Page 1

STREETSCAPE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN IN DOWNTOWN ATHENS, GEORGIA by ZITAO CUI (Under the Direction of Sungkyung Lee) ABSTRACT Downtown Athens serves as the major commercial, social and entertainment center in Athens-Clarke County; however, the area is under the shadow of critical crime issues. The current streetscape design in Downtown Athens suffers a series of problems that are partially responsible for the crimes in the area. This thesis intends to study the effects of environmental design in streetscape crime prevention and to explore possible solutions to the crime issues in Downtown Athens. This research consists of four major parts: the literature review of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and other safety-focused theories, the case study of two streetscape design projects, the site inventory and analysis, and the proposed streetscape crime prevention design plan for Downtown Athens. The results of the proposed design can theoretically solve the major environmental design problems in Downtown Athens; however, the actual results require continued studies in the future.


INDEX WORDS:

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), “Eyes on the

Street”, Defensible Space, Environmental psychology, Landscape architecture, Streetscape design, Downtown Athens, Georgia.


STREETSCAPE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN IN DOWNTOWN ATHENS, GEORGIA

by

ZITAO CUI BSLA, Arizona State University, 2017

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

ATHENS, GEORGIA 2019


© 2019 Zitao Cui All Rights Reserved


STREETSCAPE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN IN DOWNTOWN ATHENS, GEORGIA

by

ZITAO CUI

Major Professor: Committee:

Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2019

Sungkyung Lee Jack Crowley Thomas McNulty Bruce Lonnee


DEDICATION To my beloved family, girlfriend, best friends, and cat for their love, support, and accompany. I wish all of you a lifetime happiness and success.

iv


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to everyone who helped me in the process of this thesis study. First, I must present my sincere gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Lee, for her inspiring guidance and expert advices. I also want to deliver my appreciation to all my committee members, Jack Crowley, Thomas McNulty, and Bruce Lonnee, for their continuous helps and supports. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the faculties and students in the College of Environment + Design for creating such a great environment and atmosphere for study and research.

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMANT...............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 Research Intention ...................................................................................................1 Research Objective and Problem Statement ............................................................5 Research Methodology ............................................................................................7 Research Limitation & Delimitation........................................................................9

2

Literature Review.........................................................................................................10 CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) ...............................12 Prospect-refuge Theory..........................................................................................16 Routine Activity Theory ........................................................................................19 Jane Jacob’s “Eyes on the Street” ..........................................................................27 Broken Window Theory ........................................................................................29 Proxemics (Personal Space Theory) ......................................................................31 Chapter Conclusion................................................................................................33

3

Case Study ...................................................................................................................35 Bagby Street Reconstruction Project .....................................................................36 Cherry Creek North Improvements and Fillmore Plaza Project ............................43

vi


Chapter Conclusion................................................................................................48 4

Inventory and Analysis ................................................................................................50 Site Inventory (Group One) ...................................................................................52 Site Inventory (Group Two)...................................................................................57 Site Inventory (Group Three).................................................................................69 Detail Study Area Analysis ....................................................................................78 Chapter Conclusion..............................................................................................101

5

Streetscape Crime Prevention Design ........................................................................103 Green Shield System (GSS) .................................................................................106 Five Street Segment Plans ...................................................................................123 Chapter Conclusion..............................................................................................138

6

Research Conclusion..................................................................................................140 Design Evaluation ................................................................................................142 Future Research Steps ..........................................................................................143

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................145 APPENDICES A STREETSCAPE CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN CHECKLIST ........................................................................................155

vii


LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1: Boundary of Downtown Athens from Athens Master Plan 2030. ................................2 Figure 1.2: Crime statistics of Athens, GA and US average from City-data.com. ..........................3 Figure 1.3: Crime statistics from Athens, GA and its surrounding cities and towns from citydata.com. ..............................................................................................................................4 Figure 1.4: Crime types data in Athens, GA from city-data.com. ...................................................5 Figure 2.1: Literature review map by the author. ..........................................................................11 Figure 2.2: Dynamic model of CPTED by Paul Cozens. ..............................................................15 Figure 2.3: An example for Prospect-refuge space by the author..................................................18 Figure 2.4: Marcus and Lawrence’s original model of Routine Activity Theory. ........................20 Figure 2.5: Marcus’s 1986 model of Routine Activity Theory. ....................................................20 Figure 2.6: Eck’s model of Routine Activity Theory. ...................................................................21 Figure 2.7: Sampson’s 2010 “Nested Crime Triangle” of Routine Activity Theory.....................23 Figure 2.8: Situation crime prevention strategies chart by Karen Bullock, Ronald V. Clarke and Nick Tilley. ........................................................................................................................25 Figure 2.9: Relationship of 3 main factors of Routine Activity Theory by the author. .................26 Figure 2.10: The Crime Domino Effect of Broken Window Theory by the author. .....................30 Figure 2.11: The personal space circle by Edward T. Hall. ...........................................................33 Figure 3.1: Increasing landscape areas and tree canopies in Bagby St Reconstruction project by Design Workshop...............................................................................................................37

viii


Figure 3.2: Increasing public spaces and native plants in Bagby St Reconstruction project by Design Workshop...............................................................................................................38 Figure 3.3: Increasing lighting in Bagby St project by Design Workshop. ...................................39 Figure 3.4: Stormwater signs in Bagby St project by Design Workshop. .....................................40 Figure 3.5: Increasing bike racks in Bagby St project by Design Workshop. ...............................40 Figure 3.6: Survey result of perception of pedestrian experience after Bagby St project by Design Workshop. ..........................................................................................................................41 Figure 3.7: Survey result of users’ perception of pedestrian safety after Bagby St project by Design Workshop...............................................................................................................42 Figure 3.8: Street planting system of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop. ......................44 Figure 3.9: Public spaces of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop. ....................................45 Figure 3.10: Outdoor lighting of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop. .............................46 Figure 3.11: Periodical closed street and gathering events of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop. ..........................................................................................................................47 Figure 3.12: Shared street design of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop. .......................47 Figure 4.1: Existing street tree canopy map in Downtown Athens by the author. ........................53 Figure 4.2: Existing outdoor seating map in Downtown Athens by the author. ............................54 Figure 4.3: Existing outdoor lighting map in Downtown Athens by the author............................55 Figure 4.4: Existing CCTV map in Downtown Athens by the author. ..........................................56 Figure 4.5: Overall crime statistics in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ......................................................................57 Figure 4.6: Overall daytime crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..............................................................58

ix


Figure 4.7: Overall nighttime crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................59 Figure 4.8: Violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ......................................................................60 Figure 4.9: Daytime violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..............................................................61 Figure 4.10: Nighttime violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................62 Figure 4.11: Property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ......................................................................63 Figure 4.12: Daytime property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................64 Figure 4.13: Nighttime property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................65 Figure 4.14: Life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..............................................................66 Figure 4.15: Daytime life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................67 Figure 4.16: Nighttime life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............................................68 Figure 4.17: Average Annual Daily Traffic map in Downtown Athens from Georgia Department of Transportation (graphic by the author). .........................................................................70 Figure 4.18: Existing land use types map in Downtown Athens by the author. ............................71

x


Figure 4.19: Existing on-street parking space map in Downtown Athens by the author. .............72 Figure 4.20: Slope map in Downtown Athens from Geographical Information Services (GIS) Office of Athens (graphic by the author). ..........................................................................73 Figure 4.21: Pedestrian use map in Downtown Athens from Strava Global Heat Map (graphic by the author). .........................................................................................................................74 Figure 4.22: Bike use map in Downtown Athens from Strava Global Heat Map (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................75 Figure 4.23: Massive gathering events schedule in Downtown Athens by the author. .................77 Figure 4.24: Major streetscape crime zone in Downtown Athens by the author. ..........................78 Figure 4.25: Building use of Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) by the author. .....................79 Figure 4.26: Crime statistics of Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). .......................80 Figure 4.27: Daytime crime statistics of Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..81 Figure 4.28: Nighttime crime statistics of Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author) ...81 Figure 4.29: Detailed study area analysis of Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. .........................................................................................................83 Figure 4.30: Detailed building use inventory of Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. ......................................................................................84 Figure 4.31: Detailed crime statistics of Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..85

xi


Figure 4.32: Detailed daytime crime statistics of Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................86 Figure 4.33: Detailed nighttime crime statistics of Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................86 Figure 4.34: Detailed study area analysis of Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. ......................................................................................88 Figure 4.35: Detailed building use inventory of Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. ......................................................................................89 Figure 4.36: Detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..90 Figure 4.37: Daytime detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................91 Figure 4.38: Nighttime detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................91 Figure 4.39: Detailed study area analysis of Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. .........................................................................................................92 Figure 4.40: Detailed building use inventory of Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. ......................................................................................93

xii


Figure 4.41: Detailed crime statistics of Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..94 Figure 4.42: Daytime crime statistics of Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..95 Figure 4.43: Nighttime crime statistics of Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author) ...95 Figure 4.44: Detailed study area analysis of Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. .........................................................................................................96 Figure 4.45: Detailed building use inventory of Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. .........................................................................................................97 Figure 4.46: Detailed crime statistics of Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..............98 Figure 4.47: Daytime detailed crime statistics of Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ..99 Figure 4.48: Nighttime detailed crime statistics of Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ...............................................................................................................................99 Figure 4.49: Detailed study area analysis of Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author). ............100 Figure 5.1: Major streetscape crime zone in Downtown Athens by the author. ..........................104 Figure 5.2: The “Invisible” layer of protection created by well-designed crime prevention street environment by the author. ..............................................................................................105 Figure 5.3: Existing street design conditions summary in Downtown Athens by the author. .....107

xiii


Figure 5.4: Proposed green buffer feature in Downtown Athens by the author. .........................108 Figure 5.5: Proposed green buffer area details in Downtown Athens by the author. ..................108 Figure 5.6: Proposed crossing along green buffer in Downtown Athens by the author. .............109 Figure 5.7: Proposed pedestrian scale lighting features in Downtown Athens by the author. ....110 Figure 5.8: Proposed public spaces in Downtown Athens by the author. ...................................111 Figure 5.9: Proposed public seating area in Downtown Athens by the author. ...........................112 Figure 5.10: The change of surrounding street characters associated with parklets by University City District......................................................................................................................114 Figure 5.11: Parklet safety requirements by San Francisco Parklet Manual (2015). ..................115 Figure 5.12: Proposed double-space parklet in Downtown Athens by the author.......................115 Figure 5.13: Proposed double-space parklet at night in Downtown Athens by the author. ........116 Figure 5.14: Proposed single-space parklet in Downtown Athens by the author. .......................117 Figure 5.15: Proposed trash placing area in Downtown Athens by the author............................119 Figure 5.16: Key dimensions of proposed “Living Box” in Downtown Athens by the author. ..119 Figure 5.17: Proposed “Living Box” design in Downtown Athens by the author. .....................120 Figure 5.18: Key dimensions of proposed “The Guardian” in Downtown Athens by the author.121 Figure 5.19: Proposed “The Guardian” design in Downtown Athens by the author. ..................122 Figure 5.20: Proposed Master Plan in Downtown Athens by the author.....................................123 Figure 5.21: Proposed street design for Broad St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author.124 Figure 5.22: Proposed future street design (nighttime) for Broad St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author. .......................................................................................................126 Figure 5.23: Proposed site plan for Broad St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author. .....127

xiv


Figure 5.24: Proposed street design features for Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St.) segment in Downtown Athens by the author. ................................................................................128 Figure 5.25: Proposed site plan for Clayton St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author. ..130 Figure 5.26: Proposed design features for Lumpkin St. segment (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author. ....................................................................................131 Figure 5.27: Proposed design for Lumpkin St. segment (ATM area) at night in Downtown Athens by the author. .......................................................................................................132 Figure 5.28: Proposed site plan for the west side of Lumpkin St. segment (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author...........................................................................133 Figure 5.29: Proposed site plan for the east side of Lumpkin St. segment (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author...........................................................................134 Figure 5.30: Proposed design features for Jackson St. and Wall St. segment (Clayton St. – Broad St.) in Downtown Athens by the author...........................................................................135 Figure 5.31: Proposed site plan for Jackson St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author. ..136 Figure 5.32: Proposed site plan for Wall St. segment in Downtown Athens by the author. .......137

xv


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1. Research Intention As a key element of urban infrastructure, the street plays an irreplaceable role in people’s daily transport, work, exercise, and social lives; meanwhile, it also becomes a hotbed for various crimes, ranging from pocket picking to murders, even terrorist attacks. Therefore, street crime prevention remains a major matter of concern in public security. In 1961, American-Canadian journalist and activist Jane Jacobs raised the idea of “Eyes on The Street” in her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs, 1961). In this masterpiece of urban planning and design, Jacobs pointed out the role of environment in affecting the criminal psychology of potential offenders (Jacobs, 1961). About a decade later, in 1972, American architect and city planner, Oscar Newman, presented his theory of defensible space, which raises the idea that a community will become more secure when the inhabitants have more sense of control, ownership and responsibility for that piece of place (Newman, 1972). Newman’s defensible space theory achieved a remarkable success in improving the safety of communities. This theory is kept modified by subsequent professionals like Timothy Crowe and Randall Atlas in the name of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Despite the various methods and details from different professions, all their works reached a common thought that there will be less crime in a place with stronger sense of ownership and guardianship, as well as more users satisfaction and experience. This research intends to study the effect of the theories and the strategies of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design on public streets and apply them to create a better 1


and safer streetscape environment for traffic and social activities. CPTED is a series of safetyfocused environmental design strategies that lessen the opportunities for crimes and affect criminals’ perception of their potential victims (Taylor, 1996). Through altering the physical design features and spaces, CPTED can effectively increase the difficulties and risks of committing crimes, thus discouraging or even preventing the crimes from happening (Crowe, 2000). The project site for this research is central Downtown Athens, Georgia, United States. Downtown Athens is the core area of Athens-Clarke County, defined by Broad Street on the South, Pulaski Street to the West, Dougherty Street to the North and Thomas Street to the East (The University of Georgia • Graduate Program in Environmental Planning and Design, 2013).

Figure 1.1: Boundary of Downtown Athens from Athens Master Plan 2030.

Downtown Athens is a commercial, residential and governmental mixed-use area. It is the habitat for over 103 businesses, including various restaurants, cafés, bars, retail stores, local craft

2


stores, theaters, etc. (http://downtownathensga.org/). Meanwhile, Downtown Athens is also wellknown for its culture and college life. As one of the 10 greatest college towns as ranked by US News & World Report, Downtown Athens holds a variety of activities and festivals all year and attracts people from surrounding towns, cities, and states. These annual gathering events such as Gamedays, AthFest Music, Christmas Parade and Athens Twilight are apt to bring thousands of visitors to town and easily quadruple the population in Athens in a short period. Such “population explosions� tend to cause severe traffic problems and safety risks before, during, and after the events. As the center of a college town, Downtown Athens serves as a major hotspot for the students and faculties from the University of Georgia, as well as the residents in town; however, its safety situation remains a critical issue: the overall crime rate in Athens, GA has stayed above the US average in the last decade; and the total crime index is higher than the ones in 77.4% of all US cities and towns (City-data.com, 2017).

Figure 1.2: Crime statistics of Athens, GA and US average from City-data.com.

In addition, the crime issue in Athens is far more severe than in its neighboring cities and towns: the crime rate in Athens is five times higher than in Winterville and Comer and twice as

3


high as the numbers in Winterville, Watkinsville, Statham, Arcade, Corner, Danielsville, and Jefferson (City-data.com, 2017).

Figure 1.3: Crime statistics from Athens, GA and its surrounding cities and towns from city-data.com.

Besides the high crime rate on normal days, the safety risks brought by the annual massive gathering events like Gamedays, AthFest Music, Christmas Parade and Athens Twilight become another hazard in Downtown Athens. Currently, the safety management of these events merely relies on temporary crowd management tools such as barricades, roadblocks, closed streets, etc. (https://gameday.uga.edu/org). A continuous high crime rate and periodic massive gathering events are two major safety issues in Downtown Athens.

4


1.2. Research Objective & Problem Statement The 2016 Athens-Clarke County crime statistics showed there were overall 4,983 reported crimes in Athens; meanwhile, the crime catalogue report indicated that over 4,417 of these cases were thefts and burglaries, which are identified as non-violent crimes (City-data.com, 2017). Non-violent offenders, different from violent criminals like murderers and terrorists, tend to struggle with the risks and the potential rewards from thefts and burglaries, and they are more likely to be affected by the surrounding environment (Lersch, 2007). This criminal psychology becomes the conceptual basis for many anti-crime theories and strategies.

Figure 1.4: Crime types data in Athens, GA from city-data.com.

The major purpose of this thesis research is to study the effect of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in improving the safety situation in Downtown Athens and to create a streetscape crime prevention design plan by applying the concepts and strategies of 5


CPTED as well as the ideas from other safety-related theories, including Prospect-refuge theory, Personal space theory, Routine activity theory, “Eyes On The Street� theory, Broken window theory, etc. The CPTED study and design plan in this article focus on the potential contributions of environmental design in street safety enhancement and serve as a reference for any possible future streetscape plan in Downtown Athens. This research also aims to study the effect of environmental design on enhancing the sense of guardianship for potential targets and encouraging the management of the place to forge a street environment that is protective of targets and risky to offenders. Meanwhile, the study intends to explore the influence of environmental design on criminal psychology to prevent a large percentage of crimes from happening.

6


1.3. Research Methodology This is a design-based research which aims to create a streetscape crime prevention design plan in Downtown Athens. The methodology of this research is to use the safety-focused theories and strategies from the literature reviews and the test results from the case studies as theoretical supports, applying and reflecting these theories and strategies through the proposed design plan. The research consists of three parts: theoretical analysis, project site inventory and analysis, and proposed streetscape crime prevention design plan. a. Theoretical Analysis The first stage of research is theoretical analysis, which contains literature review and case study. Literature review studies a series of safety-focused theories, including Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Prospect-refuge theory, Routine activity theory, Broken window theory, Personal space theory, “Eyes on the Street�, etc. The summary of the literature review is a streetscape crime prevention checklist that covers the practical design features and methods for street environments from the safety-oriented theories and strategies discussed in this article. The case studies in this research emphasize two streetscape design projects which successfully reduce the crime rate around their project areas, studying the design features and methods applied in these projects. The selected cases for this article are Bagby Street Reconstruction Project in Houston, Texas and Cherry Creek North Improvements and Fillmore Plaza Project in Denver, Colorado. The theoretical analysis aims to use safety-related theories and strategies from the literature review and the testing results from case studies to provide theoretical support for the proposed streetscape crime prevention design plan in this study. b. Site Inventory and Analysis

7


The second stage of research is the safety-focused site inventory and analysis for Downtown Athens, which brings the previous theoretical analysis into the actual project site and provides detailed information for the proposed design in the next stage. The site inventory and analysis also serve as a bridge that connects the theoretical analysis and the proposed design plan, ensuring the design decisions in this study are well supported by theories and suitable for the conditions and requirements in Downtown Athens. The site inventory covers both general information and safety emphasizing features such as existing street design elements, crime rate of each street segment, large annual events, and people flow density of every street segment on normal days and during massive gathering events such as Gamedays and music festivals. The site inventory also locates the “major crime zone” in Downtown Athens based on the data of crime rates and uses it as the detailed study area for site analysis. The site analysis focuses on the “major crime zone” identified from the site inventory, zooming into each street segment in this crime zone, analyzing the existing conditions and detecting the problems through detailed field observation and inventory, as well as the Streetscape Crime Prevention Checklist from the literature review chapter. c. Proposed Design Plan The final stage of research is the streetscape crime prevention design plan. It summarizes and reflects the theories and strategies from the literature review, the learning from case studies, and the solutions to the identified problems from the site inventory and analysis. The proposed design plan emphasizes the street segments in the “major crime zone” in Downtown Athens, exploring possible environmental design solutions to the existing crime issues.

8


1.4. Research Limitation & Delimitation This research studies the effect of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design on enhancing the streetscape crime prevention in Downtown Athens; however, the streetscape design plan in this article mainly stays on the theorical level due to the limits of time, funds, and other supporting resources. Therefore, the test and evaluation for the effect of the design plan on crime prevention in Downtown Athens are based on theorical analysis through literature review as well as the results from the case studies. The test results in this research will serve as a reference for any future streetscape design and planning project in Downtown Athens, and the effect and impact of those future streetscape projects will provide this research more accurate and realistic test results. Author realizes that laws, policies and regulations can also be powerful methods for crime prevention in Downtown Athens; nevertheless, this research focuses on the effect of environmental design in streetscape crime prevention rather than policy making.

9


CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the current status of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and five other theories that contribute to crime reduction in public environments. The selected theories in this chapter are widely practiced and proven effective in many projects and circumstances. These safety-oriented concepts and strategies serve as the theoretical supports and guide the author in making the design decisions for the streetscape crime prevention plan in Downtown Athens. This literature review covers Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Prospectrefuge theory, Routine activity theory, “Eyes on The Street” theory, Personal space, and Broken window theory. The following is a brief summary of the theories introduced in this chapter: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: practical strategies to improve public safety through specific design choices in landscape architecture and urban planning. Prospect-Refuge theory: the importance of creating (observing) opportunities and providing safe zones in environmental design. Routine Activity theory: the relationship among offenders, victims and places, as well as the way of controlling these factors to achieve crime prevention. “Eyes on the Street”: the importance of street lives and activities for crime prevention. Personal Space: the proper interpersonal distance for physical safety and mental pleasure. Broken Window theory: the “Domino Effect” of criminal behaviors, and the importance of place management and maintenance.

10


These theories serve to improve public safety from various approaches, which can be applied and used to contribute to crime prevention in Downtown Athens. This chapter intends to study and summarize the concepts and strategies from these theories, and to select the methods that are suitable to the study site in this research. The main product from the literature review is a checklist of the streetscape crime prevention methods extracted from CPTED and other safetyenhancing theories, which works as a guideline for the decision making in the streetscape crime prevention design plan in a later chapter.

Figure 2.1: Literature review map by the author.

11


2.1. CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) The theory of CPTED was introduced by criminologist and sociologist Ray Jeffery in 1971; later it was further developed by other researchers including Oscar Newman, Tim Crowe, and Gregory Saville. CPTED is a collection of anti-crime urban planning and design strategies, which aims to deter potential crimes by modifying physical environmental features (Crowe, 2000). The theory of CPTED is based on the environmental psychology that human behaviors and self-awareness are influenced by their surrounding environment (Crowe, 2000). CPTED is a series of safety-focused environmental design strategies and concepts that lessen the opportunities for crimes and affect criminals’ perceptions of their potential victims (Taylor, 1996). The first generation of CPTED provides six main strategy types for safety enhancement, including surveillance, territoriality, access control, management, legitimate activity supports, and target hardening (Crowe 2000). Surveillance in CPTED refers to the placement and planning of physical features that maximize the visibility and positive social interaction for the space users. Surveillance can be achieved through strategies such as effective lighting design, CCTVs (closed-circuit televisions), welcoming public spaces, encouraging non-motor traffics, etc. (Crowe 2000). Territoriality in CPTED suggests a clear boundary between public and private areas. Designers can plan physical features including structures, fences, lighting, pavements and landscape features for territory reinforcement. The theory believes a clearly defined territory shows more control and ownership, which expresses a sense of unwelcoming to any uninvited intruder (Crowe 2000). Another strategy in CPTED is access control, which reflects the idea of minimizing the physical contact between potential offenders and their targets through designing the entrance,

12


exit, fence, lighting and landscape that limit accessibility (Taylor 1996). Access control can be achieved through methods like creating a single well-defined and controllable path of entry, using dense or thorny vegetation around the ground-floor windows, avoiding roof access from surrounding buildings, etc. (Taylor 1996). Place management in CPTED emphasizes the importance of ownership and control in property protection (Crowe 2000). This strategy shares a similar philosophy with Broken Window Theory, which argues that a property which indicates less control and maintenance by its owner suffers more intruders and offenders (Kelling and Coles 1997). The legitimate activity support in CPTED roots from Jane Jacobs’s idea of “Eyes on the Street” that encourages proper activities and use in public areas to increase more natural surveillance; however, in some circumstances, attracting more people also increases the potential targets of offense, such as pocket picking (Crowe 2000). The last component in CPTED is target hardening, which is a conventional anti-crime strategy that relies on physical access control methods such as gates, fences and locks to increase the effort and risk of crime committing (Crowe 2000). Nevertheless, CPTED suggests a proper practice of target hardening because its excessive use will encourage people to stay behind their own domestic physical “fortress” rather than building a self-policing community through natural surveillance, territoriality, natural access control, management, and legitimate activity supports (Crowe 2000). The first generation of CPTED intends to create a self-policing community, and the quality of this mechanism heavily depends on not only the performance of physical design features, but also the interpersonal relationship in the community (Crowe 2000). The second generation of CPTED places more emphasis on the importance of social characteristics in the

13


community (Saville and Cleveland 1997). The second generation of CPTED goes beyond the physical features, focusing on community programming and participation to enhance the performance of self-policing mechanisms (Saville and Cleveland 1997). This extension of CPTED includes four main concepts: Social cohesion, Community connectivity, Community culture, and Threshold capacity (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Social cohesion is the central idea of the second generation of CPTED, which focuses on creating a united and harmonious social environment that respects, supports and celebrates the similarities and diversity in a community (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Saville believes that the effects of CPTED (especially natural surveillance) will show their real qualities in a community where people share the same vision and sense of responsibility and belongings (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Community connection serves as the media to coordinate crime prevention activities and programs with different agencies (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Isolation of a community will result in NIMBYism (not-in-my-backyard). Additionally, a successful community connection can share important lessons on crime prevention with other neighborhoods (Saville and Cleveland 1997). The community connection can be achieved by building physical linkages such as walkways and trails. Other methods include published writing materials like booklets, magazines, local newspapers, and online resources such as blogs and social media (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Community culture brings people the sense of belonging and responsibility, aiming to create a social environment where people care about what and who they are watching (Saville and Cleveland 1997). A strong community culture can encourage the people within to voluntarily adopt positive behaviors, including self-policing (Saville and Cleveland 1997). 14


The last concept in the second generation of CPTED is threshold capacity, which focuses on maintaining the community “ecosystem” by improving human-scale and pedestrian-oriented land uses and social activities (Saville and Cleveland 1997). Some characteristics of capacity introduced by Saville and Cleveland are: “Human-scale, land use density and maximum diversity”, “Balance of social stabilizers, e.g., community gardens, street entertainment, street food vendors for downtown lunches”, “Minimal congestion versus maximum intensity of use”, and “Keeping crime generators below critical threshold, e.g., number of abandoned homes per neighborhood, number of bars in an area” (Saville and Cleveland 1997).

Figure 2.2: Dynamic model of CPTED by Paul Cozens.

15


2.2. Prospect-refuge Theory In 1975, English geographer and academic Jay Appleton developed Prospect-refuge theory in his book The Experience of Landscape (Appleton, 1975). In this book, Appleton states that there are two “inborn desires” affecting people’s preferences when reviewing and choosing a space: prospect (opportunity) and refuge (safety), and these desires are deeply rooted in human instincts and sub-consciousness from ancient hunting and survival, when successful predators must see their prey without being seen by them (Lorenz, 2003). In today’s context, the key idea of Prospect-refuge theory is that the space that people feel the most acceptable and favorable to stay in provides them with the greatest opportunities and safety situation (Appleton, 1975). Prospect-refuge theory suggests that people tend to evaluate and see a space from a functional perspective, such as potential opportunities, protection, observation, etc. Appleton also believes this theory not only reflects human self-defense instincts, but also forges people’s sense of environmental aesthetics (Appleton, 1975). In Appleton’s theory, human perception of and feeling about a landscape are fundamentally influenced by the “spatial arrangement of various elements” that provides all kinds of opportunities, including observing, hiding, moving, exploring, lighting, and shading (Appleton, 1975). Besides the concept of “prospect” and “refuge”, Appleton also talks about his idea of “hazard” in influencing people’s preference, which refers to the real or potential dangers in or near a space that cause psychological or physical threats to people (Appleton, 1975). Meanwhile, there is a factor, “scale”, in Appleton’s theory that influences the effect of “prospect”, “refuge”, and “hazard” because an inaccurate sense of scale will cause the misjudgment of spatial conditions, such as the distance to a potential risk or the size of a hiding place (Appleton, 1975). The combined effect of “prospect”, “refuge” and “hazard” impacts people’s preference of an environmental space; however, Appleton argues

16


that there is no one perfect proportion to set these three factors since individuals have their own ways to understand and value them (Appleton, 1975). After the publishing of Prospect-refuge theory, Appleton’s study widely impacted the professionals in varieties of fields, including city planning, landscape architecture, architecture, interior design, etc. For instance, in 1983, Jack Nasar and his research team tested the effect of prospect and refuge theory on people’s perception and preference of a landscape space. In the study, they applied three assessment factors (popularity, excitement, and safety) into four scenarios, which are “open view” or “closed view” from a “protected” or “unprotected” observation spot (Nasar et al. 1983). After years of research and field studies in the United States and Japan, Nasar concluded that a successful design is based on the understanding of the site environment and its effect on people, and human effects tend to vary in different cultures (Nasar et al. 1988). He also created an extended assessment for prospect and refuge theory, which covers “novelty, complexity, order, naturalness, openness, upkeep and prominence of vehicles,” and all these factors must be specific to the cultural background of the study area (Nasar et al. 1988). Another study about Appleton’s prospect and refuge theory comes from three Canadian scholars, Loewen, Steel and Suedfeld, whose research is to evaluate varieties of specific urban environment and analyze how people feel safe or unsafe from crimes in these places (Loewen, Steel and Suedfeld, 1993). Their study focuses on the interaction among prospect, refuge, and gender in relationship to the sense of safety from potential crimes (Loewen, Steel and Suedfeld, 1993). Consequently, Loewen and his partners found that the environmental factors such as the level of brightness, open space, and accessibility are the key characteristics for a safe urban space (Loewen, Steel and Suedfeld, 1993).

17


Figure 2.3: An example for Prospect-refuge space by the author.

18


2.3. Routine Activity Theory Routine activity theory, proposed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen in 1979, is a criminology theory that emphasizes the situation and environment of crimes. The basic concept of routine activity theory is a “crime triangle” in which there are three fundamental factors for a crime to occur: a motivated offender, a vulnerable target, and the absence of guardianship. The theory assumes that anyone can be an offender with suitable space, time, and targets for crimes, so the key to crime prevention is keep potential victims away from the situations with the opportunities for crimes to be committed (Felson and Cohen, 1979). When Marcus and Lawrence studied the crime rate of United States from 1947 to 1974, they were confused to find that crime rates in US showed no decreasing trend even though the overall economy in the country kept prospering after the pre-war Depression. Consequently, they developed routine activity theory which focuses on the specific situations and opportunities of crimes instead of the macro social issues like poverty, unemployment rate, inequality, sexism, etc. (Felson and Cohen, 1979). The original model of routine activity theory was created by Marcus and Lawrence, and this theory has been kept modified by subsequent professionals. In Marcus and Lawrence’s theory, there are three basic characteristics, a target (a potential victim), an offender (who is motivated to commit crimes), a guardian (who can protect the target), and a spatial-temporal routine that brings these three factors together (Felson and Cohen, 1979). In their theory, “guardian” is a key factor for crime prevention, which refers to the people who can intentionally or unintentionally enhance the sense of guardianship and protection for vulnerable targets (Felson and Cohen, 1979).

19


Figure 2.4: Marcus and Lawrence’s original model of Routine Activity Theory.

Then, in 1986, Marcus improved the theory by adding another controlling factor, “handler”, who serves to prevent potential offenders from committing crimes through social or emotional methods and bonds (Felson, 1986). Common candidates for handlers are parents, lovers, and friends of potential offenders, whose existence will keep offenders from committing crimes due to the fear of losing reputations, respect, or personal relationships (Felson, 1986).

Figure 2.5: Marcus’s 1986 model of Routine Activity Theory.

Another remarkable advancement in routine activity theory was made by Lawrence Sherman and his partners, who proposed the concept of “place” in the theory, which became an important factor in the further study of routine activity theory (Sherman, Gartin, and Burger, 1989). In 20


routine activity theory, each factor must have a controller for crime prevention, such as the guardian for target and the handler for offender. In 1994, Eck suggested that the property owners of the place are supposed to be the controllers since they share the same purpose with guardians and handlers (to prevent crimes); however, he also argued that property owners are not the key controllers of the place because they mainly care for the functions and benefits of the place rather than crime prevention (Eck, 1994). The controller for place remained a discussion for over a decade, until Madensen stated the important influence of management on the crime prevention in a place (Madensen, 2007).

Figure 2.6: Eck’s model of Routine Activity Theory.

Routine activity theory suggests that crimes are unlikely to occur if all three controllers, guardian, handler, and management, are functioning (Madensen, 2007). Nevertheless, the fact that crimes still routinely happen means at least one of the controllers does not work well. In 2010, Sampson, Eck, and Dunham stated that there are macro controllers which unconsciously impact the effectiveness of the guardian, handler, and management, which are called “super controllers� (Sampson, Eck, and Dunham, 2010). Super controllers cover a wide range, which includes three main types: formal, diffuse, and personal (Sampson, Eck, and Dunham, 2010). Types of Super Controllers (Sampson, Eck, and Dunham, 2010)

21


1. Formal super controllers a. Organizational: Influencing the controllers in a specific organization (firm, company, enterprise, etc.) b. Contractual: Influencing the controllers through legal contracts, agreements, etc. c. Financial: Influencing the controllers through financial relationships. For example, car rental companies improve security against vehicle theft to avoid increasing insurance rates. d. Regulatory: Influencing the controllers through governmental regulations, policies, rules, etc. e. Courts: Influencing the controllers through civil or criminal suits, such as nuisance abatement. 2. Diffuse super controllers a. Political: It can have both incentive and disincentive influence on controllers through the policies, regulations and laws made by governmental institutions. b. Market: It sets standards and codes to influence controllers, especially to place management. For instance, real estate or apartment rental market enforces standards to ensure basic safety requirements for residents. c. Media: Publicity, especially social media, can broadly influence controllers through spreading safety guidance and instructions, hazard warnings, rescue requests, etc. 3. Personal super controllers a. Group: It can influence controllers on both organizational and personal levels. For instance, the property owners in the same district influence each other in managing places,

22


and the parents living in one neighborhood share the experience and knowledge of protecting and teaching kids to avoid dangers. b. Family: Family members play an important role in influencing each other on crime prevention. Parents can work as both guardians and handlers, keeping their children from being victims or offenders.

Figure 2.7: Sampson’s 2010 “Nested Crime Triangle” of Routine Activity Theory.

Routine activity theory emphasizes a range of situational factors that provide opportunities for crimes; meanwhile, it also suggests a broad range of possible solutions to crime prevention (Andresen and Farrell, 2015). Routine activity theory has been applied in many practical uses. One of these practices that is commonly applied in environmental design and planning is situational crime prevention. Situational crime prevention is based on routine activity theory and the concept of “rational choice,” which suggests that every crime event is supported by rational decisions which are shaped by rewards, cost, efforts, and risks (Bullock, Clarke and Tilley, 2010). Situational crime

23


prevention techniques have been applied and practiced by researchers and security enforcement agents (policemen) for a few decades. These techniques are designed and developed as solutions to some common types of crimes by manipulating the environment in temporary or permanent ways to reduce the crime opportunities for potential offenders (Bullock, Clarke and Tilley, 2010). Following is a table of commonly used situational crime prevention techniques made by Karen Bullock, Ronald V. Clarke and Nick Tilley (2010).

24


Figure 2.8: Situation crime prevention strategies chart by Karen Bullock, Ronald V. Clarke and Nick Tilley.

25


Situational crime prevention techniques aim to alter potential offenders’ decisions by increasing efforts and risks, and reducing rewards and provocation (Cornish & Clarke, 2003). With appropriate use of these techniques, situational crime prevention can not only stop an approaching crime event, but also impact the future crime decisions of offenders (Bullock, Clarke and Tilley, 2010).

Figure 2.9: Relationship of 3 main factors of Routine Activity Theory by the author.

26


2.4. Jane Jacob’s “Eyes on the Street” In 1961, a masterpiece of urban planning, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, was brought to the public by famous American writer and socialist, Jane Jacobs. In the book, Jacobs pointed out her theory of “Eyes on the Street” for public safety and crime prevention. She wrote: “there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street” (Jacobs, 1961). Jacobs believes that sidewalks can play an important role in crime prevention in urban areas, and healthy and well-planned sidewalks do not rely on policing patrols or enforcement keep the users safe, but on voluntary and unconscious surveillance and control from the people who regularly use it (Jacobs, 1961). Jacobs also points out the benefit cycle of a welldesigned street: the more people using the street, the riskier for offenders to commit crimes; meanwhile, the dense people volume is apt to attract more strangers to join in, creating a larger natural surveillance group that can prevent potential crimes and spot early signs of danger (Jacobs, 1961). In Jacobs’ theory, an ideal crime prevention in streets consists of two levels of defense: the first one is through a self-enforcing safety mechanism that is operated by “natural proprietors”, a group of people who enjoy staying in and watching the street and feel responsible for keeping their street safe and clean; and the second level is supported by policing forces, providing law enforcement if necessary (Jacobs, 1961). Three factors, according to Jacobs, must be considered in street design and planning for safety enhancement: (Jacobs, 1961) 1. Clear boundary between private and public properties. 2. Buildings facing toward the street. 3. Streetscape attractions to encourage continuous “eyes” on the street.

27


Jacobs argues that active street life and streetscape attractions are necessary for street safety. She recommends street-level restaurants, outdoor dining, stores, bars and other public spaces that encourage people to stay on the street and provide “eyes” for natural surveillance (Jacobs, 1961). Finally, Jacobs emphasizes the people’s role in “Eyes on The Street” in her book: “You can’t make people watch streets they do not want to watch. Safety on the streets by surveillance and mutual policing of one another sounds grim, but in real life it is not grim. The safety of the street works best, most casually, and with least frequent taint of hostility or suspicion precisely where people are using and most enjoying the streets voluntarily and are least conscious, normally, that they are policing” (Jacobs, 1961).

28


2.5. Broken Window Theory Broken window theory is a criminology theory suggesting that some negative visual signs, such as crime scenes, violent or anti-social behaviors, damaged or messy environment, will encourage more crimes, chaos and disorder (Kelling and Coles, 1997). The theory also states the “Domino effect” in crime, that small crimes can encourage and lead to larger and more severe crimes; meanwhile, the control of minor offenses like vandalism, ticket evasion, and public drinking will contribute to the prevention of serious crimes (Kelling and Coles, 1997). Broken window theory was proposed by American social scientists and criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in 1982. In their article, Broken Window, they described such a scene: “Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a pavement. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of refuse from take-out restaurants there or even break into cars.” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). This paragraph explains the main concept of broken window theory: small crimes will invite larger crimes; therefore, one important strategy for crime prevention is to fix the problems while they are still small and controllable (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Later, this concept was adapted and developed into a series of policing policies by the New York Police Department (Bratton, William, and Knobler, 2009). Broken window theory states that people’s psychology and behaviors are impacted by the visual signals from the appearance of an area, which means that in a clean, ordered and wellmaintained place, people will get the signals that crime and misbehaviors are not tolerated or allowed; similarly, people will feel less risky committing crimes in a messy, dirty and disordered

29


area (Kelling and Coles, 1997). George Kelling believes that landscape is a way of communication; a broken window in a building or community sends people a message that this place is absent of order, maintenance, and control, therefore it is less likely to be able to defend against crimes and offenses (Kelling and Coles, 1997). Oscar Newman suggested in his book, Defensible Space, that a disordered and unorganized community reflects the lack of ownership and responsibility of the people living in it (Newman, 1972). Therefore, what really matter are not some actual broken “windows� in a community, but what they represent to potential offenders: this community is defenseless against crimes, and the people within are not capable of or willing to protect or maintain their neighborhood (Kelling and Coles, 1997).

Figure 2.10: The Crime Domino Effect of Broken Window Theory by the author.

30


2.6. Proxemics (Personal Space Theory) Proxemics, also known as personal space theory, is the study of “humans’ use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture” and the influence of interpersonal distance on people’s behaviors, communications, and interactions (Hall, 1966). Proxemics was proposed and developed by American anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his book The Hidden Dimension in 1966. Hall believes that the distance between people can directly impact interpersonal communications (physical, verbal, and mental) and reflect their relationships, and this interpersonal space is greatly influenced by specific cultural background (Hall, 1966). Hall’s Proxemics was widely accepted and considered in design and planning practices, including interior design, architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning (Sommer, 1969). Hall classified all interpersonal distance into four zones: intimate space, personal space, social space, and public space. Types of Interpersonal Space (Hall, 1966) Intimate space: Common interactions among lovers and family members (hugging, touching, whispering, etc.). •

Close: less than 2 cm (0.8 inch)

Far: 6 – 18 inches

Personal space: Common interactions among close friends. •

Close: 1.5 – 2.5 feet

Far: 2.5 – 4 feet

Social space: Common interactions among acquaintances (colleagues, classmates, teammates, normal friends, etc.). •

Close: 4 – 7 feet 31


Far: 7 – 12 feet

Public space: Interactions with strangers. •

Close: 12 – 25 feet

Far: more than 25 feet

People instinctively define their personal space or “comfort zone” based on the situation they are in and the people they are with (Hall, 1966). Personal space acts as a social and psychological territory or defense line for most people, and they will feel unsafe, uncomfortable or even angry when their personal space is invaded (Hall, 1966). Environmental psychologist, Robert Sommer points out in his book, Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design, that personal space should be considered in all designed areas if possible, including buildings, outdoor spaces, and transportation; however, in modern urban areas with high population density, retaining a proper personal space in crowded public place, such as busy streets, malls, trains or elevators, appears to be a difficult task (Sommer, 1969). In these crowded situations in which personal space is inevitably violated, people opt to have some reactions called “Dehumanization”, meaning intentionally ignoring the people around them (Sommer, 1969). The typical behaviors of Dehumanization include avoiding eye contact, maintaining an expressionless face, avoiding physical movement, staying quiet, and focusing on reading or pretending to read books, newspapers, magazines, or cell phones (in today’s case) to avoid any unnecessary interaction with other people (Sommer, 1969). Robert also suggests that the desire of maintaining comfortable personal space can be achieved through some design methods in public space, for instance, moveable chair furniture for people to arrange their comfort zone, physical separation devices on public benches, water features for sound buffers, the arrangement of classroom seats to improve concentration, etc. (Sommer, 1969). 32


Figure 2.11: The personal space circle by Edward T. Hall.

2.7. Chapter Conclusion This chapter reviews six safety-enhancing theories, which contribute to the public safety enhancement through varieties of ways. The concepts and strategies from these theories will be applied in the decision making in the proposed designs in this research. The main outcome of this chapter is a Streetscape Crime Prevention Checklist, which is a collection of the crime prevention methods designed for street environments from the study theories in this chapter. The checklist consists of five categories: Natural surveillance, Territorial reinforcement, Access control, Management, and Personal space control. Each category lists the streetscape crime prevention features and methods introduced in the reviewed literature. Natural surveillance includes the number and quality of public spaces, window surveillance, sight-blocking obstacles, dense vegetation, street lighting, CCTVs, and any possible 33


hiding place on the street. Territorial reinforcement covers the boundary between public and private areas, the hardscape and landscape maintenance situation, and the separation between parking and pedestrian areas. Access control suggests the use of defensive plants for groundlevel windows, avoidance of roof access, and some physical access control means (gate, wall, fence) for private property. Management emphasizes the treatment of public trash, the proper maintenance of street amenities and landscape, and street design for public activities. Finally, personal space control looks for design methods that help protect personal space and manage people flow on streets. This checklist serves as a guideline for the decision making for the Downtown Athens streetscape crime prevention design plan in a later chapter.

34


CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDY This chapter aims to explore and look for the practical environmental design features and methods that are proven effective for streetscape crime prevention by searching and studying some completed streetscape projects that successfully reduced people’s fear of crimes and the actual crime rates in the project areas. The case studies in this chapter consist of two street projects - Bagby Street Reconstruction Project in Houston, Texas and Cherry Creek North Improvements and Fillmore Plaza Project in Denver, Colorado. These two projects both succeeded in increasing people’s perception of safety and lowering the surrounding crime rates by over 30% within a year of their implementations. Moreover, the design teams of these projects managed to achieve the effect of crime prevention through enhancing the overall street experience, including planting, public spaces, lighting, street life and activities, community characters, etc. The combination of these affirmative elements forges a positive street atmosphere and a high-quality surveillance system which prevent potential crimes without building the physical “fortresses” around people. Through these two case studies, author aims to find the environmental design features and methods shared by these projects and explore their impacts on streetscape crime prevention. The major result of this chapter is a collection of the environmental design elements from the studied projects, which serves as a reference and inspiration for the proposed design plans in a later chapter.

35


3.1. Bagby Street Reconstruction Project Bagby Street Reconstruction Project is in Houston, Texas. It is a 12-block (about 0.63 mile) streetscape design project by Design Workshop in 2013. The total project cost was $9,598,220. The project street is an important traffic corridor that connects downtown Houston and the medical district in Houston’s Midtown, which is one of the largest and most historical districts in the city. The neighborhood in the study area is mainly mixed-use area, with multifamily residences, commercial, and office developments (Design Workshop, 2015). The major environmental design features and methods used in this project include increasing the landscape areas on the sidewalk and tree canopies along the street with native and adopted plants, providing more quality public spaces, improving both pedestrian-level and ground-level lighting, and encouraging bike traffic (Design Workshop, 2015). 1. Improving planting scheme: Designers place two “green buffers� (consists of rain gardens, trees, benches, and crossings) on both sides of the sidewalk to create a safer and more comfortable pedestrian environment while functioning for stormwater management. After the project, the street provides decent shade for over 88% of the pedestrian area and reduces the temperature of the project street pavement by 21.6 Fahrenheit degrees in summer (Design Workshop, 2015).

36


Figure 3.1: Increasing landscape areas and tree canopies in Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

2. Increasing public gathering and resting areas: The reconstruction project brought 38% more well-designed public seating areas and social gathering spaces with shade on Bagby Street to encourage active street life and more “eyes on the street� (Design Workshop, 2015). The public spaces in the project are designed with multiple features, including seating, planting, bike parking, lighting, etc. The selected landscape materials are 100% native and adapted species for ecological and maintenance purposes (Design Workshop, 2015).

37


Figure 3.2: Increasing public spaces and native plants in Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

3. Enhancing daytime and nighttime vision: In this project, the design team also improved the street safety by enhancing the daytime and nighttime visual abilities for street users. For daytime, the distance between each street tree is designed to provide enough shade for people and ensure the “transparency� for people to clearly watch their surrounding situations; meanwhile, the other planting materials in the project are mainly low species which do not block people’s sight (Design Workshop, 2015). For nighttime, designers increased streetscape lighting level by 400% through both pedestrian-level street lights and ground-level landscape lights. The landscape lighting system is smartly designed and installed in the planting areas and street furniture, which dramatically enhances the nighttime safety and aesthetics (Design Workshop, 2015).

38


Figure 3.3: Increasing lighting in Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

4. Creating a new community character: The project also intends to bring a special community character to Bagby Street – an ecologically and environmental-friendly street. The design team created 10 educational stormwater interpretive signs along the street to present the environmental achievements of the redesigned Bagby Street, which becomes a community character that both users and designers are proud of. Meanwhile, the project also encourages green traffic, such as biking, by installing 43 new bike racks, which increases the local bike use by over 70%. The rising use of non-motor traffic can also help to create an active street life and bring more natural surveillance (Design Workshop, 2015).

39


Figure 3.4: Stormwater signs in Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

Figure 3.5: Increasing bike racks in Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

40


After the completion of the project, the post-project surveys showed that over 95.36% of the people (total 345) get a better pedestrian experience on the redesigned Bagby Street. And about 80% of the interviewees (total 480) feel the apparent enhancement in pedestrian safety after the reconstruction project of Bagby Street (Design Workshop, 2015). Meanwhile, people’s perception of a better and safer street was also proven by an exciting and inspiring fact that the overall crime rate in the study area decreased by 30% after the project construction.

Figure 3.6: Survey result of perception of pedestrian experience after Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

41


Figure 3.7: Survey result of perception of safety after Bagby St project by Design Workshop.

42


3.2. Cherry Creek North Improvements and Fillmore Plaza Project Cherry Creek North Improvements and Fillmore Plaza Project is in Denver, Colorado. It is a 16-block (about 78 acres) streetscape design by Design Workshop. The first phase of the project was finished in 2010, and the second phase was completed in 2011. The total project cost was $18.5 million. The project area is a commercial and shopping district designed to be a premier outdoor shopping area in the city. However, due to the increasing problems of the infrastructure, aesthetic fatigue, and its closed street design, this area kept losing its competitiveness and popularity (Design Workshop, 2015). The new streetscape design intends to provide a better shopping environment by beautifying the street environment, enhancing street identity, improving safety situation, and creating 20 “Art and Garden Places� while preserving the historical character of the district (Design Workshop, 2015). The main environmental design features and methods Design Workshop practiced in this project include increasing and amplifying the vegetation and street trees along the street for shading and aesthetics, creating unique and artful public spaces, adding new LED lights, and transforming the whole-time closed street to a periodically closed street for massive gathering events (Design Workshop, 2015). 1. Improving street planting scheme: The design team introduced over 21,700 new plants, including 196 street trees, into the project district to enhance the overall planting community. The new planting design greatly improves the functional and aesthetic values of the district by forming green buffers on both sides of the streets, adjusting the micro-climate of the street areas (average air temperature reduction by 11 Fahrenheit degrees), and beautifying the overall outdoor environment (Design Workshop, 2015).

43


Figure 3.8: Street planting system of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop.

2. Unique and artful public space: There are 20 “Art and Garden Spaces� along the project streets to enhance the function and attraction of streetscape public spaces. Each of these spaces is designed with unique features, including signature art pieces, stylish benches, tables and chairs, and landscape lighting. These eye-catching open spaces encourage an active street life, amplify the pedestrian experience and activities, and invite continuous street surveillance (Design Workshop, 2015).

44


Figure 3.9: Public spaces of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop.

3. Creating attractive lighting system: The new lighting design placed 360 new pedestrian lights, 83 new banner poles and 21 directories and equipped them with mercury-free LED lights to enhance the nighttime safety and aesthetics, as well as reducing the light pollution in the district (Design Workshop, 2015). The new street lighting system not only enhances the overall safety at night, but also forges an attractive nighttime scene in the project area.

45


Figure 3.10: Outdoor lighting of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop.

4. Designing for active street life: The street design of some street segments in this project is designed for holding large gathering events in the area, which applies the design elements of “shared street�: there is no elevation change or curb defining sidewalks and vehicular lanes. They are designed with same pavement but separated by some barriers and planters. This design method allows the street to provide a decent place for massive gathering activities, while forcing vehicles to slow down and move with caution through taking away the clear division between vehicular and pedestrian lanes (Collarte, 2012).

46


Figure 3.11: Periodical closed street and gathering events of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop.

Figure 3.12: Shared street design of Cherry Creek Project by Design Workshop.

47


The new street design plan of Cherry Creek North dramatically reduced the crime rate in the District by 39% after its implantation, from 180 incidents in 2009 to 110 in 2011. Meanwhile, the new streetscape design restored the popularity of the district, increasing the sales revenue by 16% in the year after the project, which was 100% more than the increasing rate of the city and Denver Metro Area in that year (Design Workshop, 2015).

3.3. Chapter Conclusion This chapter studies the street design features and methods applied in two streetscape projects that successfully reduced the crime rates in the associated areas. Through the study of these projects, the author found that both projects improved the streets in four main aspects: enhancing planting scheme, increasing public spaces, improving lighting system, and encouraging active street life or creating unique street characters. Enhancing planting scheme is to improve the overall travelling experience of the street, including comfort, aesthetics, and health. A well-planned planting system can effectively improve the attraction and popularity of a street, thus bringing more users and creating better street surveillance. In the study projects, the main methods for a better planting scheme are creating multi-function green buffers along sidewalks and using native or adapted street trees that produce good shades along the street. Increasing public spaces is to provide more free areas for active street life and activities, such as seating, outdoor dining, gathering, etc. Well-designed public spaces encourage people to spend more time on streets, forging continuous and high-quality “eyes on the street�, while benefiting the surrounding businesses. The public spaces in the study cases are designed with multiple features, including seating, planting, lighting, bike parking, etc.

48


Improving the lighting system is for nighttime safety, which can improve people’s perception of safety and reduce many potential offenses at night. A well-lit street environment plays an important role in crime prevention. Both case studies suggest a combination of multilevel street lights, covering vehicular-level, pedestrian-level, and ground-level. Finally, encouraging active street life and creating unique street characters are both psychological methods of environmental design that encourage the sense of ownership, responsibility, and community of the street users. The quality of street surveillance fundamentally depends on how much the users care for and cherish the street environment. In the selected projects, the design teams used the features like interpretive signs to highlight the street characters and designed some street segments with “shared street� elements for large gathering events to improve the connection and bond between users and the street environment.

49


CHAPTER 4 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS This chapter intends to address the existing environmental design conditions and the crime situation in Downtown Athens and explore the potential solutions to the current crime problems through collecting and analyzing the data and information on the existing environmental design features and the crime statistics in the project area. From the site inventory and analysis in this chapter, the author aims to locate the major “crime zone� in Downtown Athens as the detailed study area, identifying the environmental design problems that are partially responsible for the high crime rates and finding the specific solutions to each of them. This chapter starts with a crime prevention inventory for Downtown Athens, which covers three main groups. The first inventory group collects the data of the features that are apt to have positive influences on crime prevention, such as street tree canopy, street lighting, outdoor seating, and existing CCTV layouts. This inventory group shows the existing environmental design elements that serve for crime prevention, providing a brief understanding of the current crime prevention design circumstances of the streets in Downtown Athens. The second inventory group digs into the current crime statistics in Downtown Athens, showing the numbers and locations of all reported crimes in a six-month period from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019. To get a deeper understanding of the current crime situation, this inventory group further categorizes all crimes into three types, violent, property, and life quality, and specifies them into different time periods, including daytime (8:00 to 18:00) and nighttime (18:00 to 4:00). The information and data of this crime inventory directly present the crime issues in Downtown

50


Athens, which guides the author to locate the major “crime zone” in Downtown Athens as detailed study areas. The third inventory group focuses on the site conditions related to potential design implementations, including traffic counts, land use types, street parking, pedestrian and bicycle use density, slope, and schedules of annual massive gathering events in Downtown Athens. The information and data in this inventory group may not be directly relate to crime prevention; however, they would encourage or limit the practices of many design features and methods. For instance, the traffic counts and street parking affect the design methods like woonerf and street diet, building uses may encourage or limit the street design in front of them, and the slope can fundamentally decide the difficulty and cost of the construction of some design features, such as parklets, planters, seating, etc. The second part of this chapter is the detailed study area analysis, which emphasizes the major “crime zone” identified by the crime statistics inventory: Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. and Wall St. segment), Broad St. (Lumpkin St. and Washington St. segment), Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. and Broad St. segment), Jackson St. (Clayton St. and Broad St. segment), and Wall St. (Clayton St. and Broad St. segment). For each study street segment, the author operates a detailed crime prevention design analysis based on the checklist made in the literature review chapter to identify the opportunities and constraints for crime prevention on these streets, a detailed building use inventory to understand the activity time (daytime and nighttime), users’ behaviors (shopping, eating, drinking…) as well as the impact to the associated street design, and also a detailed crime statistics inventory to figure out the major types of the crimes and the “dangerous hours” of each study street segment.

51


The major results of this chapter are the proposed streetscape crime prevention solutions that troubleshoot the identified environmental design problems on all five detailed study street segments, which serve as the references for the proposed design decisions in a later chapter.

4.1. Site Inventory (Group One) This inventory group covers the features that are generally advantageous to crime prevention and overall safety, including street tree canopy, street lighting, outdoor seating, and existing CCTV layouts. Street tree canopy: This map shows the layout and density of existing street trees in Downtown Athens. Street trees can effectively enhance the overall street experience and attract people through beautifying the environment, providing shade, adjusting temperature, etc. Therefore, the streets with high-quality tree systems tend to invite more pedestrians and bike users, bringing more people to stay in the street spaces and creating better natural surveillance situations. Meanwhile, the amount and the quality street trees also reflect the value and the maintenance of the street (Gorman, 2004). In Downtown Athens, the East-West streets - Broad St., Clayton St., Washington St., Hancock St., and Daughter St., have better street tree coverage and quality than most of the North-South streets - Pulaski St., Hull St., Lumpkin St., and Jackson St. This map is mainly based on the data from actual field measure and the references from the satellite image from Google Earth.

52


Figure 4.1: Existing street tree canopy map in Downtown Athens by the author.

Existing outdoor seating: This map shows all the existing outdoor seating in Downtown Athens, including private seats and public benches. Outdoor seating, especially free public seating, plays an important role in forging the public space on streets. Well-designed and properly-maintained seating can be highly valuable in attracting pedestrians and improving active street life. On the map below, the violet points show the layout of all private outdoor seating, while the blue dots represent the public ones. In Downtown Athens, the private seats mainly belong to the streetscape restaurants, which are only for paying customers. Meanwhile, most of the public benches are placed near government facilities, such as Athens City Hall and the Clarke County Court. There are very few public benches (five or six) along Clayton St. and Washington St. This map is mainly based on the data from actual field measure and the references from the satellite image from Google Earth.

53


Figure 4.2: Existing outdoor seating map in Downtown Athens by the author.

Existing outdoor lighting map: This map presents the existing outdoor lighting layout in Downtown Athens. Outdoor lighting is a key factor for nighttime safety and crime prevention, which also shows the importance and popularity of the street (Crowe, 2000). In Downtown Athens, some major streets, such as Broad St., Clayton St., Washington St., Thomas St., and College Ave., have obviously better lighting situations than the other streets. This map is mainly based on the data from actual field measure and the references from the satellite image from Google Earth.

54


Figure 4.3: Existing outdoor lighting map in Downtown Athens by the author.

Existing CCTV map: This map marks all the existing closed-circuit television (CCTV) devices in Downtown Athens, including public cameras and private ones. CCTVs are 24/7 restless digital surveillance and recording devices, which function not only for evidence collecting and capture, but also as warning signs for potential offenders (Ratcliffe et al., 2009). Downtown Athens has a thorough CCTV system that consists of public CCTVs at each street intersection and private ones placed near ATMs, parking decks, storefronts, etc. This map is mainly based on the data from actual field observation and records.

55


Figure 4.4: Existing CCTV map in Downtown Athens by the author.

56


4.2. Site Inventory (Group Two) The second inventory group collects the crime statistics in Downtown Athens, which evidently show the areas that suffer the most safety and crime hazards. The crime report maps in group two are divided into four types (overall crimes, violent crimes, property crimes, and life quality crimes) and three time periods (all times, daytime, and nighttime). Overall crime report map: This map shows the overall amount of crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019. In Downtown Athens, the areas suffering the most crimes were Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St. and College Ave. (Washington St. – Broad St. segment), Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). This map is mainly based on the data from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.5: Overall crime statistics in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

57


Overall crime report map (daytime): This map shows the overall amount of crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the daytime (8:00 to 18:00). The daytime crime statistics stayed at a low rate; the crimes in this period took only 22.5% of the overall crimes (73 in 324) during the study period. The areas in Downtown Athens with the most daytime crimes were Lumpkin St. (Washington St. – Broad St. segment) and Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – College Ave. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.6: Overall daytime crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

58


Overall crime report map (nighttime): This map shows the overall amount of crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the nighttime (18:00 to 4:00). The nighttime crime situation in Downtown Athens remained a severe issue, which was responsible for over 77% of the overall crimes (250 in 324) during the study period. The major “crime zone” in nighttime covered Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St. and College Ave. (Washington St. – Broad St. segment), Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.7: Overall nighttime crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

59


Violent crime report map: This map shows the amount and the places of violent crimes in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019. Violent crime is severely dangerous offenses, which is also one of the main targets of the streetscape crime prevention design in this research. Violent crimes are illegal actions in which offenders apply or threaten to use force (with or without weapons) upon a victim, such as murder, robbery, rape, kidnap, mugging, etc. In Downtown Athens, the areas suffering the most violent crimes were Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Wall St. segment) and Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). This map is mainly based on the data from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.8: Violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

60


Violent crime report map (daytime): This map shows the amount of violent crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the daytime (8:00 to 18:00). The daytime violent crimes accounted for about 26.5% of the crimes in the same type (13 in 49) during the study period. The areas in Downtown Athens with the most daytime crimes were College Ave. (Washington St. – Clayton St. segment) and Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – College Ave. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.9: Daytime violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

61


Violent crime report map (nighttime): This map shows the amount of violent crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the nighttime (18:00 to 4:00). The nighttime Downtown Athens witnessed more than 71% of the violent crimes (35 in 49) during the study period. The major “crime zone” for violence in nighttime covered Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment), College Ave. (Thomas St. – Clayton St. segment), and Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.10: Nighttime violent crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

62


Property crime report map: This map shows the amount and the places of property crimes in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019. Property crime is unlawful offenses targeting public or private properties, which is also one of the main targets of the streetscape crime prevention design in this research. Property crimes are illegal actions in which take money, property, or other benefits with or without involving force. Property crimes are high-volume crimes which include burglary, theft, vandalism, arson, etc. In Downtown Athens, the areas suffering the most property crimes were Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., College Ave., Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). This map is mainly based on the data from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.11: Property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

63


Property crime report map (daytime): This map shows the amount of property crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the daytime (8:00 to 18:00). The daytime property crimes took about 31.5% of all the crimes in the same type (35 in 110) during the study period. The areas in Downtown Athens with the most daytime property crimes were Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – College Ave. segment), Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – College Ave. segment), Lumpkin St. and College Ave. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.12: Daytime property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

64


Property crime report map (nighttime): This map shows the amount of violent crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the nighttime (18:00 to 4:00). Nearly 63% of the property crimes (69 in 110) in Downtown Athens happened at night during the study period. The dangerous areas for property offenses in nighttime included Clayton St. and Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Wall St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St., and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.13: Nighttime property crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

65


Life quality crime report map: This map shows the amount and the places of life quality crimes in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019. Life quality crimes are unlawful actions such as disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. Life quality crimes like public drunkenness, fighting, abusive language, public urination, cruelty to animals, and noise can also cause dangers and threats to public safety or lead to more severe crimes. In Downtown Athens, the areas with the most violent crimes were Broad St. (Jackson St. – Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Wall St. segment), Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). This map is mainly based on the data from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.14: Life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

66


Life quality crime report map (daytime): This map shows the amount of life quality crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the daytime (8:00 to 18:00). The daytime Downtown Athens did not suffer a lot from life quality offenses. The life quality offenses in daytime took only 11% of all life quality crimes (14 in 124) during the study period. The area in Downtown Athens with the most daytime crimes was Broad St. (College Ave. – Wall St. segment). This map is mainly based on the data from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.15: Daytime life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

67


Life quality crime report map (nighttime): This map shows the amount of life quality crimes and places in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 during the nighttime (18:00 to 4:00). The nighttime Downtown Athens suffered more than 85% of the life quality offenses (106 in 124) during the study period. The hazard zone for life quality crimes in nighttime covered Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Wall St. segment), Broad St. (Jackson St. – Thomas St. segment), Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The data of this map are mainly from CrimeReports.com.

Figure 4.16: Nighttime life quality crime report map in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

68


4.3. Site Inventory (Group Three) This inventory group makes a collection of the features that do not have a direct relationship with crime prevention; however, they play important roles in affecting the potential design implementations. The information and data in this inventory group include street traffic counts, existing land use types, on-street parking, slope, bike use density, pedestrian density, and annual massive gathering events in Downtown Athens. Annual Average Daily Traffic map: This map shows the average traffic counts of all streets in Downtown Athens. Annual average daily traffic data show the traffic density of streets, which affects the design decisions such as one-way street, shared street, parking requirements, etc. In this map, the white points show the traffic counting locations and the amount of traveling vehicles. The blue lines represent all the downtown streets; the thicker lines with deeper color have higher traffic density than the thinner lines with lighter colors. In Downtown Athens, the boundary streets (Broad St., Dougherty St., Pulaski St., and Thomas St.) have higher traffic density than the inside streets. Among all streets, Broad St. has the highest traffic density (> 20,000 per day). This map is based on the Average Annual Daily Traffic data from the Georgia Department of Transportation.

69


Figure 4.17: Average Annual Daily Traffic map in Downtown Athens from Georgia Department of Transportation (graphic by the author).

70


Existing land use map: This map shows the existing land use types in Downtown Athens. The land use, especially ground-level land use, largely influences its adjacent street in various aspects, including street life, people’s behavior, safety supports or hazards, etc. This map categorizes the land uses into three major types: commercial, governmental, and residential. In Downtown Athens, most of the popular commercial destinations such as restaurants, bars, stores, banks, theaters, and hotels, gather along Broad St., Clayton St. and Washington St., which also causes larger crime issues and safety hazards in these areas. This map is mainly based on actual field observation and records by the author.

Figure 4.18: Existing land use types map in Downtown Athens by the author.

71


On-street parking space map: This map presents all the on-street parking spaces in Downtown Athens. On-street parking spaces in Downtown Athens are mainly parallel parking lots and angled parking lots. Most of the on-street parking spaces are placed along Broad St., Clayton St., Washington St., Hancock St., College Ave., and Lumpkin St. On-street parking lots can provide great opportunities for public space designs such as parklets. This map is mainly based on the data from actual field measure and the references from the satellite image from Google Earth.

Figure 4.19: Existing on-street parking space map in Downtown Athens by the author.

72


Slope map: This map shows the slope situation in Downtown Athens. Existing slope can greatly affect the suitability of many hardscape and landscape structures. In Downtown Athens, the streets that have relatively steep slopes are Broad St. (Hull St. – Pulaski St. segment), Clayton St. (Hull St. – Pulaski St. segment), Dougherty St. (Pulaski St. – Jackson St. segment), College Ave. (Dougherty St. – Hancock St. segment), and Jackson St. (Dougherty St. – Hancock St. segment). The slopes of the rest of the street segments are generally under 5%. The data source of this map is from the Geographical Information Services (GIS) Office of Athens and edited with slope analysis in ArcGIS by author.

Figure 4.20: Slope map in Downtown Athens from Geographical Information Services (GIS) Office of Athens (graphic by the author).

73


Pedestrian heat map: This heat map shows the pedestrian use in Downtown Athens. It reflects the popularity of streets, major pedestrian destinations, and pedestrian suitability of different streets. In Downtown Athens, the streets having high pedestrian use are Broad St., Hancock St., Dougherty St., Thomas St., and Lumpkin St. This map is based on the data from Strava Global Heat Map.

Figure 4.21: Pedestrian use map in Downtown Athens from Strava Global Heat Map (graphic by the author).

74


Bike use map: This heat map shows the bike use in Downtown Athens. It reflects the popularity of streets, major bike destinations, and bike suitability of different streets. In Downtown Athens, the area with the highest bike use is a loop bounded by Washington St., Clayton St., Lumpkin St., and Thomas St. The bike use situation in Downtown Athens is greatly influenced by a large annual bike event in the town, Athens Twilight. This map is based on the data from Strava Global Heat Map.

Figure 4.22: Bike use map in Downtown Athens from Strava Global Heat Map (graphic by the author).

75


Annual gathering events schedule chart: This chart lists all the annual massive gathering events in Downtown Athens. During these events, the population of Athens may triple or even quadruple itself, and the sudden boost in crowds will cause associated safety hazards. These annual massive gathering events have become a part of the culture and tradition of Downtown Athens, which is also one of the target situations of the streetscape crime prevention plan this research is designed to deal with. The major annual massive gathering events in Downtown Athens include Athens Twilight biking race from 27th April to 28th April, Summer music festival from 22nd June to 24th June, Classic City Music Festival from 30th June to 1st July, Athens Popfest from 8th August to 11th August, Athens Marathon from 20th October to 21st October, Halloween Parade from 26th October to 27th October, and Christmas Parade on 6th December. In addition to these activities, another popular series of events are Bulldog Gamedays. The regular schedules for UGA Gamedays are 1st September, 15th September, 29th September, 6th October, 27th October, 10th November, 17th November, and 24th November. The schedule of Gamedays may vary every year depending on the results of matches, which requires corresponding adjustments to fit the actual schedule. The information on this chart is collected from the AthensClarke County official website and the website of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

76


Figure 4.23: Annual gathering events schedule in Downtown Athens by the author.

77


4.4. Detailed Study Area Analysis Through comparing and summarizing the data and information from the crime report maps in inventory group two, the author identifies the major “crime zone” in Downtown Athens. The site analysis in this chapter aims to zoom into each street segment in this crime zone, analyzing the existing conditions and detecting the problems based on detailed field observation and inventory, as well as the Streetscape Crime Prevention Checklist from the literature review chapter. The map below shows the detailed study street segments, including Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St., and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment).

Figure 4.24: Major streetscape crime zone in Downtown Athens by the author.

78


Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment) Broad St. is the major traffic corridor in Athens, which has a daily traffic count of over 24,000 vehicles; meanwhile, its popular location and various streetscape stores also attract thousands of foot traffic every day. The main building use types of the study street segment are restaurants and bars, as well as some banks and retail stores.

Figure 4.25: Building use of Broad St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

The popularity of the street makes it not only one of the busiest and well-known areas in the county, but also a hotspot for various crimes in Downtown Athens. During the study period, there were overall 93 reported crimes along the study street segment, including five violent crimes, 31 property offenses, and 57 life quality incidents.

79


Figure 4.26: Crime statistics of Broad St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

The following two maps show the daytime and nighttime crime situations of the study street segment. During daytime, the overall crime rate stayed low: there were no reported violent offenses during the study period. The main problems were the property crimes near the Bank of America and intersection of Broad St. and College Ave., one of the most popular and crowded areas in Downtown Athens. When nightfall arrived, the crime situation rose dramatically. Various crimes were reported on Broad St. between College Ave. and Wall St., the home of many restaurants and bars. About 60% of the violent offenses and over 82% of the life quality crimes were reported in this area during the nighttime. On the study segment of Broad St., there was an obvious increase in crime rate at night and the major crime zone switched from Lumpkin St.-College Ave. segment to College Ave.Wall St. as nighttime came. 80


Figure 4.27: Daytime crime statistics of Broad St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Figure 28: Nighttime crime statistics of Broad St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by author)

81


In the field observation of the study area, the author evaluated the street design based on the Streetscape Crime Prevention Checklist from the literature review and found some environmental design issues that could be partially responsible for the current crime problems. The existing street design ensures a good overall visual ability for people; there is no major sight-blocking obstacle along the street. Meanwhile, the street is equipped with both vehicleoriented and pedestrian level lights, which provide good nighttime visibility on the street. The street trees are well organized, which provide good shade during summer seasons. There are CCTVs at each road intersection and some specific spots such as banks and ATMs. The major problem of this street segment is the lack of public space. There is only one public space (a simple bus stop) observed in the study area. Most of the outdoor spaces are private dining areas of the streetscape restaurants, which are only available for paying customers. These spaces remain vacant except during lunch and supper times. The absence of free public space discourages the diversity of street life and lowers the amount and quality of the natural surveillances on the street. Another problem observed in this study street segment is the exposed trash on the sidewalk. These trash bags are legally placed on the sidewalk with the current regulations; however, the exposed trash still damages the overall aesthetics of the street and sends the message of poor maintenance. During the field inventory, the author also observed some broken trash bags with exposed waste all over the sidewalk. The lack of public space and the exposed trash are two main problems existing on the study segment of Broad St., which can be solved by adding public seating and activity spaces on the street and creating designated trash dumping areas.

82


Figure 4.29: Detailed study area analysis of Broad St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

83


Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment) Clayton St. is the major commercial street in Downtown Athens, which has an average daily traffic count around 3,600 to 3,900. This street segment attracts a considerable number of pedestrians due to its location and various streetscape stores and services. The study area of Clayton St. can be divided into three parts based on the building uses: the Jackson St.-Thomas St. segment is dominated by food services including restaurants and bars; the College Ave.Jackson St. segment has a good balance of food services and retail stores; and the Lumpkin St.College Ave. segment is mainly occupied by various retail stores and bank services. Due to the diversity of building uses, the study area of Clayton St. draws people with various purposes in different time periods of a day.

Figure 4.30: Detailed building use inventory of Clayton St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

84


The study area of Clayton St. was a major crime core in Downtown Athens, which witnessed 107 crimes during the study period, which included 27 violent incidents, 46 property offenses, and 34 life quality crimes.

Figure 4.31: Detailed crime statistics of Clayton St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

The daytime crimes in the study area were mainly reported around the Lumpkin St.College Ave. segment and the associated road intersections with various retail stores and bank services. During nighttime, the Lumpkin St.-College Ave. segment remained a crime hotspot; meanwhile, the crime zone expanded into the other two segments. The College Ave.-Jackson St. segment became the major crime area at night, and the Jackson St.-Thomas St. segment also started to have crime issues due to the busy hour of the restaurants and bars along this street segment.

85


Figure 4.32: Detailed daytime crime statistics of Clayton St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Figure 4.33: Detailed nighttime crime statistics of Clayton St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

86


The daytime and nighttime crime statistics maps of the study area of Clayton St. show an obvious boost in crime rate at night, which implies the lack of effective environmental design features and methods for nighttime circumstances. In the field observation, the author noticed a major design problem that could partially explain the crime situation on Clayton St. is the street lighting system along the street. The existing street lights are about 30 feet tall, which are mainly designed for street vehicles. They are over-high for foot traffic, which causes blind spots for pedestrians and light pollution for the surrounding environment. Another environmental design issue of the study area is the hardscape and landscape maintenance. There are seven public spaces with benches observed along the study street, and they all have maintenance problems at different levels, such as broken planters and exposed trash. The landscape maintenance also suffers a severe situation. The street trees are planted at different distances and health status: some are healthy and leafy, some are dying, and there are also some cut-down trees observed in the study area. The unorganized and poorly maintained street planting system reduces the overall walk experience, discourages many possible street activities, and sends the message of a messy, poorly managed street, which has a negative effect on the streetscape crime prevention. In addition, like Broad St., there is also lots of illegally placed trash and exposed waste on the sidewalks. One more issue noticed from the field observation is the overwhelming walking experience due to the large amount of street parking cars and the lack of “buffer area” between the parking lane and sidewalk. Due to the popularity of the streetscape stores, most of the associated parking spaces are occupied all day long. And these parked cars forge a “steel wall” for the pedestrians. This overwhelming feeling creates a depressive pedestrian environment and

87


reduces the overall walking experience. Meanwhile, these parked cars also block the sights of pedestrians and provide “hidden areas” for potential offenders. The lack of pedestrian lighting, poor maintenance, and the overwhelming walking experience are three main environmental design issues observed in the study area of Clayton St. The possible solutions to these include adding pedestrian level lights, redesigning public spaces and street planting system, and creating a buffer area between parking lane and sidewalk.

Figure 4.34: Detailed study area analysis of Clayton St (Lumpkin St – Thomas St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

88


Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment) Lumpkin St. is one of the major North-South streets in Downtown Athens. It is a oneway street which has a daily traffic count of about 3,660 vehicles. This segment of Lumpkin St. has two distinctive street lives on each side: the west side of the street has an active street environment, including restaurants, bars, a bank, and a beauty salon; meanwhile, the east side is dominated by the Bank of America, and there is no active street life on this side of the street.

Figure 4.35: Detailed building use inventory of Lumpkin St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

This study area suffered a major crime issue. There were overall 45 reported crimes in just one block area, including nine violent incidents, 24 property offenses, and 12 life quality crimes.

89


Figure 4.36: Detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

This study area had the highest daytime property crime rate in Downtown Athens during the study period, and as night arrived, when the banks were closed, the property crimes tended to show a decreasing trend from 13 to nine. The crime rates of violent and life quality offenses stayed low in the daytime, and they started to rise as nightfall arrived, especially in the area near the intersection of Clayton St. and Lumpkin St., which had the most violent incidents during nighttime.

90


Figure 4.37: Daytime detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Figure 4.38: Nighttime detailed crime statistics of Lumpkin St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

91


The study segment of Lumpkin St. has different street environments on two sides. The west side of the street has an active street life, which creates a good window surveillance from the streetscape stores; meanwhile, the east side of the street has limited street life due to the dominance of the Bank of America building. This segment of Lumpkin St. suffers a major shortage of street furniture and amenities – there is no designed landscape, street lighting, or public seating available in the study area. The lack of necessary street design features reduces the function and charm of the street, making people simply pass the area instead of spending time in it. The solutions to the problems on Lumpkin St. include ensuring the sight and surveillance around the ATM area and adding more street design features such as planting, lighting, and seating on the street.

Figure 4.39: Detailed study area analysis of Lumpkin St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

92


Jackson St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment) Jackson St. is a North-South street with steep slope and limited street life. The street has a high daily traffic count of around 5,400; meanwhile, this street segment also attracts lots of passing pedestrians due to its function as connecting two major East-West streets - Broad St. and Clayton St. However, the study area is short of street life due to the lack of active streetscape stores and necessary street amenities and furniture. The building uses along this street segment include restaurants, bars, and some retail stores; nevertheless, only a few stores have customeroriented doors or windows opening to this street segment, which leaves this study area out of surveillance and active street life.

Figure 4.40: Detailed building use of Jackson St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

93


The study suffered heavy property crimes and life quality offenses. There were total of 60 reported crimes in this street segment during the study period, including six violent crimes, 22 property offenses, and 32 life quality incidents.

Figure 4.41: Detailed crime statistics of Jackson St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

The daytime crime rate in the study area stayed low during the study period, which had just four property offenses and two life quality crimes. However, when nightfall and the peak hour of the surrounding restaurants and bars arrived, the crime rate also rose dramatically in all three types. The nighttime crimes in the area took over 90% of all incidents. This dark street seemed to provide an ideal crime scene for the offenders at night. In addition to the severe violent and property crimes, this study area had the highest life quality crime rate in Downtown Athens at nighttime due to the various night-oriented businesses (night clubs and bars) around the area. 94


Figure 4.42: Daytime detailed crime statistics of Jackson St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Figure 4.43: Nighttime detailed crime statistics of Jackson St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

95


The study segment of Jackson St. suffers a major shortage of attractive street environment and life due to its physical conditions (narrow sidewalk and steep slope) and the lack of the necessary street design features – landscape, public space, and systematic street lighting. Meanwhile, there are also exposed trash problems observed in the study street. To improve the street environment for crime prevention, this study area would require a pedestrian level street lighting system for nighttime crime hazards, as well as some designed landscape and trash dumping areas.

Figure 4.44: Detailed study area analysis of Jackson St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

96


Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment) Wall St. is a small alley connecting Clayton St. and Broad St., which is mainly used for working vehicles such as maintenance, delivery, utility, etc. The street segment has a very low pedestrian use rate due to the lack of streetscape stores and necessary street design features. The main building uses are bars and restaurants; however, none of the stores has customer doors or windows facing this street, which makes Wall St. merely a pass corridor without any active street life.

Figure 4.45: Detailed building use of Wall St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens by the author.

Despite its unpopularity, Wall St. still had a considerable number of reported crimes, including two violent offenses, nine property incidents, and 25 life quality crimes in the area. The disturbances to the surrounding businesses and residents caused by various life quality crimes appeared to be the largest problem in this area during the study period.

97


Figure 4.46: Detailed crime statistics of Wall St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Wall St. in daytime enjoyed a “peaceful” time during the study period, which witnessed only three life quality crimes. Nevertheless, the crime rates of all three types started to rise with the arrival of night and the real “business hour” of the surrounding restaurants and bars. The nighttime crimes in the area made up more than 91% of all reported crimes. Like the neighboring Jackson St., Wall St. also attracted lots of night crimes, especially life quality offenses influenced by the various night-oriented businesses (night clubs and bars) around the area.

98


Figure 4.47: Daytime detailed crime statistics of Wall St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

Figure 4.48: Nighttime detailed crime statistics of Wall St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown Athens from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

99


The current Wall St. merely functions as a pedestrian and vehicular corridor, which has nearly no street design features or businesses for people. Meanwhile, like the other North-South streets like Lumpkin St. and Jackson St., Wall St. also faces the physical conditions like steep slope and narrow sidewalk. Additionally, during the field observation, Wall St. showed a negative and unwelcoming walking experience due to the exposed trash, dirty street surface, and some broken curbs and pavements. Considering the various negative conditions and limits of Wall St., the design solution for this study area focuses on preventing nighttime crimes and beautifying the street by adding a pedestrian-oriented street light system and creating designated trash dumping areas.

Figure 4.49: Detailed study area analysis of Wall St (Clayton St – Broad St) in Downtown from 7/24/2018 to 1/24/2019 from CrimeReports.com (graphic by the author).

100


4.5. Chapter Conclusion This chapter contains the site inventory and analysis that focus on streetscape crime prevention in Downtown Athens. The site inventory collects the data and information in three aspects: the street design features that are beneficial to crime prevention, the actual crime statistics, and the existing conditions that impact the potential design solutions. The data and information in the site inventory guide the author to locate the major crime zone in Downtown Athens as the detailed study area - Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St., and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). The site analysis emphasizes the major crime zones identified from the inventory, analyzing and exploring the environmental design problems and possible solutions to them. Through the detailed study area inventory and analysis for the five street segments of the major crime zone in Downtown Athens, the author identifies some common design problems existing in Downtown Athens, including lack of effective nighttime-oriented design features, absence of high-quality public spaces, and some hardscape and landscape maintenance issues. As an outcome of this inventory and analysis process, the author uses the five detailed study street segments that suffer major crime issues as design examples for different street types, exploring recommended design solutions to treat the identified problems. The first street design example is Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment), which is the main street with high traffic volume, wide sidewalk (>10’), and active street life. The design solutions for this type of street include placing a buffer area that separates parking lane and pedestrian sidewalk, adding public spaces, enhancing pedestrian scale lighting, providing

101


ground level lighting, amplifying planting scheme, bringing more bike racks, and creating designed trash dumping areas. The second street design example is Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment), which represents the commercial streets that have low traffic volume, mid-size sidewalk (7-10’), and active street life. The design solutions for this type of street contain adding a buffer area between street parking and sidewalk, bringing more quality public spaces, unifying the distance and species of street trees, adding pedestrian-scale street lights and ground-level lighting, replacing some street parking spaces in front of food service businesses with parklets, providing more bike parking spaces, and creating designated trash dumping areas. Another street design example is Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment), which has steep slope, middle traffic volume, narrow sidewalk (<7’), and active street life. The design solutions cover creating a buffer area separating parking lane and pedestrian walkway, providing some public spaces, and adding pedestrian-scale street lights and ground-level lighting. The last street type is presented by Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment), which has steep slope, narrow sidewalk, and limited street life. The solutions for this type of street consist of adding pedestrian-level street lights and ground lighting and creating designated trash dumping areas. The recommended solutions in this chapter are designed to treat the specific environmental design problems identified from the inventory and analysis process. They also serve as a major reference for the proposed design features and methods in a later chapter.

102


CHAPTER 5 STREETSCAPE CRIME PREVENTION DESIGN This chapter intends to explore possible environmental design solutions to the existing crime issues in Downtown Athens. Through the field observation and the inventory and analysis of the project site, the author identifies some problems existing in the current streetscape design of Downtown Athens, including the lack of quality public spaces, pedestrian scale lighting, exposed trash, overwhelming parking, etc. The proposed design plans in this chapter apply the design features and methods from the streetscape crime prevention checklist from the literature reviews and the inspirations from the studied cases to troubleshoot the environmental design issues identified from the site inventory and analysis. The project area for this streetscape crime prevention design covers the five street segments in the major crime areas identified from the site analysis, including Broad St. (Lumpkin St. Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Broad St. segment).

103


Figure 5.1: Major streetscape crime zone in Downtown Athens by the author.

Through reading and thinking about the reviewed literature and studied cases, the author believes a well-designed streetscape environment forges an â&#x20AC;&#x153;invisible layerâ&#x20AC;? that protects the people within and provides a pleasing place for various activities. In this proposed design, the author aims to make full use of different street design elements (planting, lighting, seating, trash collection), creating multi-functional features which contribute to crime prevention and the enhancement of the overall travelling experience in Downtown Athens.

104


Figure 5.2: The â&#x20AC;&#x153;Invisibleâ&#x20AC;? layer of protection created by well-designed street environment by the author.

This streetscape design plan introduces a major streetscape design system, Green Shield System, that combines all the required street design elements for crime prevention and enhances the overall aesthetics and travelling experience of the project streets. The system is designed with a hierarchy of the streetscape features, depending on the physical conditions and limitations of different street segments; meanwhile, the author also suggests some unique multifunctional design features for the future. The introduction of this streetscape crime prevention design system consists of two parts. The first part focuses on the various design elements in this system, including green buffer, public spaces, pedestrian scale lighting, trash treatment, connection, etc. The second part emphasizes the application of the system on each target street segment based on their specific conditions and some special requirements. The design decisions for this streetscape crime prevention plan are the reflection of the learning from the reviewed literature and case studies, as well as the problems identified from the site inventory and analysis. The proposed design plan in this chapter works to improve the crime 105


prevention environment and the overall street travelling experience, which serves as reference and recommendation for any street redevelopment plan in Downtown Athens in the future.

5.1. Green Shield System (GSS) Green shield system is the major element in this streetscape crime prevention design. It is a linear streetscape design feature which brings all other elements together, forging an organized and multifunctional streetscape crime prevention environment. The complete Green Shield System includes five main elements: green buffer, pedestrian scale lighting, public spaces, trash placing area, and other street amenities such as bike racks and alarms. The existing street design in Downtown Athens suffers some common problems such as the lack of quality public space, absence of pedestrian scale lighting, exposed trash, and some hardscape and landscape maintenance issues. Meanwhile, the current street design in Downtown Athens appears to be a collection of some design elements; nevertheless, these elements seem to be separated from each other because of the lack of a prime feature which brings everything together. Green Shield System is designed to be a prime street feature in Downtown Athens, which creates a systematic street environment while solving the existing street design problems.

106


Figure 5.3: Existing street design conditions summary in Downtown Athens by the author.

5.1.1 Green buffer area The first element in the Green Shield System is the green buffer area, which is a three to four-foot wide green stripe along the street, lying between sidewalk and street parking lane. It creates a landscape screen that reduces the overwhelming feeling from the street parking; meanwhile, this buffer area also forges a “wall” between the sidewalk and the hiding places created by parked vehicles, which increases the effort and risk of potential offense and eases people’s fear of crimes. Furthermore, by providing more landscape area and shading, the green buffer also brings a more comfortable travelling experience and attracts more foot traffic. In addition to the existing street trees, the plant selection for the green buffer focuses on Georgia native or adapted shrubs that are lower than three feet (for visibility), low maintenance, and have some storm water treating abilities. The current planting scheme includes Abelia grandiflora 'Sherwoodii' (Sherwood abelia), Aucuba japonica 'Variegata Nana' (Dwarf Variegated Aucuba),

107


Chasmanthium latifolium (Inland sea oat), Cotoneaster dammeri (Bearberry cotoneaster), Hibiscus spp, Ilex vomitoria (Yaupon holly), Juncus effuses (Common rush), etc.

Figure 5.4: Proposed green buffer feature in Downtown Athens by the author.

Figure 5.5: Proposed green buffer area details in Downtown Athens by the author.

108


To retain the connection between parking lane and sidewalk, there are six-foot wide crossings every 25 to 30 feet (around three angled parking spaces) along the green buffer. The crossing is designed with one-foot tall elevated boundaries with lighting features on both sides to improve the sense of corridor during nighttime. The crossings along the green buffer focus on the areas with street parking spaces; therefore, there would not be any crossing design on some specific street segments that are restricted to street parking such as the Lumpkin St. near Sun Trust bank.

Figure 5.6: Proposed crossing along green buffer in Downtown Athens by the author.

5.1.2 Pedestrian scale lighting The second major element in the Green Shield System is the pedestrian scale lighting along the project streets, which consists of two types of lighting for different heights. The

109


existing street lights are mainly vehicle-focused lights that are too tall (over 30 feet) for pedestrian scale. These over-tall street lights cannot cover many places on the sidewalk, which creates a considerate number of blind spots for pedestrians. The pedestrian scale street lights in the Green Shield System are designed to eliminate these blind spots and create a well-lit nighttime environment in Downtown Athens. The pedestrian scale lights are around 14 feet to 16 feet tall and are placed at least every 40 feet from each other to ensure the brightness of the street; meanwhile, these lights are designed to produce downward light rays to avoid possible light pollution. The ideal bulb for pedestrian scale street lighting is light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for brightness and power saving. The other level of pedestrian scale light is the ground lighting, which includes a series of LED well lights placed every nine feet along the green buffer, forging a seven-inch wide lighting belt on the sidewalk. This lighting belt greatly improves the sense of corridor of the sidewalk at night, enhancing the aesthetics, brightness, and walking experience of the street.

Figure 5.7: Proposed pedestrian scale lighting features along green buffer in Downtown Athens by the author.

110


5.1.3 Public spaces Another essential element in the Green Shield System is streetscape public spaces. The system provides two types of public spaces: public seating area and parklet.

Figure 5.8: Proposed public spaces in Downtown Athens by the author.

Public seating area is the major form of public space in the Green Shield System, which consists of elements including benches, pedestrian scale lights, shade trees, bike racks, etc. The seating area is designed based on the concept of Prospect-refuge theory (Appleton, 1975). The benches are placed against street trees or low shrubs to provide the sense of refuge; meanwhile, each seating area has at least one pedestrian scale light to ensure visibility during the nighttime. Additionally, the design of the benches is inspired by the ideas of Personal Space theory (Hall, 1966). The length of the bench is about four feet, which provides enough room for a single person or two people with a close relationship, and benches are separated by a lighting pole to create a proper interpersonal distance.

111


Figure 5.9: Proposed public seating area in Downtown Athens by the author.

Another type of public space in the Green Shield System is a parklet, which is mainly designed for some street parking spaces in front of some popular food service businesses on Clayton St. The term “parklet” originated in San Francisco, meaning a permanent or temporary conservation of one or multiple on-street parking lots into a small public park (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2017). By offering landscape space with outdoor furniture, parklets create attractions and opportunities for pedestrians and bikers to slow their paces and enjoy a moment of the surrounding streetscape life (Global Designing Cities Initiative and National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2016). Parklet is a flexible and multi-functional environmental design tool, which can be designed for both temporary and permanent uses (Seattle Department of Transportation, 2017). The latest “Portable Parklet” design enables quick installments and removals (Seattle

112


Department of Transportation, 2017). This flexibility of the parklet makes it a cost-efficient choice for periodic design that can satisfy the different needs in the study site, Downtown Athens, for varieties of situations, including Gamedays, festivals, parades, and other large events. Meanwhile, the flexibility and cost-efficiency of the parklet also makes it a suitable trial design for long-term permanent plans in the future. Downtown Athens has nearly 100 streetscape businesses, which makes it difficult to convince the business owners to change their on-street parking lots into public green space unless it is proven to be beneficial for their businesses. Therefore, parklets can be a low-cost trial design in Downtown Athens to test their effect in visitor attraction, crime prevention and business influence, and then provide references and data for future permanent streetscape design solutions. Some research, such as the San Francisco Parklet Impact Study (Pratt, 2010) and Philadelphia Parklet Performance Study by University City District (2013), has proven the value of parklets as a form of public space in improving their surrounding street life. The Philadelphia Parklet Performance Study also showed that parklets can not only bring more customers for adjacent businesses, but also attract non-patron users and create a “spillover effect” that further affects other passing pedestrians to stop or slow their paces to join in the social circles around the parklet area (University City District, 2013). The positive and active social atmosphere that parklets create can greatly improve the vitality of the street and provide high-quality “eyes on the street.” The research team also studied the impact of parklets on their surrounding environments. Consequently, they found some positive social effects that are associated with the implementation of parklets, such as the reduction of crimes within 500 feet, increasing pedestrian volume, decreasing motor traffic volume, etc. (University City District, 2013).

113


Figure 5.10: The change of street characters associated with parklets by University City District.

The parklet design in the Green Shield System mainly focuses on the restaurants and bars along Clayton St., such as Taqueria Tsunami, Eddieâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Calzones, Amici Athens, Barberitos Southwestern Grille & Cantina, Mellow Mushroom, Centro Athens, Whiskey Bent, Jerzees Sportsbar, etc. The parklets in this proposed design are designed into two sizes, double-space parklet and single-space one, to fit different spatial needs and limits. The double-space parklet takes over two angled parking spaces, creating a public space of over 256 square feet with seats, tables, lights, plants, etc. The parklet is bounded by three-foot tall wooden walls with planters, which can withstand at least 200 pounds of horizontal force; meanwhile, the floor of the parklet is designed to have a minimum load-bearing capacity of 100 pounds per square foot (San Francisco Parklet Manual, 2015).

114


Figure 5.11: Parklet safety requirements by San Francisco Parklet Manual (2015).

Figure 5.12: Proposed double-space parklet in Downtown Athens by the author.

The parklet area also provides a well-lit environment. There are two pedestrian scale lights on both ends of the parklet, and the parklet is equipped with floor and inside wall lights to define the space, outside wall lights to alert the passing vehicles, and landscape lights in the planters to boost the brightness and aesthetics of the parklet area at night.

115


Figure 5.13: Proposed double-space parklet at night in Downtown Athens by the author.

The other type of parklet is the single-space one, which is designed for the areas that do not have enough parklet spaces to spare for double-space parklets. By taking over one angled parking lot, a single-space parklet provides around 128 square feet public space, which shares the same design requirements as the double-space one, including floor and wall load-bearing capacity, lighting, planting, etc. Due to the space limit, the single-space parklet does not have the room for standard outdoor dining furniture (tables and chairs); instead, it provides a decent seating area for gathering, resting, or just a coffee break. The parklet design allows easy implementation and removal. The regular construction period for a standard double-space parklet takes no longer than 30 days, including on-site installation and post-construction inspection (San Francisco Parklet Manual, 2015).

116


Figure 5.14: Proposed single-space parklet in Downtown Athens by the author.

117


5.1.4 Trash placing area The last key element in the Green Shield System is a trash placing area, which aims to solve one common environmental design and planning problem in Downtown Athens – exposed trash on the sidewalk. Due to the large amount of streetscape businesses, especially restaurants and bars, and the lack of proper areas for trash placement, many streetscape businesses put their trash along the sidewalk for pickup, which largely damages the overall street environment in Downtown Athens. The author realizes that such a problem can also be solved through policy making and urban planning methods; however, this chapter intends to explore an environmental design way to treat the exposed trash problems, which is to “hide” the trash through some multifunctional street furniture. During the field observation, the author noticed that the exposed trash in Downtown Athens is bagged and well labeled. The average size of the filled trash bag is about two feet wide, two feet deep, and 18 to 24 inches tall, and an average trash pickup spot has two to three bags of trash (the most trash bags observed are six). Therefore, the trash placing area in the Green Shield System is designed to have the capacity of holding two to three trash bags at a time. At the same time, the design must allow easy and quick pickup for workers and reduce the influence of trash on the surrounding street environment. The trash placing area in this proposed design is a multifunctional street furniture – “Living Box”, which consists of a 68”x32”x32” trash container (for three bags), a 30”x68” vertical planter, and a six-foot long bench. From the sidewalk, the “Living Box” seems to be a decent public seating with planting. From the parking lane, it looks like a large cabinet, which merely takes two extra moves (open and close doors) for the pickup workers; meanwhile, placing trash bags in such a closed container can also reduce or even eliminate the possibility of broken

118


bags by passing traffic and accidents, saving workers from potential trouble. These “Living Boxes” are planned to placed at each trash pickup spot, and the number of boxes depends on the average amount of trash bags collected at each specific spot.

Figure 5.15: Proposed trash placing area in Downtown Athens by the author.

Figure 5.16: Key dimensions of proposed “Living Box” in Downtown Athens by the author.

119


Figure 5.17: Proposed “Living Box” design in Downtown Athens by the author.

120


5.1.5 Possible future feature The Green Shield System also provides some possible street features for crime prevention; however, due to the time and funds limit, these features need to be reserved for the future. The prime feature for future Downtown Athens is a multifunctional light pole, “The Guardian”, which is a combination of a 14-foot tall pedestrian scale LED light, one-button SOS alarm system, and a hidden 26”x26”x46” trash can for people’s use. These special light poles can contribute to the streetscape crime prevention by enhancing nighttime visibility and providing a quick and convenient way for calling the police. In an emergency like a crime scene, many people may have problems in calmly and accurately reporting their location, or they simply do not have their cell phones with them. In such a situation, the one-button SOS system on “The Guardian” could be a life-saver by automatically calling the police and showing the location of the incident. At the same time, the hidden trash can inside the “The Guardian” can replace the current trash cans, creating a tidy and aesthetically pleasing street environment.

Figure 5.18: Key dimensions of proposed “The Guardian” in Downtown Athens by the author.

121


Figure 5.19: Proposed “The Guardian” design in Downtown Athens by the author.

122


5.2. Five Street Segment Plans The project site of this streetscape crime prevention plan covers five street segments in Downtown Athens, including Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St., and Wall St. (Clayton St. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Broad St. segment). These streets share some common problems, while each one has its distinctive characteristics which require different design solutions. This proposed design plan categorizes these five target street segments into four major types, high traffic volume commercial street with high activities (Broad St.), low traffic volume street with high activities (Clayton St.), low traffic volume street with medium activities and vulnerable spots (Lumpkin St.), and low traffic volume street with low activities, and customizes streetscape design features based on their requirements, opportunities and limitations, as well as the street performance in various periods and circumstances, including, daytime, nighttime, large gathering events, etc.

123


5.2.1 Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment) The first street segment design is for Broad St. between Lumpkin St. and Thomas St., which is a highly active commercial street with busy traffic in Downtown Athens. The current streetscape design on Broad St has already provided decent pedestrian lighting and tree coverage, while suffering from the lack of public spaces and exposed trash problems. Therefore, the design for the Broad St. segment focuses on bringing public spaces and trash placing areas while improving the existing planting scheme and the nighttime lighting system. This segment of Broad St. shows good design opportunities: the wide sidewalk (average 10 feet to 14 feet) gives enough room for streetscape features, and the heavy foot traffic provides a large amount of potential “eyes on the street”.

Figure 5.21: Proposed street design for Broad St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

The design features for the Broad St. segment covers a four-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, public seating areas at least every 90 feet, one or two “Living Boxes”

124


at each trash pickup spot, a ground LED lighting belt, and LED bulbs for the existing pedestrian scale lights. In the daytime, the green buffer and the improved planting scheme along the street will provide a more comfortable micro-climate system and a better walking experience; meanwhile, the added public spaces encourage people to spend more time on the street, creating quality natural surveillance. In additional, the trash hidden by “Living Boxes” will bring people a tidier environment, which expresses a positive and healthy street atmosphere. When the nighttime comes, the LED pedestrian scale lights and ground lighting belt along the street will show their magic, creating a well-lit and aesthetically pleasing street environment, which reduces the blind spots and hiding spaces caused by darkness, easing people’s fear of potential crimes and creating an active nighttime street environment. During the large massive gathering events such as Gamedays and music festivals, the planted green buffer will help to keep people on the sidewalk area; meanwhile, the crossings and public seating areas along the buffer provide “refuge areas” for the people who want to escape from the crowd, have a break or regroup with their families and friends.

125


Figure 5.22: Proposed future street design for Broad St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

126


Figure 5.23: Proposed site plan for Broad St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

127


5.2.2 Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Thomas St.) The second street segment design is for Clayton St. between Lumpkin St. and Thomas St., which stands for a highly active commercial street with low traffic volume in Downtown Athens. The Clayton St. segment is a single-way street with a large amount of street parking. The current streetscape design on Clayton St. suffers a shortage of well-organized planting systems and necessary pedestrian scale lighting for nighttime; meanwhile, this street segment is also under the influence from the exposed trash problems and overwhelming feeling from the street parking. To deal with these issues, the design plan for the Clayton St. segment emphasizes providing a quality street lighting system, improving and organizing the planting scheme, bringing trash placing areas and creating more public spaces. This segment of Clayton St. has an active street life, which brings great potential for a functional natural surveillance system; meanwhile, the large amount of street parking spaces and low traffic volume allow the potential extension of the sidewalk area.

Figure 5.24: Proposed street design features for Clayton St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

128


The design features for Clayton St. segment include a 3.5-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, one or two “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot, LED pedestrian scale lights every 30 feet, a ground LED lighting belt, public seating areas at least every 90 feet, and parklet design in front of some food service businesses. In the daytime, the green buffer and the improved planting scheme along the street create an enhanced travelling experience for foot traffic. The “Living Boxes” hide the exposed trash and create a cleaner street environment. The added seating areas and parklets provide free public spaces for gathering, resting, and social activities, encouraging and attracting people to stay on the street, which will further forge a positive street atmosphere and bring more quality “eyes on the street.” At night, the LED pedestrian scale lights and ground lighting belt along the street work together, bringing a well-lit street environment. Meanwhile, parklets along the street will also light up and create a series of lighting islands. With the added pedestrian scale lights, ground lighting belt and parklet light islands, the nighttime brightness on Clayton St. will boost, which greatly reduce the blind spots and hiding places due to the lack of pedestrian level lighting, preventing lots of potential offenses from happening. During the massive gathering events such as Gamedays and music festivals, the planted green buffer will help to keep people on the sidewalk area; meanwhile, the crossings, the public seating areas and the parklets along the buffer provide a series of “refuge areas” for the people who want to escape from the crowd, have a break or regroup with their families and friends.

129


Figure 5.25: Proposed site plan for Clayton St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

130


5.2.3 Lumpkin St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) Another street segment design is for Lumpkin St. between Clayton St. and Broad St., which represents a medium-level commercial street with low traffic in Downtown Athens; meanwhile, this Lumpkin St. segment gathers two bank services and ATM areas (Bank of American and Sun Trust), which tend to be tempting targets for offenses. The existing Lumpkin St. segment shows an absence of necessary street design elements, including planting, pedestrian scale lighting, and public spaces. The design for this Lumpkin St. segment brings basic street design elements, while providing special care for the ATM areas.

Figure 5.26: Proposed design features for Lumpkin St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

The Lumpkin St. segment has very distinctive street environments on its west and east sides. The west side has an active street life, while the east one is dominated by the wall of the Bank of America building. The design features for the Lumpkin St. segment west side contain a three-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, one or two “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot, LED pedestrian scale lights every 30 feet, a ground LED lighting belt, public

131


seating areas at least every 90 feet, and territory reinforcement around the ATM areas. The design for the east side of the Lumpkin St. segment mainly focuses on the enhancement of streetscape landscape. In the daytime, the green buffer and the improved planting scheme along the street provide a better walking experience. The “Living Boxes” create a cleaner street environment by eliminating exposed trash from people’s sight. People can enjoy more public spaces with the new seating areas on the street. Furthermore, the ATM area is reinforced by a 4 feet by 6 feet highlighted box, showing a no-entry zone when someone is using the machine; meanwhile, the ATM area is also monitored by CCTVs all the time, and there is no street tree or dense shrub around the protected zone for better visibility. When the nightfall arrives, the LED pedestrian scale lights and ground lighting belt along the street will light up the street. The ATM areas are equipped with extra street lights, landscape lights, and emergency lights, which brings twice the brightness than the other areas.

Figure 5.27: Proposed design for Lumpkin St segment at night in Downtown Athens by the author.

132


Figure 5.28: Proposed site plan for the west side of Lumpkin St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

133


Figure 5.29: Proposed site plan for the east side of Lumpkin St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

134


5.2.4 Jackson St. and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St.) The last street segment design is for Jackson St. and Wall St. between Clayton St. and Broad St., which both have low street activities and suffer from the absence of necessary street design features and proper maintenance. Meanwhile, the narrow sidewalks (six to eight feet) on both street segments leave limited space for public space design. Therefore, until the possible future revitalization of the streetscape business along these two streets, the crime prevention design for these two street segments emphasizes the lighting system for nighttime and the trash placing areas.

Figure 5.30: Proposed design features for Jackson St and Wall St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

The design solutions for the Jackson St. and Wall St. segment include pedestrian scale street lights, the ground lighting belt, and “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot. In the daytime, the trash hidden by the “Living Boxes” gives people a cleaner and tidier street environment. At night, the pedestrian scale lighting system can create a well-lit street environment, reducing people’s fear of crimes and discouraging potential offenses in these areas.

135


Figure 5.31: Proposed site plan for Jackson St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

136


Figure 5.32: Proposed site plan for Wall St segment in Downtown Athens by the author.

137


5.3 Chapter Conclusion This chapter absorbs the learning from the literature review and case studies, exploring the potential solutions to the problems and issues identified from the field inventory and site analysis through environmental design features and methods. The author introduces a multifunctional and flexible streetscape design system, Green Shield System, as a possible antidote to the crime issues of five street segments of the major crime zone in Downtown Athens. For various street situations, the Green Shield System will prepare different combinations of design features to contribute to better streetscape crime prevention environments. For Broad St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment), the design features cover a four-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, public seating areas at least every 90 feet, one or two “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot, a ground LED lighting belt, and LED bulb for the existing pedestrian scale lights. Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. – Thomas St. segment) is designed with a 3.5-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, one or two “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot, LED pedestrian scale lights every 30 feet, a ground LED lighting belt, public seating areas at least every 90 feet, and parklet design in front of some food service businesses. The design solutions for the Lumpkin St. segment are divided into two parts due to the distinctive street environments on the west and east sides. The west side has an active street life, while the east one is dominated by the wall of Bank of America building. The design features for Lumpkin St. segment west side contain a three-foot wide green buffer with low shrubs and street trees, one or two “Living Boxes” at each trash pickup spot, LED pedestrian scale lights every 30 feet, a ground LED lighting belt, public seating areas at least every 90 feet, and territory

138


reinforcement around the ATM areas. The design for the east side of the Lumpkin St. segment mainly focuses on the enhancement of streetscape landscape. Finally, the crime prevention design for the current Jackson St. and Wall St. provides pedestrian scale street lights, the ground lighting belt, and â&#x20AC;&#x153;Living Boxesâ&#x20AC;? at each trash pickup spot. The proposed design plan in this chapter aims to improve the crime prevention environment and the overall street experience for different users. This plan serves as reference and recommendation for any street redevelopment plan in Downtown Athens in the future.

139


CHAPTER 6 RESEARCH CONCLUSION This research studies the values and effects of environmental design in streetscape crime prevention and explores possible design solutions to the streetscape crime issues in Downtown Athens, Georgia. The essence of streetscape crime prevention through environmental design is to create a positive and healthy street atmosphere that reduces people’s fear of crimes and increases the risks of crime committing for potential offenders through a series of environmental design features and methods such as street planting, pedestrian scale lighting, public spaces, security devices, etc. The streetscape crime prevention through environmental design (SCPTED) in this research is inspired by Jane Jacob’s idea of “eyes on the streets”, which believes in the power of the surrounding environment in affecting the psychology of potential criminals. Through studying a series of other safety-oriented concepts and strategies including Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Routine Activity Theory, Prospect-refuge Theory, Broken Window Theory, and Personal Space Theory, the author selects and summarizes the six major factors for streetscape crime prevention design – street planting, visibility (daytime and nighttime), public spaces, access control, territory reinforcement and maintenance (landscape and hardscape). 1. Street planting focuses on improving the planting scheme on the street, providing a better travelling experience and attracting more visitors by creating more shaded areas, better microclimate, and aesthetically pleasing street views.

140


2. Visibility emphasizes the importance of eliminating possible blind spots and hiding places on the street, which can be achieved by avoiding using sight-blocking landscape and hardscape materials, removing unnecessary obstacles, and improving the lighting system for nighttime situations. 3. Public space design attracts various street activities and encourages people to spend more time on the street, which remains one of the key conditions for a functional streetscape natural surveillance system. 4. Access control limits the accessibility of potential offenders to the streetscape public and private properties, which contains the reduction of multiple entrances, highlighting main entrances, avoiding the roof or back yard access, using defensive plants for ground-level windows, etc. 5. Territory reinforcement defines the boundary of public/private areas and highlights some areas on the street (such as ATM) requiring specific protection through employing interpretive signs, pavements, planting features, etc. 6. Maintenance covers a wide range, which includes all methods and features that contribute to keep the street a functional, tidy, and aesthetically pleasing environment, for instance, fast repair of the broken features, proper trash placing and collecting, plant trimming and caring, etc. In addition to these general streetscape crime prevention through environmental design aspects, design decisions should also take the specific site conditions and requirements into consideration, exploring functional and creative design solutions to reduce existing site problems that cause crime issues, ease peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fear of crimes, and create a positive and attractive street environment.

141


6.1. Design Evaluation The proposed design in this research applies the learning from reviewed literature and studied cases to explore the possible environmental design solutions to the problems identified from the site inventory and analysis in Downtown Athens. The project site for this proposed streetscape crime prevention design covers the five street segments in the major crime zone in Downtown Athens, including Broad St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Clayton St. (Lumpkin St. - Thomas St. segment), Lumpkin St., Jackson St., and Wall St. (Clayton St. – Broad St. segment). Through this design plan, the author aims to solve the existing street design issues such as the lack of quality public spaces, shortage of pedestrian scale lighting, and exposed trash, and create an attractive street environment that satisfies various needs while protecting the people within. The proposed design applies a series of multi-functional features, including green buffer, parklet, trash placing areas (“Living Box”), and light pole (“The Guardian”), to maximize the street functions with the limited space, forging an “invisible” protection layer around the people as they are using the street space. With this proposed design, the author plans to create a safer and more welcoming street environment in Downtown Athens. The design outcome includes providing a better walking experience and micro-climate by placing a green buffer with native and adapted plants between sidewalk and street parking lane, greatly enhancing the nighttime visibility through adding pedestrian scale street lights and ground lighting belts, bringing more public spaces by placing public seating areas and parklets, eliminating exposed trash with “Living Boxes”, and improving the overall security by employing a one-button SOS system. The results of the proposed conceptual design can theoretically solve the major environmental design problems and improve

142


the crime prevention situation in Downtown Athens. The actual test results require further study in the future.

6.2 Future Research Steps The streetscape crime prevention through environmental design concept and strategies in this research is mainly based on literature reviews, case studies and specific problems identified from site analysis, which aims to reduce people’s fear of crimes and actual crime statistics in the project area. Further research requires an implementation of the proposed design features in the targeted street segments in Downtown Athens, together with the data collection of each installed design feature, surveys of people’s behavior and perception of the post-construction area and the comparison of crime statistics before and after the construction in the project site. The author recommends that the future research surveys and tests need to include (but are not limited to) these following aspects: 1. The post-construction data collection for improved features needs to cover (but is not limited to) the temperature changes in the project area, the total increase of planting areas, public spaces, nighttime brightness, the performance of the designed trash placing areas, etc. 2. The survey of the post-construction people behaviors should contain (but is not limited to) the changes of people volume, pedestrians’ walking speed, average time of people staying on the street in different periods (daytime, lunch time, nighttime), people’s activities in the public spaces, etc. 3. The survey of the post-construction people’s perception is supposed to include (but is not limited to) the questions like: “Does the redesigned street better accommodate your needs?”, “Do

143


you feel safer on the redesigned street?”, “Are you willing to spend more time on the redesigned street?”, etc. 4. Finally, the comparison of before and after construction crime data needs to collect (but is not limited to) data on the three types of crimes (violent, property, and life quality) in different time periods (daytime and nighttime) three months, a half year, and one year after the construction.

144


BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, J. L., and Morgan W. Geddie. "Event and venue management: Minimizing liability through effective crowd management techniques." Event Management 6, no. 4 (2000): 259-270. Andresen, M., and Graham Farrell, eds. The Criminal Act: The Role and Influence of Routine Activity Theory. Springer, 2015. Altman, Irwin. "The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding." (1975). Appleton, Jay. The experience of landscape. Chichester: Wiley, 1996. Atkins, Stephen, Sohail Husain, and Angele Storey. The influence of street lighting on crime and fear of crime. London: Home Office, 1991. Bratton, William, and Peter Knobler. The Turnaround: How America's top cop reversed the crime epidemic. Random House, 2009. Brozen, Madeline, and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. Reclaiming the Right-of-Way: Best Practices for Implementing and Designing Parklets. No. 13-0464. 2013. Bullock, Karen, Ronald Victor Germuseus Clarke, and Nick Tilley, eds. Situational prevention of organized crimes. Taylor & Francis, 2010. Bullough, John D., Xin Zhang, Nicholas P. Skinner, Nazhat Aboobaker, and Mark S. Rea. Design and demonstration of pedestrian crosswalk lighting. No. 10-0315. 2010. Burgoon, Judee K., and Stephen B. Jones. "Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations." Human Communication Research 2, no. 2 (1976): 131-146.

145


Casteel, Carri, and Corinne Peek-Asa. "Effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in reducing robberies." American journal of preventive medicine 18, no. 4 (2000): 99-115. Clarke, Ronald Victor Gemuseus, and Marcus Felson, eds. Routine activity and rational choice. Vol. 5. Transaction publishers, 1993. Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus Felson. "Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach." American sociological review (1979): 588-608. Cohen, L. E., and M. Felson. "Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach (1979)." In Classics in environmental criminology, pp. 203-232. CRC Press, 2016. Cozens, Paul. Think crime! Using evidence, theory and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) for planning safer cities. Praxis education, 2016. Cozens, Paul, and Terence Love. "A review and current status of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)." Journal of Planning Literature 30, no. 4 (2015): 393-412. Cozens, Paul Michael, Greg Saville, and David Hillier. "Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography." Property management 23, no. 5 (2005): 328-356. Cozens, Paul M., Richard H. Neale, Jeremy Whitaker, David Hillier, and Max Graham. "A critical review of street lighting, crime and fear of crime in the British city." Crime Prevention and Community Safety 5, no. 2 (2003): 7-24. Crowe, Timothy. Crime prevention through environmental design. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000. Crowley, John. Athens Downtown Master Plan 2030. 2013.

146


Davidson, Mariko Mura. "Tactical urbanism, public policy reform, and'innovation spotting'by government: from Park (ing) Day to San Francisco's parklet program." PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013. Dixon, Linda B. "Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems." Transportation Research Record 1538, no. 1 (1996): 1-9. Dosen, Annemarie S., and Michael J. Ostwald. "Methodological characteristics of research testing prospectâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;refuge theory: a comparative analysis." Architectural Science Review 56, no. 3 (2013): 232-241. Dosey, Michael A., and Murray Meisels. "Personal space and self-protection." Journal of personality and social psychology 11, no. 2 (1969): 93. Dover, Victor, and John Massengale. Street design: the secret to great cities and towns. John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Doran, Bruce J., and Brian G. Lees. "Investigating the spatiotemporal links between disorder, crime, and the fear of crime." The Professional Geographer 57, no. 1 (2005): 1-12. Dzhambov, Angel Mario, and Donka Dimitrova Dimitrova. "Urban green spaces' effectiveness as a psychological buffer for the negative health impact of noise pollution: a systematic review." Noise and Health 16, no. 70 (2014): 157. Eck, John E. "Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing." (1996): 0365-0365. Eck, John E., and Lin Liu. "Contrasting simulated and empirical experiments in crime prevention." Journal of Experimental Criminology 4, no. 3 (2008): 195-213. ENDO, Arata. "A STUDY ON THE PARKS DESIGN OF STREETS IN SAN FRANCISCO." Journal of Architecture and Planning (Transactions of AIJ) 81, no. 725 (2016).

147


Farrell, Graham, and Ken Pease. Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention. Š Crown Copyright, 1993. Farrington, David P., and Brandon C. Welsh. Effects of improved street lighting on crime: a systematic review. London: Home Office, 2002. Felson, Marcus. "Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes." In The reasoning criminal, pp. 119-128. Routledge, 2017. Felson, Marcus. "ROUTINE ACTIVITIES AND CRIME PREVENTION IN THE DEVELOPINGMETROPOLIS." Criminology 25, no. 4 (1987): 911-932. Felson, Marcus. "Routine activity approach." In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, pp. 92-99. Willan, 2013. Felipe, Nancy Jo, and Robert Sommer. "Invasions of personal space." In Sociological Methods, pp. 458-468. Routledge, 2017. Fisher, Bonnie S., and Jack L. Nasar. "Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape." Environment and Behavior 24, no. 1 (1992): 35-65. Gau, Jacinta M., and Travis C. Pratt. "Revisiting broken windows theory: Examining the sources of the discriminant validity of perceived disorder and crime." Journal of criminal justice 38, no. 4 (2010): 758-766. Gallin, Nicole. "Quantifying pedestrian friendliness--guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service." Road & Transport Research 10, no. 1 (2001): 47. Geason, Susan, and Paul R. Wilson. Designing out crime: Crime prevention through environmental design. No. 3. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989. Gifford, Robert. Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal books, 2007.

148


Gorman, James. "RESIDENTS'OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF STREET TREES DEPENDING ON TREE LOCATION." Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 30, no. 1 (2004): 36. Groff, Elizabeth R. "Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: An example using routine activity theory and street robbery." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23, no. 2 (2007): 75-103. Hall, Edward Twitchell. The hidden dimension. Vol. 609. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Harcourt, Bernard E. "Reflecting on the subject: A critique of the social influence conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York style." Mich. L. Rev. 97 (1998): 291. Ittelson, William H., Harold M. Proshansky, Leanne G. Rivlin, and Gary H. Winkel. An introduction to environmental psychology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974. Jacobs, Jane. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage, 1961. Jeffery, Clarence Ray. Crime prevention through environmental design. Vol. 91. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1971. Jeffery, C. Ray, and Diane L. Zahm. "Crime prevention through environmental design, opportunity theory, and rational choice models." Routine activity and rational choice 5 (1993): 323-350. Kelling, George L., and Catherine M. Coles. Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Simon and Schuster, 1997. Kopec, David Alan. Environmental psychology for design. New York: Fairchild, 2006. Lersch, Kim Michelle. Space, time, and crime. Carolina Academic Press, 2007. Loewen, Laura J., Gary Daniel Steel, and Peter Suedfeld. "Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment." Journal of environmental psychology 13, no. 4 (1993): 323-331.

149


Lorenz, Konrad. King Solomon's ring. Routledge, 2003. Madensen, Tamara D. "Bar management and crime: Toward a dynamic theory of place management and crime hotspots." PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 2007. Madensen, Tamara D., and John E. Eck. "Crime places and place management." In The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. 2013. Maco, Scott Edward, and E. Gregory McPherson. "A practical approach to assessing structure, function, and value of street tree populations in small communities." Journal of Arboriculture. 29 (2): 84-97 29, no. 2 (2003): 84-97. McPherson, E. Gregory, and Jules Muchnick. "Effect of street tree shade on asphalt concrete pavement performance." Journal of arboriculture 31, no. 6 (2005): 303. Mehrabian, Albert, and James A. Russell. An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press, 1974. Miller, Naomi J., R. N. Koltai, and T. K. McGowan. Pedestrian Friendly Outdoor Lighting. No. PNNL-23085. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States), 2013. Mumcu, Sema, and TuÄ&#x;ba Duuml. "Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas." Scientific Research and Essays 5, no. 11 (2010): 1223-1233. Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt, and Richard Tewksbury. "A routine activity theory explanation for women's stalking victimizations." Violence Against Women 5, no. 1 (1999): 43-62. MĂźllner, Reinhard, and Andreas Riener. "An energy efficient pedestrian aware Smart Street Lighting system." International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications 7, no. 2 (2011): 147-161.

150


Nasar, Jack L., David Julian, Sarah Buchman, David Humphreys, and Marianne Mrohaly. "The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: A look at prospect and refuge." Landscape Planning 10, no. 4 (1983): 355-361. Nasar, Jack L. "Visual preferences in urban street scenes: a cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States." Journal of cross-cultural psychology 15, no. 1 (1984): 79-93. Newman, Oscar. Defensible space. New York: Macmillan, 1972. Painter, Kate. "The influence of street lighting improvements on crime, fear and pedestrian street use, after dark." Landscape and urban planning 35, no. 2-3 (1996): 193-201. Painter, Kate, and Nick Tilley. Surveillance of public space: CCTV, street lighting and crime prevention. Vol. 10. Monsey: Criminal Justice Press, 1999. Painter, Kate, and David P. Farrington. "The crime reducing effect of improved street lighting: The Dudley project." Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies 2 (1997): 209-226. Painter, Kate, and David P. Farrington. "Improved street lighting: crime reducing effects and cost-benefit analyses." Security Journal 12, no. 4 (1999): 17-32. Pain, Rachel. "Place, social relations and the fear of crime: a review." Progress in human geography 24, no. 3 (2000): 365-387. Pease, Ken. "A review of street lighting evaluations: Crime reduction effects." (1999). Pratt, Liz. "Parklet Impact Study." San Francisco Great Streets Project, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (2011). Poyner, Barry. Design against crime: Beyond defensible space. London: Butterworths, 1983. Ramsay, Malcolm, and Rosemary Newton. "The effect of better street lighting on crime and fear: A review." (1991).

151


Ratcliffe, Jerry H., Travis Taniguchi, and Ralph B. Taylor. "The crime reduction effects of public CCTV cameras: a multi‐method spatial approach." Justice Quarterly 26, no. 4 (2009): 746-770. Reynald, Danielle M. "Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47, no. 3 (2010): 358-390. Reynald, Danielle M. "Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatial-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48, no. 1 (2011): 110142. Ruddell, Edward J., and William E. Hammitt. "Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments." Journal of Leisure Research 19, no. 4 (1987): 249-260. Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Arthur J. Lurigio, and Robert Carl Davis. The prevention of crime: Social and situational strategies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998. Sampson, Rana, John E. Eck, and Jessica Dunham. "Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure." Security Journal 23, no. 1 (2010): 37-51. Sampson, Robert J., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. "Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”." Social psychology quarterly 67, no. 4 (2004): 319-342. Shafer, Carl Scott, and John Jacob. "Urban Parks: The Value of Small Urban Parks, Plazas and Other Outdoor Spaces." Texas FARMER Collection (2006).

152


Sherman, Lawrence W., Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. "Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place." Criminology 27, no. 1 (1989): 27-56. Siu, Kin Wai Michael, and Pak Hong Wan. "Roles of Street Furniture in a Constructed Environment." International journal of the constructed environment 1, no. 3 (2011). Siu, Kin Wai. "Urban renewal and design: city, street, street furniture." (2007). Siu, K. W. M., and P. H. Wan. "Street furniture design principles: Unity and identity." The design collection (2009). Siu, Kin Wai Michael, and Kwun Sing Leo Wong. "Flexible design principles: Street furniture design for transforming environments, diverse users, changing needs and dynamic interactions." Facilities 33, no. 9/10 (2015): 588-621. Sommer, Robert. "Personal Space. The Behavioral Basis of Design." (1969). Sommer, Robert. "Studies in personal space." Sociometry 22, no. 3 (1959): 247-260. Song, Hong Yang, and Kin Wai Michael Siu. "Street Furniture and Night: Design for Contemporary Lifestyles." International Journal of the Humanities 8, no. 1 (2010). Tepper, Rachel. "â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Parkletâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Dining: Restaurants Embrace Growing Trend." Huffington Post 24 (2012). Van Uffelen, Chris. Street furniture. Braun, 2010. Van den Berg, Agnes E., Jolanda Maas, Robert A. Verheij, and Peter P. Groenewegen. "Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health." Social science & medicine 70, no. 8 (2010): 1203-1210. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling. "Broken windows." Atlantic monthly 249, no. 3 (1982): 29-38.

153


Williams, Brian N. Citizen perspectives on community policing: A case study in Athens, Georgia. SUNY Press, 1998.

154


APPENDICES Appendix A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Streetscape Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Checklist

155


Profile for Zitao

UGA Masters of Landscape Architecture Thesis Research  

Streetscape Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Downtown Athens, GA

UGA Masters of Landscape Architecture Thesis Research  

Streetscape Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Downtown Athens, GA

Profile for uga83
Advertisement