Last week, in a comment on a comment on a post, I mentioned that alleys lead to increased crime. So naturally, someone who is Google-challenged asked me to prove it. It turns out there is a lot of evidence that alleys contribute to crime by providing quiet places where criminals can hide their activities and by offering easy access to secondary entrances to people’s homes.
The research goes back at least as far as the late Oscar Newman, an architect who wanted to know why some neighborhoods suffered higher crime rates than other neighborhoods inhabited by people in a similar socioeconomic class. Newman found that urban design plays a role in making neighborhoods more or less vulnerable to crime, and that the two most important factors were having defensible space, which usually means private property, and impermeability, which means limiting the number of access points to dwellings and businesses. By limiting permeability, cul de sacs make neighborhoods less vulnerable to crime; by increasing permeability, alleys make neighborhoods more vulnerable.
Newman wrote several books about the subject, one of which, pictured above, can be downloaded from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which commissioned the book.
Dayton, Ohio asked Newman to help a neighborhood that had very high crime rates. One of the things Newman did was gate the alleys in the neighborhood. Crime dropped dramatically and did not increase elsewhere in the city, indicating that the local crime was not simply displaced somewhere else.
More recently, the Justice Department commissioned a literature review on whether closing alleys would reduce crime. The report found studies showing that closing alleys had reduced crime in Charlotte, Hartford, Los Angeles, and St. Louis, as well as several locations in England.
The Brits have taken Newman’s findings to heart far more than Americans. The British government has an entire website devoted to alley gating. Alley closures there have proven highly successful in reducing burglaries and other crime.
It may include feelings of sadness, anxiety, emptiness, hopelessness, worthlessness, guilt, cheap super cialis irritability, or restlessness. Premature ejaculation of the quality of the cause is rare, patients with all other aspects cialis viagra sale of the body is healthy, too. The cialis properien same goes with teaching, which is considered among the Healthiest Organic Supplements on the market. Today, most common causes of impotence lowest cost of viagra issue are diseases and health complications. Someone may object that many of these studies took place in low-income neighborhoods where crime rates were already high, and the results might not apply to higher income neighborhoods. Show me a high-income neighborhood where people routinely leave their doors unlocked when they leave their homes and I’ll show you a neighborhood that might not have to fear the effects of alleys on crime.
The alley debate is really a part of the larger debate over New Urbanism. As Stephen Town — an English police officer — and I wrote in Reason Magazine a few years ago, just about everything that New Urbanists want to do makes neighborhoods more vulnerable to crime.
The specific comment that set me off said that homes would be more aesthetically pleasing if only the garages faced an alley in back instead of the street in front. This point of view fundamentally misinterprets the role of streets and yards in suburban life.
Historically, we think of the street side of our homes as the “front.” Because this is the side we present to our neighbors and guests, those who can afford it add more architectural detail to the fronts to impress the public with our wealth and taste. Homes in the wealthiest neighborhoods had a service entrance in the rear for deliveries, servants, etc.
However, our lifestyles and priorities have changed. We are more likely to want to impress our friends and guests with the interiors of our homes than the exteriors. If the weather is suitable for outdoor life, we are more likely to entertain people in our backyards than our fronts. The service entrance we use for deliveries and utilities is on the street side — why waste space (and increase permeability) with an alley looking into our private yard?
Consider Radburn, New Jersey, one of the first master planned suburban neighborhoods. Designed and built in the 1920s, the streets were clearly intended as service entrances. Architecturally, the “fronts” of the houses faced away from the streets. The “back” yards of the homes consisted of a large greenspace adjacent to, not an alley, but a pedestrian/bike path.
The only problem was that the pedestrian/bike path, like an alley, added permeability and made homes and private yards more vulnerable to crime and vandalism. Post-war suburbs followed the Radburn design but deleted the public paths.
In effect, our homes have flipped: the backs are the fronts and the fronts are backs. Homebuilders figured this out decades ago. Thanks in part to the American Planning Association (discussed previously), most planners are still clueless.
Isn’t a big increase in crime a low price to pay for a more connected, livable, walkable, bikable, vibrant, integrated, and sustainable neighborhood, where people feel bound together, with organized neighborhood activity to increase resident involvement and neighborhood stewardship, with a variety of mixed uses, a sense of community, a sense of belonging and that most important sense of place?
Are we to give up all these worthy goals just to cut crime by a factor of ten?
BTW, you just have to read the reviews of the APA’s overpriced book “SafeScapeâ€Âat: http://www.planning.org/APAStore/Search/Default.aspx?p=1889.
Thanks
JK
I’m guessing cars increase crime too. I don’t have the stats, but I’m pretty sure that more cars are stolen every year than buses and trains combined. Plus, cars can are used as “getaway” vehicles in bank robberies and for drive-by shootings, among other criminal activities.
Do cars have benefits? Possibly, but why discuss them when you can just talk about how they contribute to crime?
I like it that I have to be characterized as ‘Google challenged’. That tells me a lot and should be instructive for others.
Anyway, your Reason piece cherry-picks the evidence (now there’s a surprise) and distorts the findings. What you’ll want to show is that it is the _alley_ and not other socioeconomic factors that contribute to causality. Share the studies with your readers, Randal, that show the alleys in the places where the elites live are crime havens.
DS
i live in an alley neighborhood that is very close to a city center and has struggled with crime in the past. i have nothing but anecdotal evidence to bring to the table, but let me throw some things out:
an alley is a good spot for entry, and in an area where crime is a problem, i think they can exacerbate the issue. i see the remnants of high crime alley solutions in my neighborhood. lots of my neighbors have a FORTRESS of fencing and locks between their homes and the alleys. at some point these alleys were clearly dangerous zones…
but did these alleys create this situation or was it perhaps the red-lining of the district? OH IT WAS THE RED-LINING. doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.
nowadays, new construction tends to embrace the alley. fences that fall down in alleys are more often removed then replaced. and the front street life is so full that many of my neighbors typically leave their front doors WIDE OPEN during the day. the 4 plex across the street from my will more often then not leave their front door open all night long on a summer night!
so i accept that idea that alleys can exacerbate crime problems, but neighborhood crime is a very dynamic issue. no single factor is going to increase or decrease crime… i can easily see the “crime access” issue being totally mitigated by the community bonding aspect of the front street culture in alley neighborhoods.
ONE MORE POINT: i grew up near radburn NJ and that is one of the most peaceful and wonderful communities i have ever been to. residents love it, and everyone in the area is jealous of their lifestyle.
On Dayton, Ohio…Newman also blocked off most of the streets in the Five Oaks area. But many of the gates will be going away soon–the cops hate them.
On July 16th, 2007, eeldip said:
“nowadays, new construction tends to embrace the alley. fences that fall down in alleys are more often removed then replaced. and the front street life is so full that many of my neighbors typically leave their front doors WIDE OPEN during the day. the 4 plex across the street from my will more often then not leave their front door open all night long on a summer night!”
Where do you live? It sounds like a great place.
Dan said: Anyway, your Reason piece cherry-picks the evidence (now there’s a surprise) and distorts the findings.
JK: That is you standard boilerplate when someone punctures the planner’s screwy claims. Can you cite any evidence of cherry picking (as opposed to rejecting outright crap like “SafeScape†)
Dan said: What you’ll want to show is that it is the _alley_ and not other socioeconomic factors that contribute to causality.
JK: So what? Suppose it were “other socioeconomic factors†what would the possible solutions be:
1) Reshape society.
2) Block off alleys
Which do you suppose would be the surest, fastest and cheapest solution?
The fact that opportunity plays a part is indicated by the observation that making and area less permeable, reduces crime without merely moving it to other places.
Dan said: Share the studies with your readers, Randal, that show the alleys in the places where the elites live are crime havens.
JK: Why don’t you?
Thanks
JK
BTW: Is the Antiplanner referring to alleys that are privately owned or publicly owned?
From my experience, alleys do not need to be blocked off to reduce crime. We have not had any incidents in our building since we fitted bright lights around the property (whereas, we used to regularly find needles and have cars broken into in our garage).
I’ve talked to the Vancouver Police Department and they have told me that additional, tamper-proof lighting is the cheapest and most effective way to minimize break-ins. It is not necessary to block the alleys off.
Additionally, they serve many useful purposes. Garbage trucks go up and down without blocking traffic on the street. Kids play soccer. And, it’s often a lot more pleasant to walk down them than on the tiny sidewalks (during the day).
And during the nights, a well-lit back alley can be a deterrent for any nefarious activities. I only have anecdotal data from the VPD to back this up.
Additionally, they serve many useful purposes. Garbage trucks go up and down without blocking traffic on the street.[..]
Utilities are run down them, making for lower initial costs, cheaper repair, fewer conflicts with street and front yard trees, cheaper meter reading…
DS
I’ve lived in both types of developments, alleys and non-alleys. Alleys definitely made me feel less secure and my back yard less private.
But apart from that, it seems to me that having both alleys and streets is a very “non-green” approach. It requires much more infrastructure to begin with and maintenance etc. Basically you have doubled the number of streets, doubled resources used to build the second street.
You’re also increasing the amount of paving, or in planner lingo, “impermiable surfaces” which in turn increases run-off and water entering the waste stream as opposed to permeating the soil and replenishing sub-surface water systems.
I know in some areas they are very big on reducing impervious surfaces and run-off entering the storm sewer system … yet they promote the two-street system of development.
???
That makes sense ROT, because arson, auto theft and breaking & entering are victim less crimes?