should end your participation in the discourse. If so, you just become the people you're criticizing.

Second, window dressing matters.

Sure, if you're decorating your house, but it serves little practical purpose. If you want to beautify your house, your neighborhood or your city, more power to you. In fact, I agree that it's a good goal. But, it's a good, worthwhile goal in and of itself, and it's something architects can actually affect.

If you think that the built form of cities has no impact on crime, you're missing the point.

I really don't think it does, and I've yet to see any compelling evidence to the contrary. I think you presuppose the importance of architects and "urbanists" on the community at large. The human psyche is far more complex than you're giving it credit for and the justifications for criminality are far more basic than you've grasped. I don't dispute a criminal can use his built environment as a tool to aid him in his criminal activities, I dispute that a built environment will alter that criminal mindset. People commit criminal acts for a number of reasons, but I doubt the way a building is designed has anything to do with those reasons.

Perceived crime has as big an impact on neighborhoods as crime itself. People need to BE safe in their neighborhoods, but they also need to FEEL safe in their neighborhoods.

Then put this around all those anxiety-filled neighborhoods:

Or, maybe you can petition the 6 o'clock news to change the focus of their coverage. No amount of warm and fuzzy measures will make people feel any safer. All efforts to that end will just further isolate the inhabitants of Anxietyville which will further increase their anxiety and fear of outsiders which will further increase their desires for more warm fuzzy measures which will further increase their anxiety and fear of outsiders....

[TheNiche]

I wouldn't call anything outside 610 and even portions inside "urban." Just because a large city annexes something doesn't make it urban. It is still (decayed) suburb. There is really nothing that sets it apart from, say, the 1960 area to the north which is in unincorporated Harris County.

Wouldn't think the geographic size matters much, especially if we keep it on a per-capita basis. In raw numbers NYC will have more murders and robberies than Houston, though not per capita, and for its compact size you might be more likely to be close to one happening, but you're less likely to actually be the target. If that makes any sense. NYC still has upwards of three times Houston's population.

If urban form (using the term quite loosely in this instance) has any effect whatsoever on crime, I'd think low-density sprawl would be harder to keep a good police presence especially with manpower issues like HPD has dealt with as of late. That's a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of that ground is old suburban areas once perceived as "safe" but whose original residents have long left it for something newer.

Look, I'm just saying that if you're going to start using comparative stats to make your case, this probably isn't a good one because most of those are going to reflect annexed territory rather than "urbanity", however you or I desire to have it defined. Additionally, it is obvious that the crime rate is going to be a per capita measure (I'm not stupid)...but is it the daytime or nighttime population? Are Houston's and NYC's daytime and nighttime populations proportionate? And since each of these cities have so many very different neighborhoods of varying character, how would this comparison provide us with any meaningful knowledge? That is to say, what tips or tricks will it teach an urban planner?

If you want to draw conclusions about how crime relates to urban form, you MUST perform a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis. Comparing Houston and NYC is a vapid platitude.

[RedScare]

This will be my last post to this thread. I just wanted to end with two notes.

First, I am certainly criticizing other architects. In the 1990s it became fashionable for architects to study, dissect, and dream about cities. Architects and other urbanists talked about transit, flooding, density, urban streetscapes, the environment.... But somehow crime never entered into the discussion.

Second, window dressing matters. If you think that the built form of cities has no impact on crime, you're missing the point. Perceived crime has as big an impact on neighborhoods as crime itself. People need to BE safe in their neighborhoods, but they also need to FEEL safe in their neighborhoods.

I can see why you're running away from your own thread. We've done a bang up job of beating your premise to death. As just one example, let me point out that since the 1990s, when you claim architects began dreaming about cities, crime has plummeted. Murder rates are down as much as 75%. From 1980, when Houston had 701 murders in a population of 1.5 Million, to 2009, when we had 286 murders in a population of 2.25 million, our murder rate has declined 73%. Not that it had anything to do with architects or urbanists. The Bloods and Crips signed their historic truce in the mid-90s, ending much of the gangland bloodshed. Other societal trends and previously mentioned auto manufacturing changes acoounted for some of the drop in property crime. Perhaps the dreaming architects had some effect, even though you claim they haven't. Doors and windows are built stronger than they used to be. Burglar alarms are routine. Cameras are everywhere. Computers are used to analyze trends. Cell phones blanket the landscape.

The point is, your claim that crime has not been discussed, and therefore crime is out of control, is simply incorrect. This more than anything else is why your argument is flawed. As Attica accurately points out, you have apparently been swayed by the sensational nightly news more than you realize.

[jfre81]

Look, I'm just saying that if you're going to start using comparative stats to make your case, this probably isn't a good one because most of those are going to reflect annexed territory rather than "urbanity", however you or I desire to have it defined. Additionally, it is obvious that the crime rate is going to be a per capita measure (I'm not stupid)...but is it the daytime or nighttime population? Are Houston's and NYC's daytime and nighttime populations proportionate? And since each of these cities have so many very different neighborhoods of varying character, how would this comparison provide us with any meaningful knowledge? That is to say, what tips or tricks will it teach an urban planner?

If you want to draw conclusions about how crime relates to urban form, you MUST perform a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis. Comparing Houston and NYC is a vapid platitude.

It doesn't really matter because I'm not debating your points here. We're in agreement for the most part as best I can tell. I'm debating the more general idea that urban/dense environments inherently mean higher crime rates.

And no, you're not stupid. You may be a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them.

[N Judah]

No, me too.

Count me in.

LoL, OK...sounds good!

I'm debating the more general idea that urban/dense environments inherently mean higher crime rates.

All I can say is thank goodness NYC crime is down, or we'd never be hearing the end of it.

[Robert W. Boyd]

I was not familiar with the work of Peter Moskos, but I’ll check it out. This is exactly the sort of thing that’s been lost in the discussions of urbanists.

Most urbanists agree that Houston will get more dense in the next 25 years. It'd be very interesting to see if we put cops back on foot as our City rediscovers density.

Peter Moskos suggested that beat cops might help reduce crime in densely populated areas, but worried that there hadn't been enough study. On his blog, he announces that very interesting and hopeful research has been done:

Foot patrol has worked in New York (it would work better without quotas). And now there's some research by Jerry Ratcliffe coming out of Philadelphia. As reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Temple's study, which covered three months, showed a 22 percent drop in crime in areas covered by the foot patrols. Arrests were up 13 percent.

As in other major cities, crime has been on a decline in Philadelphia. Violent crime - down in all but three districts - dropped 7 percent citywide in 2009 compared with 2007, with homicide down 23 percent and aggravated assault down 4 percent.