Research Topic #2

Kenneth A. Ballard

Thesis Instructor Ian Taberner

Thesis HT7295/TS7610

31 May 2008

Interpreting Defensible Spaces

The concept of 'Defensible Spaces' has been around since the beginning of time, yet as technologies advance the simple understandings of how and why human beings interact and socially unit with each other and the built environment have been set aside to play second fiddle to the new brand of architecture: architecture for the architects. These principles are basic good design strategies that Oscar Newman wrote about over three decades ago are just as much pertinent today as they were thirty years ago just as they were one hundred, five hundred, a thousand years ago. Unfortunately it took the request of a government body and a staggering increase of residential robberies to release these basic and simple strategies back to the architectural community. The efforts to decrease crime in the inner city and suburbs alike was a blanket approach of providing more policing, altering the scheduled routes, improving the response time, etc... The results left a bitter taste in the mouth of law enforcement around the United States. Irregularly beats and faster response times did little to stifle crime patterns and even less in the changing the eventual outcome of crimes.

Although the principles described and diagramed are mainly focused on strategies to help reduce crime in and around multi-family projects there are practical design, social and statistical approaches that cross the development gap that may exist. When designing retail, office, residential for the masses or a homeless village, the human factor exists. Its existence has primal tendencies, these tendencies, if not properly developed will in fact be developed at such vigor and pace as to disrupt the normal activities. As finely balanced as the economy and social affairs can be, it is pertinent to empower all resources available to the architect to combat behaviors or at the least influence the behaviors of people when engaged with the built environment. This type of suggestive influence can have long lasting effects while reinforcing acceptable behavior. Through a series of reports and handbooks well conceived concepts have been once again brought to the forefront of Design 101.

Intentionally designing a site plan for a community of homeless people affords itself to resolving common issues, such as location of the houses, public spaces, private spaces, activity spaces around existing criteria... location of potential power, water and sewer connections. Yet at the end of the day, I will still be pleased to see the community to take a life of its own. These constraints will inform the location of the program elements as well as site selection and sitting. Traditional strategies and improvised solutions will yield a productive product in terms of site planning and building materials and methods. Although many techniques and strategies are presented, I have narrowed my focus to site planning and spatial relationships between public and private outdoor spaces. This focus will inform how to provide comfortable living spaces that the residents of Rethink Village will be able to enjoy and feel safe in contrast to the current environment that for so many reason affords no personal space, ownership or pride, where they resort to refuge in makeshift second rate fabrics and papers tents on the sidewalks, underpasses railway lines in downtown Las Vegas. The concepts from Oscar Newman's studies have allowed me to identified five rules that will demonstrate defensible spaces in the site layout and spatial relations in both density and activity spaces in conjunction with the principles and strategies established by Hassan Fathy for the 'poor' in hot arid climates as well as defining the architectural character in terms of vernacular architecture.

"...buildings [dwellings] should be positioned and grounds be subdivided and allocated so that residents perceived particular areas of the project as being under their specific sphere of influence."

Five rules for designing defensible spaces:

• Site dwellings as to create small subdivided/allocated areas of land so that the residents perceive particular areas under their control
  
• These areas should be on the direct path to the front door and include an area for small children play (buffer area between public and private areas)
  
• Numbers... Quantity vs. Grouping - common areas for central/communal activities should be spread throughout the site
  
• Define areas of influence - appropriate use and location of physical and symbolic barriers
  
• Proper locations of transition areas to define public areas from private areas
  

These five rules center on how people behave in their surroundings and how simple change in material, level and surfaces can produce acceptable behavior for their environment. These rules have goals and results, each one building upon the previous rule, designing in only a few of these principles progressively hampers the success rate. To obtain the most from defensible spaces and design a comfortable productive space I believe that all the rules should be implemented.

Goals and Results

Rule #1 - Site dwellings as to create small subdivided/allocated areas of land so that the residents perceive particular areas under their control

Rule #2 - These areas should be on the direct path to the front door and include an area for small children play (buffer area between public and private areas)

[Insert sketch]

Goal for #1 &2 - to influence the residents to exert their territorial prerogatives

Result for #1 & 2 - these areas should expect to experience more and intensive use and care/pride

Rule #3 - Numbers... Quantity vs. Grouping - common areas for central/communal activities should be spread throughout the site

[Insert sketch]

Goal for #3 - simply... spread the wealth

Result for #3 - these areas will sustain better/productive activities as well require less maintenance

Rule #4 - Define areas of influence - appropriate use and location of physical and symbolic barriers

[Insert sketch]

Goals for #4 - Physical boundaries - to indicate a legitimate right to enter

Symbolic boundaries - to interrelate/define areas to particular spaces

Results for #4 - politely and unquestionably defined comfortable and territorial boundaries the enjoyment, security and beauty of the space

Rule #5 - Proper locations of transition areas to define public areas from private areas

[Insert sketch]

Goal for #5 - to stimulate a type of inculpable behavior appropriate to the level of activity or area

Result for #5 - outsiders and residents alike will act and react to symbolic transitions in ways productive to the area...acceptable behavior

Observation of territorial prerogatives among the homeless community

Territorial behaviors already exist among all sorts of people groups including the homeless community. However, this type of behavior is deemed not appropriate for the certain areas. This non-positive behavior that the homeless have become accustomed to has created reverse boundaries. Boundaries that spill out into sidewalks and door stoops that render these areas, transition zones, unusable or used outside the intended design. The long term fallout for areas of this type of behavior (although these behaviors do not stem from maliciousness intents) is disrupting the sociality and economical interests of others. I gather that much of the stigma and housing solutions stem from these behaviors. I suggest that in order to reverse these ill affects that a community devoted to the re-integration of the homeless populous is supported by the local community in part to develop a village designed to re-teach independent living in a secure, comfortable enjoyable space.

If the current trend continues downtown business will continue to see less and less customers, and closing up shop is and will continue to be the answer. This process leads to continued growth of the homeless community in these areas where negative territorial behaviors have taken root. The intent of creating defensible space is to foster community and influence acceptable behavior. The type of territorial behavior being displayed in certain parts of downtown Las Vegas is just the opposite of proper acceptable behavior. It was observed that public/private spaces that have been abandoned for whatever reasons have been perceived by the homeless community as "theirs". This must be a result of watching others discard these spaces that are viewed as a resource and be recycled back to a useful function in their life. By providing an area and opportunity for the willing homeless, outside the constraints of traditional shelters, a place to develop these same territorial prerogatives described by Oscar Newman and following the rules outlined above the results can be two fold.

A certain number of the homeless community would be willing to take advantage of opportunities in order to start the process and re-integrate into mainstream society, or at the very least be able to live in a community of their peers without the fear of being abused, to be able to properly secure their few belongings with confidence and have a home they built. On the flip side... this type of village will provide a place for the homeless to live and allow the sidewalks and door stoops be again reclaimed and used for the designed purpose. This in turn provides economical growth back to these downtown areas that have been lost. In Las Vegas, there figures be a homeless population for many reasons. Rethink Village offers Las Vegas a unique opportunity to address the homeless community in a positive way that incorporates techniques that have gone ignored in shelters/group home settings.

Bibliography

Clare Cooper Marcus and Wendy Sarkissian. Housing as if people mattered : site design guidelines for medium-density family housing. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

Davis, Sam. Designing for the homeless : architecture that works. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.

Fathy, Hassan. Architecture for the Poor : An Experiment in Raul Eqypy. 2. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1976.

Newman, Oscar. Design guidelines for creating defensible space. Washington: [Washington] : National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Justice : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1976] c1975, 1975.