A presentation given to a London First roundtable held at Arup on 16 Jan 2014

1. Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design - CPTED
An Urban Linear Park Example
Chris Tomlinson
Arup Resilience, Security and Risk

2. My Agenda
 Background to CPTED
-
Design and how it affects crime and fear-of-crime
Is it risk appropriate
Arup’s view of CPTED treatment
CPTED’s ethos
 An Example – a liner public park
- New York’s High Line and comparing it with the proposed
Garden Bridge over the Thames
 Some Final Thoughts.

3. Design Influencing Crime and Nuisance
“The first thing to understand is that the public peace – the
sidewalk and the street peace – of cities is not kept primarily
by the police, necessary as police are. It is kept primarily by
an intricate, almost unconscious , network of voluntary
controls and standards among the people themselves, and
enforced by the people themselves”.
Jane Jacobs 1961
“The proper design and effective use of the built environment
that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime
and an improvement in the quality of life. The goal of CPTED
is to reduce opportunities for crime that may be inherent in
the design of structures or in the design of neighbourhoods”.
Tim Crowe 2001

4. CPTED’s Ethos
 It is based on a simple idea i.e. that crime results
partly from the opportunities presented by a
physical environment – as well as tempting targets
and a lack of capable guardianship.
 It is the design or re-design of an environment to
reduce crime opportunity and fear of crime through
layout, structural and physical means.
 It is best applied with a multi-disciplinary approach
i.e. engaging planners, designers, architects,
landscapers, law-enforcement and (ideally)
residents/space users
 It must be risk-appropriate and tuned to the milieu
of the space and its users/activities – not fortifying
built environments.

5. Think Offender & Nuisance Context

6. CPTED Principles – Arup’s View
Territoriality
Natural Surveillance
Access Control
Target Hardening
Image Maintenance
Activity Support

7. The High Line as a CPTED Challenge
New York’s High Line is a 1.6 km
linear city park built on a 2.33 km
stretch of former elevated railway

8. Territoriality
Permissive but space-defined and the boundaries are clear (unconscious rule-setting)

9. Natural Surveillance
See and be seen – a key fear of crime
mitigation

10. Access Control
Using the park’s design to add in
controls where needed – in this case
pre-existing access points to the
elevated railway route.

11. Target Hardening
Hardening the streetscape, potential
conflict zones modified and
increasing technical security density
(e.g. CCTV) where needed

12. Image Maintenance
Selecting materials, furniture, planting
schemes and other space treatments that
resist nuisance and crime (e.g. easily cleaned
and searched)

13. Activity Support
Encouraging legitimate linger
opportunities creating ambience
that unsettles criminals and
nuisance – it will support
natural surveillance by
increasing ‘eyes on the street’

14. Crime Prevention on the High Line
 The NYPD, the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation
and the founders of the High Line all say there have been
no reports of a major crime — assault, theft, robbery, etc
— since the park’s opening.
 The High Line uses a combination of passive and active,
design and deterrence - “essentially a chute with a handful
of entries, all closely watched”
 Rule setting and enforcement – no alcohol/drugs,
vagrancy, dogs and bikes
 It is strenuously policed. NY Parks Enforcement Patrol
officers walk the High Line all day – presence and
enforcement patrolling
 Access points are locked up at 11 pm in the summer,
perhaps the greatest preventer of crime.

15. CPTED Effectiveness on the High Line
 The park’s designers turned to the late, great Jane Jacobs
for guidance on crime prevention, adopting her “eyes on the
streets” theory, in which windows facing the street bring a
feeling of security
 “Empty parks are dangerous,” said one of the founders of
Friends of the High Line. “Busy parks are much less so.
You’re virtually never alone on the High Line”
 Friends of the High Line are intimately involved with the
space. Will the Garden Bridge’s Trust members be so
engaged?
 NYPD officers patrol the High Line sporadically. Most of it
falls in the 10th Precinct and they feel closely associated with
the space.
15

16. The Garden Bridge
The Garden (Looking North)
Temple Station Touchdown
South Bank Touchdown

17. Final Thoughts
 Implementing what we already know about CPTED and
ensuring its early integration in built space design has
benefits as it will mitigate threats, whilst producing less
‘fortified’ places – but do it early in design
 Given that policing in the UK will come under more and
more financial pressure; it makes sense to design out crime
and nuisance opportunities to help reduce the policing
burden
 Losing a place to real or perceived crime threats is hard to
correct and will be expensive; doing the best to design space
to reduce fear keeps places animated and used
 People tend to overlook the ‘Carbon Cost of Crime’; so
promoting strategies that bear down on the CO2 associated
with crime and nuisance has to be a sustainability-enabler.

18. Any Questions?
chris.tomlinson@arup.com