DIRECTING SOCIETY: DEFENSIBLE SPACE AND SPATIAL MANIPULATION IN

THE MODERN CITY

CULIN THOMPSON – ARCH 600 – DIAZ

THOMPSON 2

1.

PREFACE

In today’s society, one begins to look at their personal life without exploration or

consideration of their surrounding context and built environment – we simply traverse

though the built city on our course of movement to our final destination. Focused on

achieving and accomplishing set schedules and agendas, society has further adopted

set standards of what one must achieve and focus on in an effort to conform and

maintain a ‘normal’ image within the social, political, and economic network of societal

standards.

In this essay, Directing Society begins to explore how defensible space and its

interaction with spatial manipulation of civic space, semi-public space, and private

space can begin to define the relationships between urban life, perception of one’s

environment, crime, and these societal standards of the community and unique network

occupying these zones. Architects hold themselves to a higher role in society in the

aspect that they view themselves as responsible for improving the built environment of

cities and spaces. While the typical architect or architecture student may discuss this

relationship of the architect and society by the desire to build ‘grand public buildings’ or

‘beautiful and inspiring structures,’ the role of the architect extends much further than

the physical confines of a site.

In both the historical city and the modern city, the public square or city market

serves as a critical element of urban design. Throughout history, this square has been

THOMPSON 3

utilized for economic, social, and political movements and innovations ranging from

political coups to food markets for urban farming. These public zones therefore begin to

reflect the ideology of the society that occupies them, and thus embraces a symbolic yet

physical billboard promoting the values and platforms of the movements and paradigms

of which they helped birth. The question therefore transforms to architects; do they have

a societal responsibility to design in a manner that allows for a certain degree of

freedom or of oppression in an effort to direct the activities that occur in our projects?

Does this question vary for the political or social institution in which we are designing

for? In the case of a smaller scale, should they be designing and organizing the modern

and futuristic cities of tomorrow in an attempt to control the philosophy and psychology

of its occupants and citizens?

Architects and urban planners hold the ability to control social interaction through

public space and how a society and community begins to interact and form relationships

in these zones of influence. They seek to formulate a response to this set of questions

and develop a sense of the nature to the direct link between the architect and the

operation of society.

THOMPSON 4

2.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ECOLOGICAL CITY

According to Kevin Lynch, the city can operate under an organic model: the

Ecological City (Shane 2005). In this model, the city is constructed from enclaves and a

series of armatures that intermix to formulate the pattern and fabric of the city looking to

replicate an organic relationship between the different design elements and city centers.

Operating as an organism in this model, the city begins to become self-organizing and

self-regulating – it begins to control itself and can return to a semi-balanced state

whenever acted upon and disturbed by a force not planned or designed. When we begin

to apply this model of the ecological city to the modern city, we can begin to develop a

new sense of understanding as to how these urban centers and urban plazas can begin

to be forces for sparking and serving as a catalyst in urban movements and political

swings.

According to Shane, these public spaces in the city of communal knowledge are

spaces that are deeply rooted and connected to communal activity – and as stated

before, these public zones therefore begin to represent the ideology of the society that

occupies them, thus embracing a symbolic yet physical billboard promoting the values

and platforms of the society which embraces them (Shane 2005). According to Thomas

More in Utopia (1516), the formal and spatial organization and rules (both social and

ethical) are expressed in this sacred public and civic space within the urban fabric and

city network of the Ecological City as a center and hub (Shane 2005).

THOMPSON 5

Figure 2.1

THOMPSON 6

3.

DEFENSIBLE SPACE

Defensible Space is defined as a “surrogate term for the range of mechanisms –

real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved

opportunities for surveillance – that combine to bring an environment under the control

of its residents” (Newman 1973). Looking at defensible space within the modern city, it

can be applied to the larger cityscape as a methodology of controlling and ruling the

‘masses’ of society – directing their movements and actions in an effort to maintain

peace and limit crime and a loss of control over societal order.

What becomes interesting, therefore, is that defensible space, as Newman

describes, requires that “For one group to be able to set the norms of behavior and the

nature of activity possible within a particular place, it is necessary that it have clear,

unquestionable control over what can occur there” (Newman 1973). Per Newman’s

ideology that in order for a space to be idealized as a defensible space it must serve a

specific topic, it becomes curious that these public squares and gathering points within

the context of the city which we talked of within the Ecological City can be utilized as

flexible civic space. Does this mean, therefore, that all flexible public and civic spaces

directly break Newman’s persona of what defensible space is and how it is designed or

are these civic zones simply a manifestation and hybrid of Newman’s defensible space

within the modern city as it becomes realized and implemented within the actual fabric

of a city?

THOMPSON 7

While Newman may state that these spaces which are secure in design may

require a specified purpose, according to Shane, design (in the city as a machine

model) simply only requires “clear concepts that neatly articulate each piece of a

problem and isolate its properties” – in this sense, crime and manipulation of human

interaction and movements (Shane 2005). Does this mean that the city – when looking

at the fabric for spaces of crime prevention – is actually serving as the city as a machine

and not the ecological city? The key in this analysis is in the critical fact that the city as a

machine serves one purpose: expansion. This expansion involves enormous amounts

of capital and investment in the infrastructure of the city grid over the design of the city

and design intent, generating a lack in the “social mechanisms that one kept crime in

check and gave direction and support to policy activity … preventing such amity and

discourag[ing] the natural pursuit of a collective action” (Newman 1973).

We had earlier raised the question as to what exactly the role of the architect is

within society and if we should, as a profession, be encouraging collective action and

designing for a degree of freedom or allowing oppression through design. As designers

and shapers of future society, we (the profession) must now decide which path of action

we shall take within our modern cities: continue to design in an effort which prohibits

individualized expression and freedom or continue our tradition (as Newman states) of

this discouragement of collective action and personalized freedom. In the next section of

this essay, we will begin to analyze existing conditions within city fabrics and their

attempt or non-intended design actions which begin to inform them as spaces of crime

prevention or encouragement as centers of defensible civic space.

THOMPSON 8

4.

ELEMENTS OF DEFENSIBLE DESIGN

According to Oscar Newman there are four elements to physical design which

contribute to the creation of a secure environment for an individual (Newman 1973):

1. The territorial definition of space in developments reflecting the areas of

influence of the inhabitants. This works by subdividing the residential

environment into zones toward which adjacent residents easily adopt

proprietary attitudes.

2. The positioning of apartment windows to allow residents to naturally

survey the exterior and interior public areas of their living environment.

3. The adoption of building forms and idioms which avoid the stigma of

peculiarity that allows others to perceive the vulnerability and isolation of

the inhabitants.

4. The enhancement of safety by locating residential developments in

functionally sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to activities

that do not provide continued threat.

In the case of our argument, we can take these principles for residential housing

developments and begin to apply them to commercial and civic zones which we will be

analyzing – public squares and plazas. These four elements and principles of design

may translate into the civic sphere in this manner:

THOMPSON 9

1. Define the territoriality of the civic zone into zones of responsibility for

influence and adoption of proprietary care.

2. Position residency windows surrounding the square to territorially

monitor and naturally survey the square and civic zone.

3. Adopt building forms to limit vulnerability and isolation.

4. Locate the civic zone within an area of the urban fabric limiting access

to continued threat.

The first major modern paradigm shift (according to Oscar Newman) which

labeled the park and civic square as a symbol and division of the community rather than

as a direct asset of the privatized sector (though they technically are not truly public)

was the construction of Battery Park City in New York City. Battery Park, and similarly

the High Line Project, begins to deal with elements on Environmental Justice yet also

begin to engage active elements of the street and defensible design strategies within

the park rather than imposing a park or centralized plaza space onto the urban fabric,

as is the case of Central Park.

THOMPSON 10

5.

CENTRAL PARK + BATTERY PARK

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA

Central Park – Figure 5.1

Battery Park – Figure 5.2

THOMPSON 11

Battery Park – created from landfill in

the early nineteenth century – is one of the

most popular urban parks within New York

City. The park is located along the southern

end of Manhattan Island, and as previously

stated, marked the first major paradigm shift

from urban plazas and parks designed as

superimposed sites of the urban context to a

park and plaza which begins to become

integrated within the structure of the urban

fabric.

Central Park – though arguably the most

famous city park and the most utilized park

within New York City, is one of the worst park

designs in terms of defensible space. Looking

at our translated design elements for a positive

defensible public space, Central Park breaks

numbers one, three, and partially four – while

not following element two to the degree

required to successfully defensively define the space.

One: define the territoriality of the civic zone into zones of responsibility…. not

applicable to Central Park. The sheer size of Central Park and the extreme civic nature

Table 1

Park Borough

Total Crimes

Reported

Alley Pond Park Queens 44

Blue Heron Park Staten Island 0

Bronx Park Bronx 66

Canarsie Park Brooklyn 4

Central Park Manhattan 470

Crotona Park Bronx 102

Cunningham Park Queens 51

Dyker Beach Park Brooklyn 12

FDR/Midland Beach Staten Island 3

Ferry Point Park Bronx 10 Flushing Meadows Corona

Park Queens 277

Forest Park Queens 32

Fort Washington Park Manhattan 6

Fresh Kills Park Staten Island 1

Great Kills Park Staten Island 3

Highbridge Park Manhattan 16

Inwood Hill Park Manhattan 14

Joseph T. McGuire Park Brooklyn 0

Kissena Park Queens 31

La Tourette Park Staten Island 0

Marine Park Brooklyn 33

Paerdegat Basin Park Brooklyn 0

Pelham Bay Park Bronx 32

Prospect Park Brooklyn 132

Randall's Island Park Manhattan 85

Riverside Park Manhattan 145

Rockaway Community Park Queens 0

Soundview Park Bronx 15

Van Cortlandt Park Bronx 31

Wards Island Park Manhattan 5

Wolfe's Pond Park Staten Island 1

TOTAL 1621

THOMPSON 12

which the park itself has adopted within portrays the park to become a space owned

and operated by the Parks department of New York City rather than a park owned and

monitored by the citizens of New York City. As Newman states, “When people begin to

protect themselves as individuals and not as a community, the battle against crime is

effectively lost. The indifferent crowd witnessing a violent crime is by now an American

cliché” (Newman 1973). What Newman is beginning to reference in this statement is the

ideology that once individuals begin to place their trust in a secure space within a

security guard or security force, they no longer feel obligated to help hold a role in

maintaining the upkeep and security of a public and civic space. This role now

relies solely on the hired guards, and therefore, security of the space –

regardless of the number of guards – is diminished exponentially from the number of

individuals occupying the zone to the number of hired men.

Two: position residency windows surrounding the square to territorially monitor…

not directly applicable to Central Park. The sheer size of the park, all 843 acres, lends

itself to become an oasis for crime within New York City. Central Park features nearly

70% more crime activity than any other park on Manhattan Island (see table 1) and

nearly 40% more crime activity than any park within New York City limits – with Queens

being the second highest boroughs for crime to Manhattan (NYC Park Advocates 2013).

Three: adopt building forms to limit vulnerability and isolation… not directly

applicable to Central Park. Giving Central Park the benefit here, the park does not

directly integrate many building forms within the park itself. The park does, however, fail

to deal with isolation of viewpoints in regards to the paths within the parkway itself and

THOMPSON 13

around elements such as bridges, etc. within the circulation path, though it does

encourage circulation within the park thereby increasing the likelihood of civilian

surveillance. Four: locate the civic zone within an area of urban fabric limiting access to

continued threat… negligible for Central Park due to the sheer size of the park. The

urban fabric directly surrounding the park has additionally become one of the most

expensive real estate markets in all of the United States, and thereby should reduce the

amount of crime. In reality, however, the size of the park has generated its own urban

fabric within the park that counteracts the expensive fabric directly surrounding the

edges of the park.

Battery Park, on the other hand, more directly applies the elements of defensible

space design to generate a park offering natural security and surveillance, as offices

and boat docks offer a natural territoriality to the civic and public zones of the park. This

naturally generated territoriality begins to deter, as Newman refers to them as,

wanderers. These wanderers often linger within parks and public zones without specific

purposes and therefore are often the individuals causing trouble and encouraging illegal

activities within public and civic occupiable zones.

Additionally, these offices and docks provide windows and surveillance

encouraging design element number two as well as protecting vulnerability and isolation

due to the size of the park, though the vegetation of Battery Park does shade patrons

from being visible within park boundaries. This smaller area and size of the park in

comparison to Central Park allows the park to be surveyed more easily as well as

naturally monitored by patrons of the park. Furthermore, the bordering of the Park by

THOMPSON 14

Battery Pl. and State St. provide an additional level of surveillance that because of the

width of Central Park does not exist within Central Park. These streets act as an

addition of the sidewalk and provide constant surveillance into the park, thereby

reducing the number of hired workers required to monitor and survey the park.

THOMPSON 15

6.

INDEPENDENCE SQUARE

KIEV, UKRAINE

Independence Square, alongside other national squares such as Tahrir Square,

begin to develop interesting dialogues regarding defensible space and begin to touch

upon the topic of squares becoming centers representing the morality and beliefs of a

society. These squares, when analyzed in terms of defensible space, seem to be some

of the safest spaces one can occupy within the urban fabric. Why then, can these

spaces turn into scenes of extreme violence and rebellion? In order to answer this

question, we must first complete this analysis of elements of defensible space.

One: territoriality of the square defaults to the surrounding commercial buildings.

What forms an interesting relationship with Independence Square specifically is the fact

that two of the buildings directly bordering the Independency Column are the National

Academy of Music and the International Center of the Culture and Arts of the Trade

Unions of Ukraine. These two institutions are two extremely public institutions serving

Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2

THOMPSON 16

the masses, and therefore portray the territoriality of the squares in an extremely civic

and public medium and manner.

Two: windows surrounding the square directly offer viewpoints and natural

surveillance of the square. When comparing Independence Square to other squares

such as Central Park or Battery Park, it is clear that sight lines are extremely well

preserved, as evident in Figure 6.2. The lack of trees on the site allows 24/7

surveillance of the square and monitoring by individuals within the surrounding

buildings. Looking at Figure 6.1, we can also see that these commercial institutions

surrounding the square begin to completely border the square, providing complete

surveillance of the square and complete protection from urban crime (not counting

alleys and other elements of the urban fabric not included within the square itself).

Three: the buildings surrounding the square do not aid vulnerability and isolation.

This concept is an extension off of the analysis for the second element of design of a

defensible space. Again looking at Figure 6.1, we can see that the design of the square

results from carving out the square from the urban fabric in a unique method which turns

the square into a transept of Khreshchatyk St. This central road of the capital of Ukraine

provides an additional method of surveillance breaking down vulnerability and isolation

within the central square of the city. Furthermore, the use of loggia within the buildings

directly surrounding the square provide a glacis between the centralized buildings and

the square which can be occupied and utilized as a central barrier for observation of the

urban square itself.

THOMPSON 17

Four: the civic / public zone limiting continued threat extends from the concept of

the loggia interacting with the square and the transept of the square by Khreshchatyk

St. These two factors, according to Newman’s theory, will directly limit the amount of

crime and illegal activity occurring within Independence Square. When looking and

analyzing the square for these factors, Independence Square appears to be one of the

safest public areas within the city, and when compared to Central Park, it seems to

become the utopia of public plazas and public parks within an urban fabric. Why then

did the square transform into one of the most violent scenes of protest (see Figure 6.3)

in the past five years?

Figure 6.3

THOMPSON 18

Figure 6.4

Figure 6.5

THOMPSON 19

Now that we have determined the design of Independence Square, we must

analyze if the design of the square impacted the brutality of these protests. We have

already established the existence of a glacis within the square itself – the loggia of the

surrounding commercial buildings and institutions. As crowds gather and begin to

occupy the square, however, the glacis becomes an irreverent factor in protecting and

creating a physical boundary space between Independence Square and the buildings,

as seen in Figure 6.4, as the crowd of protestors and occupiers begin to flood into the

loggia and into the space of the commercial institutions. While this situation may not

present a direct danger at the moment portrayed in Figure 6.4, it can quickly turn into a

violent and dangerous situation for all of those surrounding the square as depicted in

Figure 6.3 showing a side-by-side comparison before and after the protests have

occurred.

Did the defensible space strategies allow the protest to reach this level or did this

simply occur due to Independence Square’s significance as a diplomatic center and

physical center of the city? In an effort to answer this question, we must begin analysis

from the moment the square becomes fully occupied by protestors. This point of

occupation brings about a critical point of circulation in Newman’s theory of defensible

space requiring a “constant flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, … providing an

element of safety” (Newman 1973). Once this constant flow of pedestrian traffic through

or around Independence Square transforms into a permanent occupation of the square

as seen in Figure 6.4, the square transforms from a space designed with consideration

THOMPSON 20

of all elements of defensible design into a square presenting an issue of uprising and

revolt without a method of suppression.

As previously mentioned, as architects and urban planners we hold the ability to

design spaces either in a manner to encourage the freedom of protests and freedom of

speech or the ability to design spaces which encourage suppression and oppression of

these freedoms. By designing a space according to the principles of brutalism, one can

begin to design a space that is essentially riot proof. In the case of a public square,

however, especially one which can become as occupied as seen in Figure 6.4, in an

effort to dismantle the threat to institutions and individuals (re-instating crime prevention)

it is necessary to re-define the glacis of the space and create a new glacis within the

confines of the city and pubic square. For Kiev and the riot prevention as well as for a

majority of modern day cities, this is accomplished through the use of riot police as seen

in Figure 6.5. These police generate a new moving wall and extend the confines of the

glacis from the loggia of the constructed environment through the square to the limits of

their newly created wall. The buffer zone that emerges inside of this newly created dead

space becomes, as also seen in Figure 6.5, a newly generated buffer zone serving to

separate the built context and environment from the disorderly and dangerous occupied

square.

We can therefore deduce the fact that designing spaces with defensible

strategies allows us to effectively manage and control the actions of individuals and limit

criminal activity within a space as long as society is using the public square and area in

the pre-defined usage of the space or is following the status quo. As soon as a situation

THOMPSON 21

violating the status quo (riots, protests, etc.) begins to emerge within the equation of

defensible space, the openness and visibility of the space can transform from a spatial

design protecting citizens and institutions into a designed space accelerating the spread

of uprising and brutality requiring the re-defining of spatial elements (glacis, border,

edge, etc.) in an attempt to re-stabilize the public sector.

THOMPSON 22

7.

CONCLUSION + FINDINGS

After the careful analysis of Central Park, Battery Park, and Independence

Square we can now deduce that incorporating principles of defensible space within the

urban fabric of a city can either have a directly positive or a long-term negative impact

on the institutions and citizens of the city. These enclaves of the city, originally designed

to be occupied during distinct hours of the day (daylight) have over time transformed

into zones which, as Rem Koolhaus states, can take advantage of a “second daytime …

[by] the introduction of electricity” (Koolhaas 1994). The transformation of these

enclaves into centers that can be occupied both during the day and night requires the

design of them to be extremely defensible and occupiable. Without natural surveillance

and a natural sense of protection, these centers would no longer be occupied zones and

would simply become abandoned.

Let us revisit the questions we initially asked within the Preface of this essay: do

architects have a societal responsibility to design in a manner that allows for a certain

degree of freedom or of oppression in an effort to direct the activities that occur in our

projects? Does this question vary for the political or social institution in which we are

designing for? In the case of a smaller scale, should they be designing and organizing

the modern and futuristic cities of tomorrow in an attempt to control the philosophy and

psychology of its occupants and citizens?

While we have explored the elements of designing a defensibly safe space, we

THOMPSON 23

may not have been directly able to answer these questions we set out to formulate an

answer to. We discovered that yes, architects and urban planners do hold a direct role

in designing spaces which, in the case of Independence Square, can either encourage

or diminish freedom and the freedom of expression and speech. By incorporating design

strategies which allow urban plazas and parks to be freely experienced by citizens of

the city in which they are located, designers are encouraging these freedoms. The

extension of the glacis, as seen with the reclamation of Independence Square, begins to

limit this freedom and reclaims back the urban center into the calmness and order of the

urban fabric.

Naturally, the project does vary per design, and therefore, the political or social

institution for which designers are designing for would vary, as would the design

intention of the role. With the amount of power each design may carry, as we have seen

in the past case studies, it is important that architects and urban planners begin to

consider the intentions of their clients and consider the morality behind their design

intentions.

Though the morality behind design intentions and programs of architects and

urban planners may not be able to be definitively answered, as it is not possible to

define a correct response to a problem, we can define the definitive purpose that

architects and designers must begin to consider the consequences and safety of their

respective designs. By placing design elements and imposing them into a structural or

urban fabric without consideration of the interaction of their design or without any

consideration of defensible design strategies, one may be designing the next Central

THOMPSON 24

Park within a city which therefore begins to harbor and spawn crime and violence. With

simple consideration of the techniques laid out by Oscar Newman and discussed within

this essay, cities can begin to design parks and plazas which can protect the general

public which occupy them in normal situations and look at how to deal with radical

situations which may emerge.

The most essential element of defensible space, however, is its context within the

ecological city. Within this self-correcting city, parks and plazas designed using

defensible elements begin to serve as these enclaves of morality and societal

viewpoints which self-correct the rest of society through projection of views and public

oversight. In an effort to maximize the use of city public spaces including parks and

plazas, architects and designers must adopt the responsibility of designing in terms of

public safety and public image of what occurs within these parks and not simply shift the

ideology of public safety to the enforcement of public safety officers, but begin to

proactively address the issue through design.

THOMPSON 25

Bibliography

Department, NYC Parks. Battery Park.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/batterypark/history (accessed May 10, 2014).

Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York. Italy: The Monacelli Press, 1994.

Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space . New York, New York: Collier Books, 1973.

NYC Park Advocates. "Total Major Felony Crime Complaints by Park." New York City,

NY: NYC Park Advocates, March 31, 2013.

Shane, David Grahame. Recombinant Urbanism. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,

2005.