Issuu on Google+

The Cube

Simone van den Elzen s129619 Rosa Hendrikx s128521 Dennis Rietveld s122375 Iris Ritsma s121596 Coach: Sander Lucas

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth | Eindhoven University of Technology | Department of Industrial Design

Final report Designing Out Crime, Loitering Youth Students: Simone van den Elzen s129619 B1.2 Rosa Hendrikx s128521 B1.2 Dennis Rietveld s122375 B1.2 Iris Ritsma s121596 B1.2 Coach: Sander Lucas Education: Eindhoven University of Technology Department of Industrial Design 17-06-13

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Abstract Within the project Design Out Crime, loitering youth, the focus lays on the Amandelpark located at Vaartbroek in Eindhoven. The DOC-method was used as design process guideline in this project. There have been much contact with the youth, youth workers, police and municipality. After research the theme ‘environment’ was chosen as main theme for the project. Within this theme the frame “The problem lies in the heart of the environment; vandalism and pollution cause a wrong perception and a low feeling of safety” was created. With this frame the final concept of ‘The cube’ has been developed. The concept consists of colored trashcans, which interact with an artwork consisting of an interactive cube and two big hands. This will help to decrease pollution and vandalism and will increase the overall atmosphere. Furthermore it will provide an indirect communication and cooperation in the neighborhood. Also a plan for implementation has been made. Youth and residents will be involved with the project, through coloring and adoption of trashcans. And the project will not be presented as vandalism-proof.

3 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth


Before you is the report of Simone van den Elzen, Rosa Hendrikx, Dennis Rietveld and Iris Ritsma. This report is written to give a clear perspective on the process and end result of the project Design Out Crime; loitering youth, within the theme Changing Behaviour. Part of the faculty Industrial Design within the University of Technology Eindhoven. Under the guidance of the coach Sander Lucas we worked together for half a year. We started with only a few guidelines; design out crime, loitering youth and the Amandelpark at Vaartbroek. In the end the work of four different B1.2 industrial design students with all their own contribution led to the concept of ‘the cube’. A concept we present with satisfaction. All of us have learned a lot and developed themselves during this half a year. It was a project that was close to reality, something that made us all enthusiastic. We are happy to show this report and curious how the concept of ‘the cube’ will develop itself in the near and distant future. Eindhoven 18th of June 2013, Simone van den Elzen, Rosa Hendrikx, Dennis Rietveld, Iris Ritsma

4 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Index Abstract Preface 1. Introduction

3 4 6

2. Research 2.1 Investigating Problem

10 11

2.2 Widening Context


1.1 Introduction 1.2 DOC

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2

Archeology Paradox

Stake Holders Arena

7 8

4. Concept Development 4.1 Exploring Scenarios

32 33

5. Conclusion 5.1 Summary


4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4

Futures scenario Interation Final Concept Transformation


6. Sources 7. Epilogue 8. Appendix

48 48

50 52 54

23 25

26 27

Themes Frames


11 20

3. Idea Generation 3.1 Creating Frames 3.1.1 3.1.2

5.2 Integrating

27 30

33 35 37 41 46

5 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

1. Introduction

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Introduction 1.1 Introduction At the start of this semester we recieved the project ‘Designing Out Crime’. Besides that we also recieved a specific direction within the project. This was to focus on the Loitering Youth in the neighborhood of Vaartbroek. During our project we especially focused on the Amandelpark, a park located in the neighborhood. After an arranged meeting with some people of the municipality of Eindhoven, the local police officer and a youthworker from Bureau Cement we were ready to start with our project. Because this is a Designing Out Crime (DOC) project we also had to work with the DOC project guidelines. In the next paragraph you can read more about this methodo. The central idea of this theory is to look further than the problem, search for the source of the problem. Within this project the aim is to solve the source of the problem and not the outcomes of it.

7 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Introduction 1.2 DOC

The methodology of DOC revolves on 9 steps3

Investigating the Problem -Archeology: Analyzing the history of the problem or problem owner and the initial problem formulation. -Paradox: What makes the problem difficult to solve and Integrating where are the bottlenecks. -Connections: Evaluate the implementation and place it in Widening Context a bigger context again in order to get new -Stakeholders: opportunities. One of the key principles of the designing Investigate the involved stakeholders and out crime method is to not create analyze their needs and position. In this report the DOC method will serve as “countermeasures”. This approach is namely -Arena: a guideline, on some places it will diverge very likely to create an atmosphere of mistrust Widen the context and analyze the problem in from the method in order to provide more and fear. Designers using this method use a this bigger context. information on certain subjects. positive approach to the problem and focus on stimulating good and desired behavior and Creating Frames in this way reducing the misbehavior2. -Themes: Analysis of the different phenomenon within The name “Designing Out Crime” might give the wider context the impression that this method is mainly -Frames: focusing on crimes, but it can abe used for Identity patterns between stakeholders in multiple societal problems3. order to create frames. This project is done from a Designing out Crime (DOC) standpoint. This method has been developed to change undesired behavior into desired behavior through design. The method supports designers from the beginning of a project to find out what the user needs and what his or her desires are. Also it helps to find out what it is that stimulates the undesired behavior1.


Exploring Scenarios: -Futures: Design exploration of the possible frames and evaluation. -Transformation: Determine the changes to be made in the existing situation for implementation.

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

2. Research

10 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth


2.1 Investigating Problem Archeology

Although loitering youths are an old phenomenon, the problems around them only appeared in the last decades. Changes History and terminology in society surrounding over the past decades Loitering youths are not a new phenomenon; such as individualization, the increase in the Netherlands they occur since the 1960’s. in violence and the increase in weapons influenced the image of loitering youths, After the Second World War and the period of rebuilding the youth had more spare time. although these youths have little to do with especially the last two. Because of this spare time, the youths could afford it to meet each other in the public space. The “non-constructive” nature of these Many loitering youths are a part of a meetings agitated the more adult generation, subculture; these cultures can normally be found on the edges of the cultural spectrum. since they were used to the fact that youths needed to work from a young age in order to From the 70’s and 80’s the one existing youth into all kinds of different support the family, just like they did. Already culture transformed 4 subcultures . in the 1960’s different terms were used to describe these youngsters Nozems, Dijkers etc. The best-known Dutch term for Loitering Youth: Hangjongeren (youths hanging around) was introduced in the 1990’s. With the introduction of this term in the media, the loitering youths became an issue on every governmental safety policy.

Why do youths loiter? Loitering is mainly about social development. Loitering youths mostly are between 12-20 years old; in this phase of life youths start to develop themselves socially and need a place or activity supporting that. This place or activity is preferably out of sight of their

parents. Within these loitering groups the behavior is often more assertive and intimidating then what people are normally used to, probably to impress the opposite sex and your friends. Youngsters tempt to explore their boundaries and sometimes step over them in order to know where they are. Most of the time this behavior has nothing to do with criminal activities; only a few youngsters end up in the criminal world. Many of the youngsters that loiter on the street have no home environment where they can develop themselves and lack associations to clubs or activities outside school such as a sport club. This lack causes them to meet others on the streets5.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Problems Surrounding Loitering Youths:


The increase of perceived criminal activities, violence and severe nuisance is projected on Loitering youths are often perceived as these loitering groups because of the few that nuisance causing, indifferent and lazy. evolve from loitering youth to the criminal Their seemingly useless nature of loitering circuit. Furthermore the decline of social agitates adult generations, even today. cohesion and the individualization of society makes it more difficult for both the loitering There are direct and indirect forms of youth and residents to come into contact with problems surrounding loitering youths. The each other, which makes the loitering groups indirect problem being the potential nuisance even more intimidating3. they cause. Typical nuisance associated to loitering youths are: noise, intimidation, vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, littering, Categories hindering and aggression. These types of nuisance are not evident in all loitering youth There are four different types of loitering groups, many groups even cause no nuisance groups: Acceptable youth, annoying youth, at all, but this nuisance is the cause for the nuisance youth and criminal youth. These four more indirect problem. categories are defined by sociologists and criminologists who did extensive research to Next to the actual nuisance, loitering youths different loitering groups and their behavior. contribute heavily to the low feeling of safety in neighborhoods. The nuisance linked to 1. Acceptable youth loitering youths makes them intimidating The first and least troublesome category is for residents. The presence of those youths the acceptable youth groups. These are young can also be interpreted as a violence of one’s people who group together on the streets but privacy, adding again to the feeling of safety. behave within socially acceptable standards.

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

They do not cause measurable nuisance. These groups don’t just interact with each other but also have social contact outside the group. They participate in social events and are likely to visit youth centers on their own initiative. 2. Annoying youth The second group causes some more trouble than the first. This group does not show any aggression towards the neighborhood but do show behavior that can be experienced as unacceptable. This is often more coincidental than planned. They also make themselves guilty of occasional small vandalism. In general, it is a group that is still sufficiently “authority sensitive “and can be addressed on its behavior. 3. Nuisance youth The third category is not just experienced by the bystanders as nuisance causing but is objectively troublesome. These groups are known for their proactive behavior, harassment of bystanders and otherwise intimidating behavior. They occasionally commit vandalism and light but intentional

Research crime. These groups are less easily corrected by authority.

worker might visit but otherwise they are left alone.

conflicts the youngsters face.

4. Criminal youth groups are addressed 4.Criminal youth 2. For annoying youth, most work is in a more repressive way. The police are the The final category is defined as criminal youth. concentrated on preventive measures. Youth primary actor for these groups because the Criminal loitering groups consist partly of workers look at what ways the group can be youngsters are generally considered too young people who frequently come into influenced to change their behavior for the dangerous for youth works to visit alone. The contact with the police. The motivation for better. Involvement with the neighborhood justice system aims to bring these people criminal behavior is mainly financial gain. The plays a central role: tolerance from both sides back into society with rehabilitation workers members of this group commit serious crimes is what is aimed at. The youngsters in these that come into action after a prison/work among some with excessive violence. These groups are willing to participate or to organize sentence4. groups can also be referred to as criminal activities in the youth center. The problems of 3 gangs . the youngsters vary, but most of the time it is possible to help them and to create trusting relationships with youth workers. Approach of the youth groups 3. For the nuisance group a more specific Depending on the category youth workers way of working is required. Their behavior have different ways to approach the is not tolerated by the inhabitants of the youngsters. Different groups need different environment and these people feel threatened amount of guidance and react in different by the presence of the youngsters. Social work ways to intervening aiding agencies. with these groups is often combined with a repressive policing approach. Temporary 1. The acceptable category is not really intervention workers (Tim-er’s) can help these addressed by youth work, occasionally when youngsters on an individual level by giving a group starts to become annoying, a youth coaching. They also mediate in individual


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Area description Geography Vaartbroek is a neighborhood in Eindhoven. Eindhoven is one of the five biggest cities in the Nederland. In the image below you can see an overview of Eindhoven; the red area shows the position of the neighborhood Vaartbroek.

The neighborhood Vaartbroek is a part of an area that is called the “Dommelbeemd.” The “Dommel” is a local river and “beemd” comes from the dutch word “Beemderen.” What is an old fashion word that was used a lot in the area and means “grass plots in a stream valley.” The “Dommelbeemd” has six different neighborhoods, namely: • Eckart • Luytelaer • Vaartbroek • Heesterakker • Esp • Bokt In the image on the right you can see the six different neighborhoods that are a part of the “Dommelbeemd.”5

14 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research History


The district Vaartbroek has been built in the 60s of the 20th century. When the neighborhood arose, many employees of the Philips Company moved in. Back then, there was a lot of social control. When residents misbehaved, complaints went to their bosses (managers from Philips), whereupon these bosses took care of the problems. Nowadays the social control is gone, and lots of people who used to live in this neighborhood complain a lot about the occurring nuisance or moved elsewhere.

Vaartbroek has a mall, which was renovated in 2005, with more than 25 shops and a library. A big health-center is located in the neighborhood as well. The Amandelpark is the center of the neighborhood; this park is surrounded with social housing. The park, which has been renovated in 2007, is provided with multiple playgrounds for children and youth, and in the north a small petting zoo has been build. Between the mall and the Amandelpark, neighborhood center “de Vaart” is located. This center is used by several organizations, such as “Buro Cement” and “De Kadervrouwen”, and by the residents of Vaartbroek. The center is used as a meeting place and a place to organize activities. The residents who live around the

In the last decade, the shopping mall and the Amandelpark changed the most; they have been renovated several times. The remainder of the neighborhood did practically not change at all.5

Amandelpark are very poor; more expensive housing can be found at the East of the neighborhood. The poor and the richer part of the neighborhood are segregated by “the Tarwelaan”.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Statistics6

accommodated, that are necessarily bounded to the social properties. Because of these small Statistics show that the population (people/ social properties, the average house value is 2 km ) in Vaartbroek is obviously higher than the also a lot lower than in Woensel, Eindhoven average population in the Netherlands. This and the Netherlands. can be explained by the fact that most of the The innovation in properties is a data that residents of Vaartbroek live in small houses stands out as well. Relative to Eindhoven and (social housing or small terraced houses). the Netherlands, there is very little innovation Another explanation is the apartments in in Vaartbroek. the neighborhood; because of these high buildings, relatively a lot of people live on a small surface. Groups and Locations The amounts of immigrants, and the amount of Non-Western immigrants in special, are pointedly higher in Vaartbroek than in Woensel, Eindhoven and the Netherlands. Due to the high ratio of immigrants there are a lot of subcultures. These subcultures can lead to bad communication and they often go together with poverty.


The amount of social rental properties is relatively really high in Vaartbroek; surrounding the Amandelpark, a lot of people with alcohol- or drugs addictions are

For this project, a target group has been selected. This group is a “mixed group”; it is composed out of the protagonists of several youth-groups in the Amandelpark. The interrelationships between the youth of the different groups is a bit “fake”; when they see each other, they act like they are friends, but when they are with their own friends, they talk negatively about each other. The target group is in the age of 15 to 16 years old. The youths constantly try to push the limits. They often cause nuisance and see

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

how far they can go. Below you can find a few examples of the nuisance they cause: •Noise: motorcycles, cell phones, shouting and loud music. • Pollution: cans, glasses, and other trash are not deposited in the bin and are not cleaned up afterwards. • Vandalism and graffiti: destruction of cars, playgrounds, and street furniture. Graffiti on public buildings and walls. • Youngsters that hang out on the streets late: sometimes they are still there late into the night and they block the road. Bystanders could therefore feel threatened and unsafe. • Obstruction of privacy for residential of the residential area. •The use of alcohol and drugs in public spaces • Aggression and lack of accountability5

Research Amandelpark

Most of the youth’s parents have a backpack; for example they have an addiction, criminal background, etc. Because of these parental problems, they are not always capable to raise their kids in the right way. The youth often has a very low level of education and some of them have mental restrictions. These restrictions are one of the reasons for the occurring nuisance. When we look at the “loitering youth category model”, these youths are in category 2 to 3; this means: obstructive behavior and lightly nuisance causing.


The Amandelpark is located in the middle of the neighborhood Vaartbroek. It is surrounded by apartments and social properties, which have no good view over the park. The paths to reach the terrain are well taken care off and it is clearly visible that different user groups were taken into account in the design of the park. A little skate park, playgrounds for children of different age groups, benches and tables and a vandalism proof hang spot can be found. These different features in the park are added or renovated in 2007, so they are practically new. In the south of the park, a Social Sofa is located; the social sofa is a stone bench which has been decorated with mosaic by the residents of Vaartbroek. This bench is one of the few features in the park which hasn’t been devastated yet. The reason for this is that they see the bench as their own creation. As visible on the picture on the right, all the social properties and the apartment complexes are situated away from the park. So there is a clear boarder between the buildings


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research and the Amandelpark. Besides the ordering of the houses, the paths in the park strengthen this boundary because they lay directly at the edge of the park. This physical boundary contains in less social control in the park. In the south, where the main entrance road of Vaartbroek is situated, the boundary with the build environment is less strong. A few years ago, there has been build a large apartment complex for older people. This apartment complex has the shape of an ‘upside down U’, what means that you can walk under¬neath it to enter the park5.

18 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Existing approaches

The Pop-up table: A piece of street furniture designed by Carmela Bogman and Rogier Martens for the Bandoengstraat in Utrecht. The Pop-up table is a series of tables that can pop-up from the ground in different settings. The Pop-up table was co-designed and created after the wishes of residents and youths. In order to make the furniture pop up, the keys to the control panel has to be asked from residents, providing some kind of overview of who uses the utilities.

Mosquito: The Mosquito is a sound device, which produces a high-pitched tone that only can be heard by youngster until approximately 25 years. Originally invented and used in England, the first devices were used in the Netherlands in 2006. The use of this device provoked political debate since it could be in conflict with the constitution. Ultimately the use of the Mosquito is found legal, but the use of them should be regulated by local governments. The tone produced by the mosquito is 17.4 kHz. HONQ: HONQ is a meeting spot for the public space, M.O.P. mobile meeting spot: developed by Buro Stad en Land. It is a Rogier Martens designed a mobile meeting concrete model in which furniture is placed, spot for loitering youths in Eindhoven. The the model is vandalism proof and easy to idea behind this design is to give youths an maintain. attractive meeting spot, this spot is meant to give youth a special place in order to reduce Pink Lights: the nuisance. If the M.O.P attracts more In order to scare of youngsters in a Cardiff nuisance than originally, it can be moved estate the plan is to place pink lighting. This again in order to drive the youths from that pink lighting makes the place less attractive spot. and even makes the youngsters standing

in it less attractive since it claims to show of highlight acne. The system has already been used successfully at other locations3,5.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Paradox


Secondly the pollution makes the park more susceptible for vandalism. In the Amandelpark vandalism is a common problem. The youth In the archeology is concluded that the main tend to demolish trashcans and other problem in the Amandelpark is pollution. When the youth loiter around in the park, they common goods like park benches etc. The residents experience this vandalism as throw their trash on the ground instead of in unpleasant and it has a negative influence on the trashcans. The residents and especially the ambience in the park. When the park is the elderly think this is very undesirable. This problem of pollution has a huge influence on clean and it looks well cared for the youth will have more respect for their surroundings. This the ambience in the park. way vandalism could be reduced. Furthermore the pollution is very child unfriendly while First of all most residents are annoyed by the the park should be a playground for them. trash the youth leave on the ground. What makes this difficult is that they are also afraid Children cannot play safely in the park and vandalism affects the reputation and image of to say something to the youth about their the park. behavior. They keep their annoyances for themselves. Because the residents do not show their feelings the irritations continue to There are a few aspects that have contributed to the rise of this problem which make it hard accumulate. Eventually some residents start to solve. calling the municipality, but this often does not offer the solution. The municipality may come by to clean the area once in a while but As mentioned before the residents are afraid to communicate with the youth about their the problem that causes the pollution is not solved. Because the problem continues to exist irritations. This problem is hard to solve; it is the residents feel ignored and this contributes undesirable to force these people to speak out and if they do speak out this does not to a worse experience of the problem.

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

necessarily mean that the problem will be solved. The approach of the youth is an important and difficult aspect for the solution for the problem. Another aspect that makes this difficult is that the “culture” of throwing things on the ground has to change. First it has to become more attractive to throw trash in trashcans. Second we want to send the implicit message that it is ‘normal and desirable’ to throw your thrash in trashcans instead of on the ground. When the youth understand that in the park people do not throw things on the ground their attitude might change. A third aspect is that it is important that not only the youth is approached. Other visitors of the park also tend to throw their trash on the ground. The attitude of all actors will be changed. This can change the culture of the park and people will feel that polluting the park is not acceptable.

21 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Stakeholders in the neighborhood7

22 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth


2.2 Widening Context Stakeholders The problem surrounding loitering youth involves many stakeholders. For example there are direct stakeholders like the youth and the residents, but there are also a lot of indirect stakeholders involved. The direct and indirect stakeholders are listed and explained. Direct Stakeholders •Loitering Youth The youth themselves are the main stakeholders the project focusses on them. They cause the problem of trash and without the youth there would not be any problem. Also the youth are the connection to all the following stakeholders. •Residents The residents are the ones who ‘suffer’ the most ofrom the behavior of the loitering youth. They are confronted with the trash daily. Besides that, they could also encounter violence, vandalism, pyromaniac accidents, noise nuisance caused by the youth. Some

residents even feel unsafe in their own environments. •Visitors For them the loitering youth are unknown, but they could also encounter the pollution that is caused by the youth. Also they experience a less pleasant ambience in the park as a result of the trash that’s lying around. •(local) Police The local police officer’s main task is to supervise everything. Knowing what is happening in the neighborhood, being available to talk to by all residents and to take action when that is needed. •Bureau Cement / Jongerencentrum de Vaart This is an organization which is committed for the quality of living in the neighborhood. They help and give advice to people with problems, organize workshops and activities for every one of every age and arrange meetings with volunteers and other residents. Activities which are organized for the youth mostly take place in youth centre ‘De Vaart’. The whole

organization is set up to help the residents to eventually be able to arrange all the activities themselves. In time, Bureau Cement will move on to the next neighborhood. •Municipality of Eindhoven They are the superior of the (local)police and eventually have the responsibility of what happens there. They are also the client, who gave the assignment to look at the problem with the loitering youth in Vaartbroek.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research All involved stakeholders8

24 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Research Arena Justice •Bureau Halt Youngsters become referred by criminal offenses. It tries to stop their criminality and to give them information and advice. •Openbaar ministerie Detection and prosecution offenses and monitoring of the implementation of criminal judgments. •Reclassering Nederland Determines the way of guidance, these verity and the execution of punishment9

25 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

3. Idea Generation

26 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

3.1 Creating Frames

Idea Generation


better and respectful communication between theme to make the residents feel more the youth and the residents, which makes pleasant in their own neighborhood. discussing easier. from the archeology and the widening of Perception gap the context in the arena a few themes can be Communication between the municipality There seems to be a discrepancy between the subtracted. and the residents. actual nuisance and incidents and the low There has been discovered that there is hardly/ feeling of safety in Vaartbroek. People do feel Communication no communication between the municipality unsafe and a large group does believe that the and the residents. A few years ago the loitering youths in Vaartbroek cause nuisance. One important theme within the problem of municipality has decided to renovate the The public opinion and perception of loitering loitering youth seems to be “communication”. Amandelpark. It is very clear that they did not youths cause more problems and nuisance Within this theme there are two subthemes, communicate well with the neighborhood. then the youth actually cause. Therefore one namely: “The communication between The municipality spoke for the residents; of the important themes in this project is the residents and the youth” and “the The result of this is that the municipality has change of perception, or the closing of the communication between the municipality and provided all kinds of facilities which do not perception gap. the residents”. match with the resident’s needs. The facilities seem to be randomly placed among the park; Environment Communication between residents and the there is no logic behind it and they are barely youth. used. For example the basketball field in front In the park there is a notable amount of The youth in the neighborhood is very brutal, of the bedrooms of elderly leads to nuisance, graffiti, demolitions and trash. Of course and therefore the residents, mainly the elderly, the low amount of lanterns lead to a low this does not have a positive effect on the avoid contact with the youth. They don’t talk feeling of safety in the evening. The benches atmosphere. It strengthened the negative with the youth about their behavior because placed on the grass are barely used because image. Especially for the target group “parents they fear a brutal reaction. Instead they there is dog-shit all over the grass. Therefore with children”, this is a reason to stay away, complain to the police or the municipality. The the theme “communication between the because they don’t want to let their children challenge within this theme is to stimulate a municipality and residents” is an important play in this bad environment. Furthermore it


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Idea Generation causes an unconscious feeling of low safety. And in the end it will make the threshold for further vandalism or pollution lower.


violence and harassments. By improving the communication between residents and the youth the nuisance could be reduced.

Preventive complains Another important aspect which has a lot Low feeling of safety to do with “fear”, is that the residents fear nuisance. Because they know there has been Design Amandelpark nuisance in the past they are afraid that it In the Amandelpark there are very little will come again. So by the smallest sign lanterns. Therefore it is very dark in the park of something that could possible become in the evenings and at night. The youths nuisance they start complaining at the police hang in the park till very late in the evening that there is nuisance. The youth in this case and because of the dark there is very little supervision. At night, the residents feel unsafe has not done anything wrong and yet there are complains about their behavior. because they can hear the youth talking, but they do not know what is going on. This Social housing situation could be improved by giving the residents more overview of what is happening The houses around the park are used for social housing. This means that the neighborhood in the park at night. is a gathering of individuals with a backlog. As the local police describes it: “everyone has Fear for youth. When the loitering youth is causing nuisance a backpack”. A lot of people are unemployed, the residents often are afraid to complain. The there is a lot of poverty and criminality and most of the people are not very smart or even youths’ behavior is often not so polite and mentally limited. Due to the fact that all these residents are afraid of the brutal language of people have a backlog a lot of children are the youth. They fear the insults of the youth,

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

influenced by this (mostly because of their parents). These end up in the street causing nuisance.

Parenting Also an important part of the problem with loitering youth lies with the parents of the youth. They are often the reason that the children hang in the streets till late in the night. Because of the social housing most of the parents have problems themselves like: an alcohol or drugs addiction, they are not aware of money and do not know how to handle their children. The children end up in the streets because this is a good place for them to develop socially out of sight of their parents. Or the streets give them the opportunity to avoid their parents and their problems. Very often residents cannot talk to the parents about their children’s behavior because they simply do not accept any comments or do not know how to handle the situation. So improving the parenting is an important theme within loitering youth.

Idea Generation Subcultures Due to the social housing around the Amandelpark the ratio of immigrants is higher than in the average residential area in the Netherlands. A lot of immigrants have difficulties finding a job and the social housing offers them a cheap housing. The gathering of different cultures causes prejudices. Namely the elderly in the residential area associate immigrants with criminality. This obstructs the communication and makes the experience of nuisance worse.

29 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Idea Generation Frames

consequential preventive complaints.

The themes can be seen as initial problems of loitering youth. But there can also be a combination of themes, which result in a new perspective on the problem. With combining and interpreting the themes in a new way, two frames can be subtracted.

Other important themes are the environment and low feeling of safety. They have much to do with each other. The bad environment causes a low feeling of safety and gives a bad image of the youth. This makes it worse than it actually is, so this isn’t full realistic; therefore the perception gap pop-ups again. The problem of loitering youth can be based on an environmental problem. Consequential the following theme can be subtracted:

The communication within the park is a big theme. There barely is any communication between residents and youth. The perception gap gives a wrong image of the problem and that result in preventive complains. So the themes are combined, the problem of loitering youth can be seen quite different. The problem lies in the heart of communication. An important aspect of this frame is that it doesn’t focus only on youth. It makes both the youth and the residents owners of the problem. Consequential the following theme can be subtracted:


The problem lies in the heart of the environment; vandalism and pollution cause a wrong perception and a low feeling of safety. Where the first theme focus on the direct communication, the second theme focus on the environment and on the indirect communication the environment has.

The problem lies in the heart of communication, not only by the youth. The problem is shaped by the perception gap and

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

31 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

4. Concept Development

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development

4.1 Exploring scenarios Futures

Residents as exemplar The residents should be able to very easily For the 2 frames Communication and littering, create an event through an application, in several design explorations have been made. which they can teach their skills to the youth. By teaching the skills, the youth will get more Firstly, both frames apart of each other were respect for these residents, and so the direct looked at; communication could be improved. The problem lies in the heart of communication, not only by the youth. The problem is shaped by the perception gap and consequential preventive complaints.

For the indirect communication the focus has been put on “positive feedback�. The idea is to give positive feedback instead of complaining negatively; this causes a better atmosphere in the park and changes the view To continue with the frame above, a division that residents have of the youth. Also, this idea between direct and indirect communication should provide for less need in interference was made. of the police. For this problem of indirect For the direct communication, the threshold of communication, the following solutions have residents talking to youth had to be lowered. been found: This would lead into more direct feedback and less complaints to police; therefore, the police less often has to intervene or come to check. Benefits of this are that the feeling of safety and the atmosphere of the park will become larger. For the problem of direct communication, the following solution has been found:

Positive feedback system The positive feedback system contains of a platform, whereby residents can very easily turn their negative complaints into positive feedback. Loitering youths receive this positive feedback and can adopt if they feel the need for it. They are being informed of the nuisance they cause in a positive way. Rewarding If the residents are able to reward the youth if they show good behavior, the youths will more likely feel free to talk to the residents because they offered them a favor. Rewarding complaining system A system based on rewarding the youth with a certain service or product, which will disappear when they provoke to many complaints. The youths will be stimulated to show good behavior, because if they do not, the given service or product will disappear.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development The problem lies in the heart of the their main problem is being dealt with. environment; vandalism and pollution cause a wrong perception and a low feeling of Creating art safety. By transforming garbage into art in an interactive way, residents get a visualization of The other frame that has been chosen is noted garbage disposal in the park. This interactivity above. A decision that has been made was can be made fun by adding colors or lights that the disposal of waste has to become more that change when disposing garbage. The fun and attractive. This leaded to the following idea is to create an interactive art-piece that Design question: triggers residents to dispose their waste. How to make garbage disposal more fun and attracting without affecting the park atmosphere in a negative way? By the method of brainstorming through visuals and text, the following scenarios have been found:


“Human bin� By creating a bin that has some of the characteristics of a human, a lot of attention will be attracted. Residents and youths will notice these bins more easily and the human characteristics make it fun to dispose the waste.

Interactive light installation By making an interactive light installation underneath the Amandelpoort (the apartment where a lot of elderly live and where most complains come from), that reacts on garbage disposal, people might be more triggered to dispose their garbage and elderly notice that

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Scenario iteration To continue the designing process, one scenario had to be chosen. The communication frame turned out to be way too broad. By solving this frame, a big part of the problem would be solved; nevertheless, the discovery had been made that it is not possible to solve the whole problem in once. By consulting the DOC-method, the choice to focus on a smaller problem has been made. The littering frame seemed to be very appropriate for this context; by resolving the littering problem, which on itself is a small problem, bigger problems such as communication and park atmosphere will also become better. Namely, when there is less littering in the park, the park will become cleaner; this will enlarge the feeling of safety, and improve the atmosphere of the park. With a better atmosphere and higher feeling of safety, the threshold of approaching the youth will be smaller; the communication in the park will in this way become better.

The scenario “Creating art” was considered to be the most potential and innovative solution for the problem. Below is explained how this scenario was further developed into a concept. The first iteration on the scenario is about a physical way to convert garbage into art. First Iteration In the center of the park a big tree will be placed; this tree is made out of a transparent material and is hollow from the inside. Surrounding the tree, 4 bins are placed. When users throw their waste into the bins, the waste will be put into colored plastic and get sealed. This sealed plastic bag with garbage will be launched into the tree. The bags of waste are visible from the outside and residents work together to “build up the tree”.

cooperate to make something grow; the users are building up something together, which triggers the use of better communication. Nevertheless, this iteration is not very executable; once in a while, the tree will have to be drained, which is a very hard process considering a huge amount of garbage in the center of the park. Also the sealed garbage bags can be filled with liquids or glass. This can cause a rupture in the bags and therefore the tree might become very dirty from the inside.

In order to come to a second iteration, the physical aspect was partly left behind. From the first iteration, the interactivity and cooperation turned out to be very important. Therefore, it has been determined to keep these aspects present. What needs to be taken out is the physical garbage aspect; this is simply not executable and can cause a lot of First iteration evaluation cleaning troubles. By visiting the park a few What is good about this iteration is that the times for new inspiration and insights, and main goals are being pursued; people become taking the found information into account, the more aware of the garbage in the park and second iteration has been formed. the disposal of garbage becomes more fun. Another very strong point is that the users


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Second iteration This second iteration has been chosen for Again, in the central of the park, an artwork elaboration into a concept. This concept can will be located. This artwork consists out of at be viewed in the paragraph “Final Concept�. least one interactive element and a factor that will make the artwork vandalism-proof. In the area around the central artwork, colored bins will be placed. When disposing garbage into a bin of a specific color, gradually the artwork will adopt this color. Therefore residents can cooperate to form a constantly changing artwork. The artwork will again make people aware of the disposed waste. Second iteration evaluation The implementation of the interactive element makes this second iteration more playful, executable and it ensures the artwork to be fun for a longer time. The main goals are still in it and the vandalism-proof aspect has been added. What is strong about this iteration is that it is innovative and it can be very easily transformed to the real world; this iteration is very close to reality.

36 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Final Concept The concept consists out of colored bins (red, yellow, blue and green) that are located surrounding a central artwork. These colored bins react on waste disposal by lighting up and sending a signal to the central artwork. The artwork, in its place, will partly adopt the color of the specific bin. Below, the concept has been split up into 3 parts: Colored bins The colored bins, 8 pieces in total, are located around the central artwork. From the picture below, it becomes clear that the bins are located in such a way, that the artwork is always visible. The locations of the bins that

are showed in the picture are the locations of the bins that are already placed in the park; these bins only need to be provided with the technique and colored in the specific colors red, blue, yellow and green.

their creation, they will automatically defend it from being devastated by others.

The technique that will be placed into the bins needs to be protected from thievery. This can be done by integrating a steel box to the For the painting of the bins, the loitering inside of each bin. Inside this box, an infrayouth of the Amandelpark will be approached. red sensor to detect the disposal of garbage They will be given the chance to paint the and a led strip to make the bin light up at bin into a uniform color and to provide it the moment of disposal will be placed. These with their own graffiti tag. This principle is electronics may be provided with flux through based on the principle of the ‘social sofa’; the an underground cable, but might also be social sofa, as explained in the archeology, is provided with flux by a replaceable battery. a bench that has been decorated with mosaic by the residents themselves. Because the youth and residents see this bench as “their own creation”, they leave it clean and do not use vandalism against it. So by making the youth feel as if they created the bins themselves, they are less likely to use vandalism against it. Also the social control will increase by letting the youth put their tags on the bins; because they will be proud of


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Central artwork The artwork, visible on the picture on the right, is the central attraction point of the park. This artwork consists out of 2 arms that hold a cube. The form has been determined in cooperation with the youth and residents, and the location, which can be seen in the picture above, has been determined in cooperation with the police and youth workers of the district Vaartbroek.


The place where the artwork should be build is in the south of the park. From here, the residents of the Amandelpoort can easily see the artwork. Police confirmed that these residents complained by far the most about the loitering youth. Nevertheless, they had the feeling that police did not listen to their complaints and did not take them seriously. Therefore, this artwork will be placed in front of the Amandelpoort to show them that their complaints are taken seriously and to show them that the problems regarding loitering youths, which they raised, are taken care of. Also the location ensures visitors of the Amandelpark to see the artwork. Because

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

there are very few trees located around the artwork, which makes the artwork to stand in an open field, it is very much attracting attention. As mentioned in the scenarios, the artwork had to be made in such a way that it would become vandalism-proof. The solution that has been found for this condition is to make the artwork out of 2 elements; an element that provides for the vandalism-proof aspect and an element that provides for the interactivity. The picture on the left shows the vandalism proof part (the arms made out of a firm material, such as concrete or metal) and the interactive part (the cube, consisting out of small colored cubes). Because the hands, which in total are 5 meter high, retain the lowest point of the cube at a height of 3.5 meter, youth will be unable to reach the interactive part and therefore will be unable to exercise vandalism on it. The form, as mentioned above, has been determined in cooperation with the youth and the residents. Several test were taken

Concept Development to discover what kind of forms the youth preferred. From this, the discovery was made that the youths preferred concrete forms; forms that they recognized. For example, they preferred animals, body parts, cars and other recognizable objects. What they really did not like were abstract artworks. By making the decision to create a concrete form that were able to carry the interactive part, several sketches were produced.

For the interactive part, we picked a cube, consisting out of multiple small cubes; from one of the tests that was performed with the youth, it became clear that they preferred big, multi-cornered forms that consist out of multiple elements. When the sketches were made, the concept was presented to the residents of the Amandelpoort and the sketches were shown. The feedback that was given by almost all residents was that the

precise form did not really matter to them, but they would like to see symbolism in the design. Because users will work together to form the artwork, ‘cooperation’ has been taken as symbolism. This gave the result to create a multielemental artwork, consisting out of two concrete forms (in this case two arms), that ‘together’ hold the interactive cube. To test how the arms should hold the cube, multiple pictures of hands holding the cube in different ways were made, from which the one that best showed the symbolism was chosen.

39 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Interaction The interactive part, as mentioned before, consists out of a big cube that is build up from smaller cubes. The dimensions of the cube are 1.5 meter on all sides, and every side contains 25 smaller cubes. These smaller cubes are painted in the colors blue, red, yellow and green, so that every side contains a different color. When a user disposes a piece of garbage into a bin of a specific color (green for example), the bin will light up for a moment to inform the user that something is happening, and it will send a signal to the central artwork. The artwork, in its turn, will rotate a random colored small cube so that the green color will come in front. In this way, the users will constantly change the color pattern of the big cube and therefore create a constantly changing artwork. On the right, a scenario has been made regarding the interactivity.


A function that was added to improve the interaction is that if two users dispose garbage at the same time, the effect of color change in the cube will be doubled.

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Transformation

The strive is to involve the youth in setting up this project. For the concept, several For achieving a success with this project it is of trashcans in the park will need to be painted great importance that The Cube is introduced in different colors. The idea is to let these in the right way. Vandalism is something that trashcans be painted by the youth themselves. For example, this could be done by organizing regularly occurs in this park. It is important a competition in which youth can qualify that youth, residents and visitors of the park themselves for painting a trashcan. They will feel attached to The Cube to prevent it from be able paint it in a certain color and place vandalism. Therefore a plan of approach is their signature or a “tag” on it. developed. The artwork: By designing the shape of the artwork, the input of the youth and the residents of Vaartbroek have been used. From the conversations with the youth, the conclusion was made that they prefer non-abstract artworks. Next to that, the residents preferred an artwork that tells a story about the park or symbolizes something. This has resulted in the shape of two hands holding the cube. The two hands symbolize cooperation and at the same time protect the cube from vandalism, because it is high above the ground. The trashcans:

Adoption trashcan: The goal that has been set is to make it possible for the residents to “adopt” a trashcan. Then they will also feel more connected to The Cube. Besides that, both the residents and the youth feel responsible for the trashcan, which ensures social control. In this way, vandalism will be prevented; and on top of that the persons who have adopted the trashcan could maybe empty it when it is full or replace the batteries/ensure the power supply for the sensors. Vandalism proof: The Cube will be made vandalism proof as

much as possible. Because there is a lot of vandalism going on in the park, the artwork should not be fragile. This is one of the reasons that the actual cube is placed on hands; namely, by adding this, it will be harder for the youth to reach it. However, it is very important that The Cube is NOT presented as being ‘vandalism proof’. This could be received as a challenge by the youth. Presenting it as vandalism proof could have the undesirable effect that the youth want to find out if it is really that unbreakable. Business plan: With the use of the business model canvas of business model generation a business model is developed to chart the implementation of ‘the cube’ in business terms. It describes the rationale of how this business creates, delivers and captures value. Starting from that the project group composes the business. The business implements the concept of ‘the cube’, and has the intention to keep on developing the same concepts in different areas.

41 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development

42 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Customer Segments The business creates value for municipalities and companies or organizations which own big public spaces: the customer segments. Those are the ones who will actually buy our products. Even though the residents of the specific area are the users, not the customers.

special and so the status will be upgraded.

Channels An important channel to reach our customer segments is the TU/e. The university creates connection between the business and the municipality. Publication of the things that are accomplished will create awareness by Value Propositions our customers. Also the exhibition on the But what value does it deliver to the TU/e and the exhibition on the Dutch Design customer? The first value proposition is Week will create awareness. From the moment customization. The product is designed that the customer is actually aware towards user-centered, which makes it tightly to the the moment the product is implemented, area. Furthermore an important value will be personal contact will be the most important originality. The product is designed by creative channel. This will cover the channel phases of designers which are completely new and evaluation, purchase and delivery. The channel from outside the area. Also a method is used after sales might be covered by a site. where problems are reframed. This will result in a new original perspective upon the area. Customer Relationships The product is developed with a renewing The business has a personal approach; this perspective, based on technology. This will will result in a personal customer relationship delivers innovation as important value. The which is well integrated with the rest of the originality and innovation leads to a product model. It is based on personal assistance and that will provide status for the area where co-creation. The personal assistance is realized the product is placed. The product will give a by much personal contact. The customers’ area unique positive input, which will make it more is closely involved with the design process.

Together with their users and organizations the product will be developed. This will provide a co-creation relationship. Revenue Streams The revenue streams consist out of two segments: The upkeep and one-off big design revenue. The business delivers one big design that will be implemented in the area. For this as a whole, the business will get revenue. This will be only one time. But to provide the same value as at the starting point, the product needs an upkeep every year, hence the upkeep revenue. Key resources An asset that is required to make this business model work is up to date technological knowledge. Without this designing with the value of innovation will be impossible. Also this business does not stand on its own; it needs partners for channels, activities etc. And probably the most important key resource will be creative designers. This is the heart of the business.


Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Concept Development Key activities The main activity will be designing the actually interaction or ‘design’, with research to create the intended value and in the end, realizing this design. To develop more than one concept, marketing of the design and searching for new design areas will be of great importance. Gain up to date technological knowledge will be required to provide the key resource regarding to technology.

Cost structure The business is less cost-driven and way more value driven. The most expensive key activity is by far the manufacturing of the design. The technology will not be the biggest cause, but in particular the piece of ‘art’. Furthermore the design studio and the upkeep of the design will cause a part of the structure.

Key partnerships For the key activities designing and manufacturing the end product, a design studio is necessary. This is because the business has not the skills and time to do this by itself. Furthermore the TU/e provides an important channel and key resource. Namely, they deliver the possibility to keep up to date and build up knowledge about technology. At last district organizations are key partnerships, because they provide the value of customization and relationship of cocreation.

44 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

5. Conclusion

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Conclusion 5.1 Summary We created the concept of ‘The cube’ for the neighborhood Vaartbroek. The Cube stimulates people to dispose their trash in the trashcans by means of positive feedback. The two hands that hold the cube symbolize the cooperation of the visitors of the park. They work together towards a cleaner park. The cube is a reflection of this cooperation because the composition of the colors is constructed by the community effort of throwing away trash.

We hope that this project will be an example for all people coping loitering youth and that people become more aware of their surroundings and throw their trash away. We want to make people aware of how such a small subject like trash can influence the ambience in a neighborhood and how important it is to approach such a problem from a positive point of view.

By actively involving the youth and the residents in this project we stimulate the connection between them and the project. this also stimulates a process of social control. With the cube we want to achieve that people feel more aware of their surroundings and that all actors work together towards a cleaner park. We hope that with this project to contribute to a better ambiance in the neighborhood Vaartbroek.

47 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Conclusion 5.2 Integrating Connections The new possibilities for our design are very near in the future. The municipality of Eindhoven is very enthousiastic about the project and has hired a design bureau to work on it. The appointed design bureau is called ‘Afdeling buitengewone zaken’. They are going to start with making a cost indication for the municipality. If the municipalty agrees with their indication and decides to continue the project Afdeling buitengewone zaken will continue our project. afdeling Buitengewonezaken will first do user tests with the colored trashcans in the amandelpark. If that will turns out to be a success, there is a possibility that they will further develop The Cube. We, as a group, will try to keep informed about the progress of The Cube.

48 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

6. Sources

50 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Sources Sources and References

Image sources:

[1] Alliance against crime, “Designing out Crime”, (2011) http:// designersGuide_digital.pdf [2] Eindhoven University of Technology, “Designing out Crime”, http:// [3] Jeroen Paijmans, “Report Wellbeing in Urban Areas”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (January 15, 2012) [4] Lieke van der Most, “Designing out Crime: Loitering Youth”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (June 5, 2012) [5] Yasemin Arslan, “Research report: A rewarding social life”, Eindhoven University of Technology (December, 2011) [6] Eindhoven Police register [7] Wanda Bloemers, “Report Design Out Crime”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (June 4, 2012), (pp. 10 ) [8] Wanda Bloemers, “Report Design Out Crime”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (June 4, 2012), (pp. 10 ) [9] Wanda Bloemers, “Report Design Out Crime”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (June 4, 2012), (pp. 10 ) [10] Jeroen Paijmans, “Report Wellbeing in Urban Areas”, Eindhoven University of Technology, (January 15, 2012) [11] Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, “Statistieken Vaartbroek”, (2012),

Page: 14. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek / Topografische Dienst Kadaster, “NL - Eindhoven Wijk 15 Stadsdeel Woensel-Noord - Buurt 43 Vaartbroek”, (2008) 14. Yasemin Arslan, “Research report: A rewarding social life”, Eindhoven University of Technology (December, 2011) 15. Original source: Gemeente Eindhoven register; adjusted by Dennis Rietveld, (February 20, 2013) 17. Register: Gemeente Eindhoven 55. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, “Statistieken Vaartbroek”, (2012), 55. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, “Statistieken Vaartbroek”, (2012), 56. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, “Statistieken Vaartbroek”, (2012),

51 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

7. Epilogue

52 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Epilogue We would like to thank some people for their contribution to our project. Firs we would like to thank Michael Kannavan and Mark Min for their contribution to our process. They have helped us to get in touch with the local youth, with residents and with the elderly. They have provided us a lot of useful information and contacts, and supported us throughout the process, thank you. Second we would like to thank Jeroen Paaijmans, who has done a comparable project with loitering youths and has shared his experiences and findings with us. We would like to thank Sander Lucas and Vera Winthagen for their guidance and professional advice. And last but not least we would like to thank: Yasemin Arslan, Wanda Bloemers and Lieke van der Most for the disposal of their reports.

53 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

8. Appendix

54 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Appendix Vaartbroek in Numbers11 In this paragraph various statistics of Vaartbroek will be compared with “District WoenselNoord” (in which Vaartbroek is located), “Eindhoven” and “The Netherlands”. POPULATION Subcultures Amount of residents - Amount of mans - Amount of woman’s Age 0 to 14 years (%) Age 15 to 24 years (%) Age 25 to 44 years (%) Age 45 to 64 years (%)


District WoenselNoord


The Netherlands



District WoenselNoord


The Netherlands





Average house value (WOZ)

195.000 EUR

253.000 EUR

237.000 EUR

237.000 EUR





- Featured properties (%)





2.560 16% 12% 28%

Age 65+ (%)


Population (people/km2)



31.940 17% 12% 25% 28% 18%


109.975 15% 13% 31% 25% 16%


8.243.480 17% 12% 27% 28% 16% 494

Amount of houses


- Rental properties (%)

- - Free sector rental properties (%) - - Social rental properties (%)

- Rental/featured unknown (%)

Properties with building year before 2000 (%)

Properties with building year after 2000 (%)

66% 9%

57% 0%

95% 5%

27.970 48% 10% 39% 0%

96% 4%

97.615 55% 14% 41% 1%

88% 12%

7.217.805 44% 13% 31% 1%

88% 12%

55 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

Appendix Economics


District WoenselNoord


The Netherlands

Western immigrants (%)





- Turkish Nationality (%)





Non-Western immigrants (%) - Moroccan Nationality (%) - Suriname Nationality (%) - Antillean Nationality (%) - Other non-Western immigrants (%)

24% 6% 3% 2% 8%

14% 3% 2% 1% 6%

56 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth

17% 3% 2% 1% 7%

11% 2% 2% 1% 4%

Inkomen ontvangers Inkomen per inwoner Gemiddeld inkomen Lage inkomens Hoge inkomens Niet actieven Pensioen gerechtigden

€ 3.700 € 12.000 € 16.000 40 % 14 % 31 % 23 %

Final report Designing Out Crime, Loitering Youth Simone van den Elzen, Rosa Hendrikx, Dennis Rietveld, Iris Ritsma

57 Final report Desiging Out Crime, Loitering Youth