Close your eyes, and imagine yourself in a city. Any city.
What do you see?
Buildings of all sizes, taxis and buses, and perhaps a subway station or a bus stop, all of which are usually adorned with advertising.
In Midtown Manhattan, for example, you will generally find advertising everywhere you look: on buildings and plastered on taxis, buses, and bus stops.
If, as a São Paulo, Brazil resident, you close your eyes, this is what you will probably see:
A city devoid of advertising.
In September 2006, the city’s mayor, Gilberto Kassab, proposed a law that would effectively ban all forms of outdoor advertising, including all of the city’s 8,000 billboards, messages affixed on buses and taxis, as well as ads on storefronts. After months of wrangling, on April 1, 2007, most of the outdoor advertisements were gone.
Mayor Kassab’s chief concern? Visual pollution.
From the urban planning perspective, the São Paulo advertising ban raises a variety of issues, most of which relate to the vibrancy of urban life.
There are generally two schools of thought: those who feel that outdoor advertising is ugly and detracts from “peaceful” urban living, while the reverse side holds that advertising is an integral component of city culture and urbanity, as it is an art form in itself.
Let’s examine both sides of the issue.
Without advertising, a city is returned to its base components: buildings are just buildings, vehicles are merely vehicles, and, of course, the ghostly remnants of the freestanding billboard structures are merely structures in the air.
But, where’s the culture?
To some, a clean, uncluttered environment with just base components is culture.
Bland, perhaps, but you see the environment for what it is, with all of the regular components of city life without the clutter.
Peaceful and serene, some may argue.
With advertising, a city is more lively, maybe even wild. Organic.
True, while some messages may not be aesthetically-pleasing, even the poorly designed or illegally erected ads make the city what it is: a fluid, complex, confusing, and sometimes downright ugly environment.
This is what I call vibrancy.
Can you imagine the following iconic places devoid of advertising?
Times Square
Leicester Square
Downtown Tokyo
I can’t.
Banning advertising in these famous locations would completely alter the urban environment, not to mention hurting the businesses that are drawn to these places for both clout and pedestrian foot traffic, the landlords who can charge premium rentals by virtue of the vibrancy the environment provides, and the city, whose coffers benefit from enhanced property values.
I’m not saying that the advertising is the only component drawing people, but it’s a significant component.
Quick, close your eyes again.
What’s the first thing you see when you imagine Times Square, Leicester Square, and Tokyo?
Vivid ads and a lively urban environment.
Remove that element, and you’ll effectively kill urban culture.
To me, bland culture is bad culture, and I wouldn’t want to live in a boring urban environment.
I’m all for the “visual pollution.”
Take that, Mayor Kassab.
Feel free to comment. I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
In the planning profession, it is commonly known that, while we plan for a bright future, we generally do not expect results quickly. Careful planning takes years to devise, and sometimes even longer to implement and reflect positive change.
However, in Sarasota, the CPTED results were rapid and decisive.
It had worked.
With reductions in crime and increased building activity, the community felt a sense of empowerment.
Between 1990 and 1996, citywide felony crime incidents dropped from 9,228 to 8,426 a percentage change of -8.69, while crimes in the North Trail district dropped from 2,182 to 1,537, a percentage change of -29.56 (Zahm et al.). Comparing both reductions, this demonstrates that crime displacement did not likely occur, as crime rates dropped throughout the entire city.
As expected, an inverse relationship between crime rates and building permits appeared, and in the North Trail district, building activity increased from 14 permits issued in 1989 to 39 issued in 1995, resulting in an additional 88,158 square feet of building square footage (Id).
Concurrently, the city improved parks and other defined public spaces, sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting, which mirrored private investment in new boutique shops, facade upgrades, and new creative architecture.
Issues Raised
This case is overflowing with important successes related to the planning practice, including:
The Sarasota plan was tailored specifically to the main corridor into the city, a very significant symbol of the city as a whole, because great streets, in addition to stimulating a sense of place and promoting economic development, are vibrant and well maintained.
An additional success is that the plan would not have worked unless all stakeholders were actively involved during the planning and early stages.
“Hopeless despair” in the North Trail district was the prevailing attitude prior to implementation, and the hopelessness was so severe that it extended from the street into the planning office.
With the CPTED buzz abound, more people started to pay attention (Jane Jacob’s “eyes on the street” theory) and care for their environment (the antithesis of deleterious outcomes at the final stages of the “broken windows theory”). In turn, the perpetrators know that they are being watched.
CPTED will generate a hopeful—and vigilant—community vibe
The mere creation of a CPTED program expanded the social fabric of the community and revived hope, placing a stake in businesses, property owners, politicians, law enforcement, and planners. Without the input and support of these parties, the program would probably have been marginally successful at best. Particularly, citizens are the true experts because they have plenty of concerns and can pin-point ongoing trouble spots.
After the Sarasota program began, citizens became more aware and less tolerant of criminal behavior. This is evidenced by an increase of police calls between 1992 and 1993, when the program had first been implemented; those with a stake in the community did indeed become more aware (Carter et al.).
CPTED regulations are powerful, effective, and will engage the community
Along with the general successes of the program, the CPTED review process built into the city’s zoning ordinance is perhaps the most ingenious way to ensure compliance. Criminals look to exploit environmental design faults in order to enhance the likelihood that their act will be successful without detection.
The CPTED program began with retrofitting public places (along with requiring a review for future projects) with the gamut of design techniques. This is significant because it showed the private sector that the government was serious about reviving the district, resulting in a trickle-down public involvement (Id).
The implementation also demonstrated that the CPTED design standards are cost-effective and could actually increase revenues for all stakeholders because of the shared benefit of safety.
More lighting in parking lots and public streets, along with mandatory low buffering and less opaque fencing, lower shrubbery, and more balconies and patios to increase “eyes on the street” all act collectively to create a safer environment, with the ultimate goal of economic development. People and businesses alike will not flourish in a dangerous environment.
With incentives, developers will work with the municipality
Another enormous success of the program is the incentive it creates for businesses to implement the CPTED review recommendations. While businesses are not required to implement the recommendations of the CPTED review, the city created a caveat to the rule to create a disincentive not to participate: allocated redevelopment funds earmarked for businessess are subject to CPTED review.
As part of the program, the city instituted a “Small Business CPTED Grant Program,” with the intent of identifying businessess that had been victimized and allocating funds for a variety of safety oriented improvements (Id). If the cost-effectiveness or proven results of the program are not enough, business owners introducing CPTED principles to their properties are less likely to face a lawsuit from someone victimized on their premises.
CPTED regulations can reduce legal liabilities
Both public and private sector entities have been held liable for poor security on their premises. CPTED empowers local governments and community stakeholders to not only protect their environment, but also their finances.
It is a preventive, an intelligent, and a scientifically based approach. Gerda R. Wekerle and Carolyn Whitzman, the authors of Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Management, accurately sum up the financial advantages of CPTED: “When measured against the cost of potential settlements to the victims of crime, the costs of crime prevention through environmental design and community based solutions begin to make economic and social sense.”
CPTED should be recognized as a smart growth component
Smart growth initiatives aim to create walkable, livable, and sustainable communities, with a variety of housing choices, land uses, and public facilities in proximity to public transportation choices. While wholly new developments can be designed with smart growth tenets, the most effective projects are redevelopment oriented and located in areas with existing infrastructure. As I wrote above, people do not thrive in dangerous conditions.
Many jurisdictions, including my state, New Jersey, provide a litany of inducements to spur smart growth oriented redevelopments projects in urban areas. I am hopeful that municipal decision markers will consider requiring CPTED reviews, or perhaps implement full-scale CPTED regulations in conjunction with redevelopment initiatives.
CPTED provides proven results and assurance to municipalities looking to attract economic investment. That is perhaps the greatest strength of CPTED: the Sarasota model can be applied to almost every jurisdiction that is looking to reduce crime and increase investment.
Sources:
Carter, Sherry, Stanley L. Carter, and Andrew L. Dannenberg. “Zoning Out Crime and Improving Community Health in Sarasota, Florida: ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.’” American Journal of Public Health Vol 93 (Sep2003).
Wekerle, Gerda R. and Whitzman, Carolyn. Safe Cities: Guideliens for Planning, Design, and Management. Hoboken: Wiley, 1994.
Zahm, Diane; Sherry Carter; Al Zelinka. “Safe Place Design” Transitions 1997.
Criticisms and conclusions are up next.
Please follow my entire CPTED trail:
If you’re reading this blog, you must be aware that I am an urban planner.
You cannot imagine how many times I have been asked to define my profession.
After meeting someone and being asked the standard question, “What do you do?,” I retort, “I’m an urban planner,” to which responses are sometimes:
On most occasions, however, people generally have a sketchy idea of what the profession entails, but it is rare that someone is completely on point.
Although it is certainly not an esoteric profession, to most people, it is one of those disciplines that operates at the junction of architecture, engineering, law, and politics.
In some ways, they’re right, as urban planners are considered “generalists with a speciality.” In order to handle the rigors of operating in the public realm, we must have a comprehensive understanding of everything from housing and landscaping techniques to demographics and land use law.
This begs the question: what is the exact definition of an urban planner?
Ask anyone, and most, if not all, will recite the roles of well understood professions, such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, etcetera.
But most will never enunciate a concrete definition of urban planner.
It’s not their fault.
In fact, because I wear so many different hats on a daily basis and my tasks require a multi-disciplinary approach, I sometimes have trouble distilling my profession (or, should I write, passion) into a few concise sentences when queried.
Nevertheless, let’s look at how “urban planner” is defined on the interwebs:
Via wikipedia.org:
An urban planner is a professional who works in the field of urban planning for the purpose of maximizing the effectiveness of a community’s land use and infrastructure. They formulate plans for the development and management of urban and suburban areas, typically analyzing land use compatibility as well as economic, environmental and social trends. In developing their plan for a community (whether commercial, residential, agricultural, natural or recreational), urban planners must also consider a wide array of issues such as sustainability, air pollution, traffic congestion, crime, land values, legislation and zoning codes.
Urban planners are usually hired by developers, private property owners, private planning firms and local/regional governments to assist in the large-scale planning of communal and commercial developments, as well as public facilities and transportation systems. Urban planners in the public role often assist the public and serve as valued technical advisors in the myriad web of the community’s political environment. Related disciplines include regional, city, environmental, transportation, housing and community planning.
Via wisegeek.com
Urban planning is a mixture of science and art. It encompasses many different disciplines and brings them all under a single umbrella. The simplest definition of urban planning is that it is the organization of all elements of a town or other urban environment. However, when one thinks about all the elements that make up a town, urban planning suddenly seems complicated - and it is.
Via answers.com:
An attempt to manage the city, often in order to avoid, or alleviate, common urban problems such as inner city decay, overcrowding, traffic and other forms of congestion.
While all three definitions make some sense of the profession, judging from the range of articulation, it is clearly a challenge, if not impossible, to break the entire profession down into a brief response.
Usually, just like me, urban planners are so passionate and geeky about their profession that they feel compelled to detail even the mundane aspects of their daily lives—whether it be in city hall, a consulting office, a transit agency, or in a classroom—in a five minute monologue.
We’re everywhere.
At this moment, we are writing master plans, developing maps, working with the public, attending public hearings, doing site visits, and teaching students.
Unlike other professions, we cannot be tied down to one static rubric.
For me, as a consulting planner, a typical day consists of interacting with my clients (public entities, non-profit organizations, and developers), conducting due diligence on development applications, reading (and, at times, writing) master plans and zoning ordinances, and spending at least a half-hour each day on some professional development activity, whether it be reading posts on Cyburbia or Planetizen, or reviewing relevant links from my urban planner friends on Twitter.
But really, no day is truly typical, and that is why the profession is so dynamic.
As we deal with so many moving parts that sometimes clash with each other, everyday presents a new challenge. To retain sharpness, planners must constantly refine their skills and be prepared to put out fires.
It’s no nine to five job.
My mind is perpetually engaged with urban planning thoughts, whether it be watching my girlfriend’s eyes roll when I criticize a poorly designed development while passing by in the car, or thinking about effective strategies for a controversial planning testimony delivery in front of a land use board—while waiting for a wave on my surfboard.
How do I distill my passion into a one sentence response?
I can’t.
That’s what makes this profession so special; since our skills are so disparate, it cannot be encapsulated concisely. In this instance, brevity is not on the side of the planner.
And, unlike other professions, if a trained urban planner chooses to leave the profession for whatever reason, his/her mind will probably remain engaged in “planning thoughts,” as our workplace is not just at a desk, but it’s on a downtown corner, along a rural highway, and in the middle of suburban sprawl.
Our outlook will always be about creating sustainable places for people. That is one notion that will never escape us.
To end, when asked the classic question, “What do you do?,” here’s my typical response:
“I work with citizens, the government, and professionals to ensure the orderly development of our communities.”
Sure, while it may seem to be a sufficient one sentence response, it does not end there, so please prepare yourself for the five minute monologue.
Please read my April 17, 2009 post, “What is CPTED, and what can it do for my municipality?,” for an overview of the CPTED program.
After the formation of a solid, working coalition between citizens, law enforcement, and planning professionals, the North Trail section of Sarasota, Florida was taken back from criminals and now enjoys social and economic vitality.
The North Trial section, which encompasses 18% of the city’s area (2.2 square miles), functions as a “gateway” to the downtown (Central Business District) and the pristine Gulf Cost beaches. Prior to municipal action in the early 1990s, visitors to Sarasota had to pass through this ramshackle area to shop in the downtown or sunbathe at the beach, where an abundance of decaying motels and businesses, built in the years post WWII, resided (Zahm et. al.).
Most of these businesses failed to improve throughout time, and thus, per the city’s Zoning Ordinance, were non-conforming uses. Due to the non-conformities, the active zoning standards “prevented or greatly increased the cost of renovating old businesses or building new ones” (Carter et al). Consequently, the economic corrosion of this area and the perception that “nobody cared” created a prime opportunity for criminals, including drugs dealers and prostitutes.
Local officials became concerned that these problems could spread to contiguous areas, possibly leading to a constant state of fear and ultimately disinvestment throughout the entire city. Public concern led to the allocation of funds through the city’s Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
Dubbed the “North Trial Sector Study”, the city’s planning staff determined that a redevelopment of the blighted area could not proceed without an analysis of the locations and frequency of criminal activity, as conducted by law enforcement. During the formative stages of the study, an initiative, “Gateway 2000,” a collaborative effort by various community stakeholders, was already underway with the intent of outlining the revitalization of the North Trail gateway.
Naturally, both studies were thereafter meshed, and as a result, the Sarasota CPTED Task Force was born, with the goal of overseeing the creation of a revitalized North Trail, along with using it as a tool for future implementation throughout the city.
With political support, police, planners, and community stakeholders working in concert, and formal plans adopted, implementation was next.
The police began the process by “sweeping the streets” to arrest drug dealers and prostitutes. Local residents began to notice the increased police presence, and their confidence began to build. The benefits flowed before any legislative enactments were made: residents began to improve their own properties, a merchants association was created, and the city’s Governing Body allocated previously budgeted money to improve the median and sides of the gateway road (Carter et al).
In order to educate the public and garner additional support, the planning commission held eight workshops focused on a variety of issues important to the community and what they wanted to see change. Zahm et al. stated that “the major concerns identified by the public were crime (particularly prostitution), urban design (it was ugly), future land uses (more goods and services) and code enforcement (lack of maintenance. The desired future was to improve the area, not change it” (Zahm et al.).
The workshops also highlighted how proper physical and landscape design is essential to reducing the likelihood of criminal activity.
The city created a special zoning district to spur redevelopment activity, with increased pedestrian friendly initiatives and incentives for mixed-use development and innovative land uses, all of which were focused on the implementation of CPTED principals so future development could be designed to minimize the likelihood for victimization.
The zoning regulations for the new district were enacted in October 1992 and continue today. Each project, even those permitted as-of-right and variance-free, undergoes a CPTED audit by representatives of both the police department and planning commission. Applicants developing properties from scratch or rehabilitating structures are not required, however, to implement the design recommendations, but there are tax incentives provided to encourage conformance. The CPTED review follows its three overarching tenets: natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement, along with regular maintenance (Zahm et al.). Thankfully, most property owners, probably sensing the potential for immense benefits, complied (Carter et al).
The CPTED auditors check for appropriate exterior lighting, proper care of landscaping to prevent hiding spots for criminals, incentives for constructing patios and balconies (to increase eyes on the street), and perhaps the biggest incentive for developers: a builder may exceed the maximum height permitted within the district only if the building is mixed-use and includes residential on the third level (retail on the bottom floor, commercial on the second). High traffic areas, including parking and pedestrian dominated areas, are scrutinized in order to minimize the risk of victimization. For example, parking lot landscaping “must either be of low height (a maximum of 2.5 feet) or use trees with canopies having a minimum clearance of 5 feet, to eliminate hiding places” (MRSC).
Each individual criterion adds up to the net effect of reducing the likelihood of victimization through minimizing the opportunity of criminal activity. From its institution in the early 1990s, it has worked.
Results? Issues raised? Criticisms?
Stay tuned..
Sources:
Carter, Sherry, Stanley L. Carter, and Andrew L. Dannenberg. “Zoning Out Crime and Improving Community Health in Sarasota, Florida: ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.’” American Journal of Public Health Vol 93 (Sep2003).
Zahm, Diane; Sherry Carter; Al Zelinka. “Safe Place Design” Transitions 1997.
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC).
It’s Tuesday morning, and a client has called.
She needs planning consulting services and is willing to sign your proposal and FedEx the retainer check immediately. Especially in this economy, this is an optimal situation, since every client call is evidence that the housing and land development industry is not completely dormant.
However, in this instance, the hearing at the Zoning Board of Adjustment is on Thursday evening, leaving you only two days to prepare the case. The FedEx package with the site plans, traffic study, and architectural renderings and elevations will not arrive until tomorrow morning, so really, you’ll only have one day to study the documents, complete your due diligence, and prepare your planning report for delivery at the hearing.
The project requires a use variance, as well as a variety of dimensional variances, and the municipality in question is about two hours away, a logistical mess if you need to obtain to any planning documents. Worse, it’s a small municipality, and the planning office is only open on Thursday mornings from nine to eleven. You’ll need to obtain and review the both the Master Plan (hoping to find support for the proposed use) and approval resolutions for other similar use variance approvals (to gauge the potential response from the Zoning Board members).
It is possible?
It most certainly is, because I’ve done it successfully.
Is it easy?
No!
It’s quite stress inducing, and the source for most of the anxiety is actually in collecting the specific municipal documents that you need to build your case.
At times, it’s actually impossible to collect certain documents in a short time frame, as some New Jersey municipalities are very strict and require the submission of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request, an onerous piece of government red-tape that must be completed with your name, address, phone number, method of payment, and a detailed request. The OPRA process allows municipalities up to 10 days to fulfill the demand, so at times, if you’ve requested something on early Thursday morning and hope to get copies made by late morning the same day, you may in fact go home empty handed.
I know.
It has happened to me.
You may be asking, “It’s 2009; why are we still pushing paper and mired down in government red-tape? With the Internet, why isn’t everything online?”
You’re no fool for asking that question.
In New Jersey, there are 566 municipalities, and I’d estimate that a vast majority do not have their standard municipal documents online (i.e. Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan/Reexamination Reports, Redevelopment/Revitalization Plans, etc) for public accessibility.
Fortunately for me, I pay to access commercial sites that offer Zoning Ordinances and parcel maps, but I’m not aware of any sites that offer other planning documents, with the exception of NJ State Atlas, which is stocked with Google Maps mashups and free to use.
Unfortunately for others, such as regular citizens, the materials are not generally easily accessible.
As planning dictates the future development and functioning of a municipality, access to this information is crucial—not just for the professional planners, but for the citizens planners, whom have a vested interest in monitoring development applications in their communities.
The barriers to information are rapidly eroding.
With the advent of social media, most notably Twitter, the lines between government and ordinary citizens are blurring. People are sharing information, expressing their views, and interacting with each other—all in real-time. The most remarkable aspect of this style of communication is the level of transparency and honesty; people are not afraid to express themselves.
In just a few years, social media, with its catalytic powers, has democratized our society immensely, and it is still in its infancy.
I am excited for what the future will hold.
Sadly, government has not embraced this emerging technology on a widespread basis, resulting in a deepening disconnect between the entity and its constituents, and frustrating interested parties whom have become accustomed to information on demand in their lives.
An exception is the City of LaSalle, Illinois, where Pam Broviak, P.E., City Engineer/Director of Public Works, is the brains behind the municipal social media operation, along with a pioneer within the Government 2.0 movement, which is an evolving model to improve transparency, communication, and efficient and practical delivery methods between government and citizens.
Recently, Ms. Broviak and I discussed open government, social media, and community integration in LaSalle, where a bounty of municipal information is available to citizens directly from its website.
Thanks to Ms. Broviak, LaSalle is a model city in this regard, and City Managers globally should review the “LaSalle Model” and consider applying similar programs in their municipalities.
TNWP: What was/were the catalyst(s) that had prompted you to investigate and enact innovative Gov 2.0 measures in your community?
PB: We began exploring the use of social media after I saw a presentation at Autodesk University on the use of Second Life for planning and architectural design. When I presented the possibilities of what could be done online using some of these tools, the current mayor showed full support and acceptance of the implementation.
TNWP: What have you implemented?
PB: We began actually by setting up a small city-related site in Second Life that offered information about our city using the multimedia tools within that software. I began a blog that discussed public works-related matters in our community. Last year, we created a Twitter account just for the purpose of sending out informational feeds related to a construction project in a certain neighborhood. Then, more recently, we created a Twitter account to explore its use as a short, quick feed of the council meetings and other issues that arose in town. We published our annual presentation on Slideshare.net and shared photos of our recent flooding disaster using a Flickr account for the city. There is also a Facebook page where we began to explore interacting with “fans” of our city.
TNWP: Have the initiatives been successful?
PB: I believe these efforts have been successful because they have helped us achieve a few of our primary goals. The most important goal we had was to help promote our city and let other people know about the development and tourism opportunities here. Another goal has been to increase the amount of online information, allowing for easier access by citizens and decreasing staff time required to handle information requests. We also wanted to increase the communication channels between staff and citizens.
Relying just on mail and phone calls was becoming difficult because most of this had to be done during the regular working hours. Online interactions can occur at any time of the day and can be handled when time permits. I totally agree with you that everything should be online; we have an obligation to citizens to implement online publication of the public records we maintain and generate.
TNWP: How have the municipality’s representatives & community members reacted?
PB: The mayor has been very excited about the possibilities and fully supportive from the beginning. The members of the council who chose to learn about our efforts have also been supportive. Citizens and local media have seemed pleased to be able to have easier access to staff and additional information without having to actually make a phone call or set up a meeting. But, because we are a small community and not yet high tech, most people in the area are not yet familiar with social media or its possibilities. I have noticed within the last few months, more people getting involved, but I think it will still be a few years before we would have been able to use these tools to their full potential.
TNWP: What has not worked?
PB: As I mentioned, it will take some time before we are able to use these tools to their full potential. Even so, I cannot say any of these efforts did not work. Each of them increased awareness of our community and allowed for increased interaction between staff and citizens. Particularly for the time and money involved, which was minimal, the results have far outweighed the investment.
However, I do not have a lot of faith that our city will continue to succeed in this area. The current administration had plans to continue implementing new uses of these tools, but with many of us leaving – myself, the current mayor, and many council members – I do not expect our city to continue along this path. Instead, one remaining alderman and myself have talked about trying to continue our efforts through the use of a community-based site.
So using this experience, I have to wonder if a citizen-based effort has a better chance for longevity.
TNWP: Does Gov 2.0 have a bright future? Any ideas?
PB: I most definitely think there is incredible potential in the Gov 2.0 movement. There is an excitement among government professionals to get going and start using these tools. And, because of the nature of the tools, people from all geographical areas, all types of professions, and from both the private and all levels of the public sectors are finally able to meet, share ideas, and collaborate. If this is used to its full potential we have the chance to make great strides in developing policy and delivering services.
I think from a citizen standpoint, for the first time, citizens have the ability to use these tools to let their voice be heard and to collaborate and increase their participation in government. One of the great challenges will be how best to publish, manage, and analyze the incredible amounts of information that can be generated.
TNWP: Thank you for sharing your expertise, and good luck in your future endeavours.
Innovation! Embracing (mostly free) technology! Community engagement!
Under the tutelage of Ms. Broviak, LaSalle has been providing its citizens with the gift of open government and transparency. In turn, citizens are now empowered to become more involved, increasing the likelihood that they will help shape the planning process in the future. Additionally, developers, with limited resources in this down economy, can more easily survey the municipal landscape, seek approval on projects, and make their professional consultants lives easier.
As Ms. Broviak notes, the recently elected political administration may not support the current movement, even though the initiatives have been quite successful. In all municipalities, the political machine, at times, hinders the best laid plans and objectives, and this is a reality. Hopefully, the incoming administration will embrace Ms. Broviak’s social media initiatives, and the program will flourish and refine over time.
I urge municipalities to consider the LaSalle Model and incorporate, at least initially, a few elements into their websites. Indeed, change is scary, but apprehension should not be an impediment to “opening” government via the Internet, allowing land use professionals and citizens to obtain information on demand.
The technology is readily available, and there are plenty of savvy individuals that are willing to assist.
There is a growing movement of people who are sharing ideas, collaborating on projects, discussing innovation, and evangelizing open municipalities. Here’s just a few: be2camp, DIYcity, & Government 2.0 Club.
It’s time.
In Thinking About Crime, James Q. Wilson observed, “if a child is delinquent because his family made him so or his friends encourage him to be so, it is hard to conceive what society might do about this attitudes. No one knows how a government might restore affections, stability and fair discipline to a family that rejects these characteristics.” (Poyner 1983) Researchers began to challenge the assumptions of Wilson and other doubters of governmental intervention. They began to look beyond merely changing the behavior of criminals, and started to look for ways to reduce the likelihood of victimization through innovative concepts, instead of relying exclusively on law enforcement to carry the burden.
This outlook planted the seed for a program called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which has begun to resonate deeply amongst community planners. Some cities implemented CPTED policies in the 1980s, a time when “entrepreneurial” cities began competing for business. It has continued to be an effective tool, and the new smart growth movement will continue to make CPTED an attractive, low-cost, worthy program for municipalities.
CPTED applies the combination of design changes and community organization (representing both the built and social environments, respectively) to reduce the opportunities for, and the likelihood of, criminal activity. It seeks to create an environment less tolerant and more resistant to criminal behavior.
Reducing crime through proper design is the ultimate goal.
The program centers on a working partnership between criminologists and planning and design professionals. In his seminal book Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, (1971) C. Ray Jeffery advanced Oscar Newman’s “defensible space” (defined as bringing the environment under control of its residents) concept to formulate the CPTED program. Newman designed and successfully demonstrated methods to reduce the likelihood of criminal victimization by providing people with defensible space in inner-city housing projects.
The CPTED tenets include natural access control (controlling the ingress and egress of individuals through the placement of landscaping, fences, lighting, entrances, and exists as to leave a criminal without any rational for trespassing if stopped), natural surveillance (the arrangement of physical features and people through the intelligent placement of doors, windows, lighting, and common outdoor areas to decrease the ability of a criminal to act without being detected) and territorial reinforcement (the use of physical features that expresses ownership, such as fences, signage, and landscaping to clearly delineate public, semi-public, and private space so citizens know where they are).
This program is the antithesis of the gated community concept!
Newman applied his tenets to high-crime housing projects, but CPTED has evolved to rework entire cities. Since CPTED is intrinsically malleable, planning professionals have added their own elements, including activity support (placement of kiosks in heavily traveled areas to promote news about community events to demonstrate community pride and organization.) The application of all of the above tenets reduces crime and increases the public’s awareness sine “the physical changes and raised social expectations created an environment less tolerant of criminal behavior.” (Carter et al., 2003) CPTED applications seek to create a more dynamic, integrative, design oriented community program to give everyone a stake in their neighborhoods to reduce crime, rather than relying on pure design techniques.
Early criminology studies had indicated that there is a strong, tri-angular relationship between interpersonal activities, the build environment, and crime. While there have been a number of studies through the eyes of people with different agendas, all have come to the conclusion that a well-designed community with involved citizens can reduce the likelihood of criminal activity. Jane Jacobs, in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), stresses that one of the best attributes of city neighborhoods is the safety that results from people being familiar with each other. These types of neighborhoods generally have mixed commercial and residential uses that generate plenty of human activity and interaction. In turn, the dynamic atmosphere acts as a deterrent to criminal activity. Jacobs coined this as the “eyes on the street” theory.
Studies have shown that police protection generally reduces crime, but it is difficult for patrols to stop crimes, such as home burglaries or street robberies, because of the disproportionate amount of resources alloted for a geographical area. Communities began to view Jacob’s eyes on the street theory as an important deterrent to crime in response to the inability of police to stop a majority of criminal activity. This theory is deeply rooted in CPTED methodology.
Crime is a subject everyone is concerned about and would like to reduce, but if crime abatement programs are too expensive to implement and operate, it may drop in political importance. CPTED addresses the larger issue of the omnipresent crime problem (especially in older, more vulnerable downtown areas) through a low-cost, intuitive program.
The next post will detail CPTED application in the North Trail section of Sarasota, Florida, an area that—prior to CPTED— had been plagued by drugs, prostitution, violence, and a litnay of quality of life problems.
Sources:
Carter, Sherry, Stanley L. Carter, and Andrew L. Dannenberg. “Zoning Out Crime and Improving Community Health in Sarasota, Florida: ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.’” American Journal of Public Health Vol 93 (Sep2003).
Poyner, Barry. Design against Crime. London: Butterworths, 1983.
2/2 — Please read my April 2, 2009 post, “Murder in College Park, MD: The Tipping Point”
In the aftermath of the Malstrom murder, the stakeholders—students, city residents, politicians, and the university administration—reached a consensus that the crime problem had reached its apogee. Solutions were in order, and of course, many called for increased police patrols, viewing law enforcement as the panacea for criminal activity. However, in 2003 and the years preceding, that solution had never been easy to implement.
Still today, the city is served primarily by the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD), with the University of Maryland Police Department (UMPD) providing coverage to the areas only contiguous to the university (although patrols have expanded by virtue of a joint jurisdictional agreement). During my tenure in College Park, and perhaps years or decades before me, jurisdictional issues had always been a problem. After the Malstrom murder, a core group of stakeholders lobbied the city council to study the feasibility of a city police force. A majority of the city council was concerned that the tax increases would be insurmountable for the city’s residents. Hence, as is not surprising, political concerns were trumping safety concerns. Instead, the governing body worked on forging a joint jurisdictional agreement between both police departments to increase patrols, and by late 2005, the agreement had been implemented. As a temporary “solution,” in November 2003, the city council approved hiring contract police officers to patrol downtown and the student neighborhoods during the vulnerable overnight hours. Perhaps effective, but merely a political move to stymie criticism.
Meanwhile, while the university administration had been working with the city council to find ways to reduce the prevalence of violent crimes, it had held on to its view that increasing crime rate was no different than other universities in metropolitan areas. Even if true, this is not a responsible reason for acting nonchalantly.
According to crime statistics released by the PGPD, in College Park, homicides increased 30 percent, from zero in 2001 to three in 2002. Assaults increased 15.8 percent from 38 to 44. Rapes, however, decreased from 6 to 1. Motor vehicle theft increased 19.6 percent from 168 to 201 thefts. Burglaries increased 3.4 percent from 174 to 180, and robberies decreased from 53 to 51. (The Diamondback, December 04, 2003)
In late 2002/early 2003, the data was significant for a few reasons. While some city and police officials had noted that these numbers are probably not indicative of a crime problem and are normal compared to other municipalities in the county, there still appeared to be quite a security issue when there are dramatic crime spikes in most categories (with the exception of rapes). While it is conceded that crime will occur even with the best crime preventions programs and police force, this should have never been an argument against innovation and implementing progressive crime prevention strategies. Police officers (especially contracted officers from different jurisdictions) cannot be relied upon to carry the entire burden, although they are clearly a significant component of an overall crime prevention program.
No one can deny that the coalition of stakeholders has made tremendous progress on the crime prevention front over the past six to seven years. While it took some time to wrangle the political support out of the governing body and from Upper Marlboro (the County Executive and other leaders had to sign off on the joint jurisdictional agreement), the politicians had no choice be to acquiesce to constituent demands. To wit: city residents were so frustrated about the crime problem that they narrowly passed a non-binding “public safety referendum” in 2004, which would essentially amount to a $40 per person tax on supplemental police services. It’s uncommon for voters, on any level, to support a tax increase, even if it’s clearly minimal, but with crime being a paramount concern, a majority of the residents felt that action was needed—and quickly.
However, I am not going to bestow the accolades upon the political operation, as in this instance, substantive action had been taken on account of a groundswell of demands from students, the press, and the general public—purely reactionary to political winds. Understandably, an over-arching objective of serving in public office is to be re-elected, but in a small city, where crime had reached a boiling point (even if perceived), true courage would have been to sacrifice oneself for the betterment of the community and take the issue seriously. After all, the local politicians are all potential victims.
There may have been an outward appearance of the city council acting proactively to devise and implement innovation crime prevention programs, but in reality, the substantive action did not come until early 2006, when the politicians truly had no choice but to react to statistics indicating that crime had reached a five-year high in 2005, including a 34% increase in city robberies. A March 28, 2006 Diamondback staff editorial, entitled “Underwhelming city council crime reaction worrisome,” opened with these unsympathetic words:
A five year crime high in the city, and all the city council members want to talk about are airbag thefts, traffic patterns and gang activity, rather than robberies – the crimes that truly plague the city. When Maj. Kevin Davis, District 1 commander for the Prince George’s County Police, presented last year’s record-high statistics to the council last week, they reacted with a lot less concern than one would expect from the leaders of a city where crime is a constant concern.
It goes on:
When it comes to public safety, something that comes up constantly in this area, the city has shown a lack of ability to produce substantial results. And the seemingly nonchalant way city officials took the news of record-high robberies certainly doesn’t show anything different.
Recently, the city and count have both made improvements to city law enforcement, including the city devoting funds to contract county police to patrol the city and the county devoting a robbery suppression team to the city. However, statistics clearly show there is far more work to be done.
Choice words from the student newspaper, but all 100% accurate. From the Malstrom murder in 2002 to today, as one of the most widely circulated papers in College Park (it’s not just on campus; it’s circulated throughout the city) The Diamondback has been consistently framing the crime issue and keeping the university, city council, and multiple police agencies accountable for inaction over time. Even so, it has not just been The Diamondback, but also the students, city council student liaisons, and activists who have kept accountability an issue.
Although, since graduating in 2002, I have been living in New Jersey (and thus three hours from College Park), I have been working remotely to at least stimulate some dialogue on the crime prevention front. Since 2003, I have penned multiple opinion and Letter to the Editor pieces in The Diamondback and shared my studies, reports, strategies, and general observations with both the Student Government Association and University Senate.
Why would I help?
Well, I felt compelled to share my ideas, not just because the city was my home for four years and I have fond memories of my time there, but as a victim of a violent robbery in an off-campus neighborhood, perhaps my ideas could actually help to prevent future victimization. I had felt a burning responsibility to apply my passion and assist in any possible way.
I am confident that my actions have at least helped with brainstorming, even though, as a consequence of living quite a distance away, I have been unable to interact directly with the stakeholders.
As a neophyte—yet eager—urban planning student at Rutgers University in the fall of 2003, I had begun to realize the only way to effect change is through innovative measures, as well as, of course, good old-fashioned hard work, dedication, and persistence. In the planning world, I was told, you may have the greatest plan, but if the politics “don’t work,” your plan will just be relegated to the shelf. I determined that, if I had accepted this, then I would most certainly have a disappointing career of researching, crafting, and innovating, but ultimately failing in the end because, for whatever reason, the governing body would just not be supportive. Certainly, you have to adjust for political reasons, and that is completely understood; however, there are some changes for which you just have to fight.
With this attitude in mind, I felt compelled to become involved in contributing my thoughts and budding planning knowledge to the city and campus in which I spent four years, from 1998-2002. Within a month of beginning school, I began reading about the interplay between law enforcement, innovative crime prevention measures, and planning.
Even before planning school, I had always known that there is a direct relationship between the built environment and crime. Of course, it is obvious that crime rates are typically higher in depressed neighborhoods, but should this be accepted as a life sentence? Absolutely not. If police patrols alone are not effective in a high crime area, then why not gather all stakeholders and develop a comprehensive crime prevention program to attack the problem? Again, law enforcement is effective—but it is not the end game—and the only way to induce developers to become engaged in redevelopment/revitalization activities is to work on actively reducing crime. While College Park has seen some major development over the recent years, just think about how far improvements to the downtown area have been pushed back because of both the perception and reality of criminal activity.
Throughout the fall of 2003, I read weekly accounts of violent crimes in College Park, but after seeing a Diamondback report about a stabbing in the Knox Towers—an off-campus apartment complex, occupied by students and on the cusp of the downtown—I had to act. In November 2003, I wrote an op-ed in the same publication, in which I implored the university and city council alike to work collectively and immediately formulate an inexpensive, yet potentially effective, method: student/resident safety patrols.
Why?
Presence.
Patrols members would not be armed, of course, but would wear reflective vests, carry radios and have contact with police, and be situated in those areas most vulnerable, as identified by police crime statistics and community knowledge. It’s simple. As Jane Jacobs had written about in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a major failure of urban renewal is that vibrant neighborhoods had been obliterated to accommodate highways and other projects, thus removing eyes on the street. Criminology studies are clear: criminals are generally rationale actors, and consider committing crimes after completing a cost/benefit analysis, even if it’s for just a split second. Therefore, as logic dictates, increase capable guardians (people) in a high crime area, and crime should be deterred.
In April 2004, I learned that the SGA organized a community watch and, according to reports in The Diamondback, patrolled the city throughout 2004 and early 2005. I am not sure if it continued beyond early 2005, but it most certainly was an innovative, yet simple, step in the right direction.
In 2006, after realizing that the city, university, and police agencies had not taken enough substantive actions in the war against crime, I wrote a number of pieces in The Diamondback, detailing various crime prevention strategies that are politically feasible. As an urban planner, I had always framed the crime issue around redevelopment, and my March 30, 2006 opinion piece, entitled “Reducing crime through smart design,” opened with the following:
I applaud the College Park City Council for its recent redevelopment discussions, and I must note that the EPA revitalization study is a major step toward invigorating the Route 1 corridor. College Park contains all the necessary ingredients to flourish as a world-class “college town” capable of attracting not only the brightest students, but also residents seeking the same experience.
Redevelopment, however, will not be successful unless College Park is a safe and aesthetically pleasing place where the perception and reality of criminal activity is low, and with robbery rates at a five-year high, a triumphant redevelopment seems far off.
And, as I highlighted in a February 2, 2007 Letter to the Editor piece in The Diamondback:
[T]he burgeoning redevelopment of both the campus and the off-campus areas will quickly expand and solidify the university’s competitive advantage among its peers. A heightened perception and reality of crime, however, could have disastrous impacts on all the university’s positive attributes, in addition to hindering the redevelopment process.
While the intent had always been about methods to reduce crime, I understood that the issue had to be encapsulated within an overall objective, such as the need to take a holistic approach toward redevelopment, with the hopes of creating a groundswell of political support. Doubtful, perhaps, but harping on just crime had not seemed to create much of an impact between 2002 and 2006.
Among the suggestions in my pieces:
During this period, I shared my thoughts directly with a few members of the SGA and University Senate, as I was certainly not the only person actively seeking solutions. In 2007, the University Senate began the process of preparing a “security policy report” by soliciting input from students, faculty, staff, and law enforcement, with the goal of cementing security policy into the foundation of the institution—a clearly holistic approach that would take into account input from stakeholders and formulate a future direction for campus security. I considered this to be a major breakthrough on the student/administration relations front.
Around this same time, as I observed in a March 30, 2007 Diamondback Letter to the Editor:
The University Police Department, in partnership with the city of College Park, unveiled a “safe route” program, dubbed “Preferred Route,” with the intent of providing a safe path from the student neighborhoods to the east of Route 1 to the College Park Metro Station. Crime prevention measures have been deployed along the safe route, including enhanced lighting, landscaping improvements, and emergency blue phones.”
Even though I applauded the Preferred Route program, I stressed that “it is merely a component of a sorely needed comprehensive crime prevention package,” as it, as well as other methods, must be reinforced by a CPTED ordinance, “which would provide a legal mechanism to mandate a full crime prevention design review for all proposed developments in College Park, in addition to requiring the city to improve lighting, landscaping and its structures to comply with CPTED standards.”
While there have been a number of crime prevention improvements instituted in the city over the years, but the governing body has yet to codify a comprehensive crime prevention program into the Zoning Ordinance. As such, other than complying with the standard lighting, landscaping, and general design procedures in the Zoning Ordinance, developers do not have to employ sure-fire crime prevention measures in their future projects. This is a concern.
I do have to commend all parties for working on this pressing issue over the years, including the UMPD and PGPD, both of which have worked with the community and established a variety of practical and innovative crime prevention strategies; however, a substantial number of accolades should be bestowed upon The Diamondback for not only providing a forum for on-going dialogue, but most importantly, acting as a daily watch-dog on the crime prevention beat and ensuring accountability. Of course, significant credit is also due to students, student liaisons to the city council, and community activists, all of whom pressed the issue and demanded solutions (and still do!).
The issue is not over, however. Crime is still a concern in College Park.
What can cities do—especially with the potential for innovation that emerging technologies provide us—to either reduce crime or prevent it from even brewing up from minimal levels?
Stay tuned for the next post.
To continue with the childhood connection to my planning career, I’ve also always had an deep interest in law enforcement, which may in fact be in my blood, considering that my maternal grandfather and two uncles were police officers. Of course, with the exception of the classical fantasies that kids have about future professions, I never wanted to actually serve within the front lines of law enforcement, although I still occasionally daydream about being a detective and solving cases.
Just like in the present day, as the years progressed, my interest in the subject had always been much more academic, i.e. theories behind policing, penology, the justice system, the criminal mind, and crime prevention strategies. In fact, as an undergraduate, I was just six credits short of adding another major, Criminology and Criminal Justice, to my diploma. But, as a graduate student, I created a concentration for myself in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)—more on that later.
So, you may be asking, this is a blog about planning, and not law enforcement, so where is the connection between the two?
Turns out, there is a direct interplay, and this will be explained much throughout this blog.
For now, I’ll explain how I put the two together.
I graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMCP), the flagship institution of the University of Maryland System, in May 2002. College Park is a city in Prince George’s County located only about 5 minutes from the District of Columbia. In fact, Route 1, which is a major thoroughfare into DC, cuts directly through College Park and serves as the major commercial corridor for students and residents alike.
The UMCP campus, which consists of hundreds of acres and contains such diverse uses ranging from a mini farm to a nuclear reactor, is completely contained—that is, the vast majority of the campus does not spread through city neighborhoods. And, it is well known for its sports, most notably (or perhaps notoriously) the basketball team’s 2002 NCAA National Championship.
Although not on the same aesthetic and “fun” level as classic college towns like Ann Arbor, Michigan (The University of Michigan), Charlottesville, Virginia (The University of Virginia), or Chapel Hill, North Carolina (The University of North Caroline), College Park is an archetypal college town, with a small—yet vibrant, attractive, and pedestrian-friendly—downtown, packed with bars, restaurants, delis, takeout restaurants, specialty shops, national chains, and a standard of all college towns, an over-sized bookstore.
Beyond the downtown, the Route 1 corridor extends to both the north and south, with the northern portion of the city along Route 1 characterized by a mixture of land uses, varying from auto body shops on small lots to sprawling shopping centers. As you drive through the northern portion of Route 1 to reach the downtown, you instantly notice the land use differences, as it’s generally urban sprawl vs. pedestrian-friendly mixed-use.
The vast majority of the city’s visitors, however, are not interested in the northern portion of Route 1; the target begins just as you pass by the campus’ first entrance off Route 1 south.
It is not without surprise that, with all College Park has to offer, the city is a magnet for those seeking a good time, whether it be drinking at one of the bars, enjoying a meal, or watching a basketball game at the Comcast Center. While the DC Metro area has a number of destinations, it is widely known, especially amongst the college age cohort, that College Park, with countless “open door policy” parties, is the place to be on Thursday, Friday, or Saturday nights.
With parties comes intoxication, and intoxication leads to vulnerability. Even without the inebriation factor, a packed college party is almost always a volatile environment—ripe for confrontation.
During my tenure there, from August 1998 through September 2002, crime had always been a fact of life. Without fail, The Diamondback, the daily student newspaper, reported accounts of theft, robberies, assaults, or sexual assaults on a weekly basis. Certainly, any campus, with its concentrations of young people, has its share of criminal activity; college students are just easy targets, but in College Park, it seemed, during my tenure, everyone knew of someone who had been victimized
Incidentally, beyond providing an overview of College Park student life, I am not going to explain why, in my opinion, crime levels were unusually high in College Park until the next blog post.
Students, police, residents, and local politicians had always “accepted” crime as an unfortunate fact of life.
However, that all changed shortly after I graduated in May 2002.
During Homecoming 2002, Brandon Malstrom, a UMCP student, was stabbed and killed at an off-campus party. Student deaths, while rare, do occasionally occur, as did three in my last year (one from an overdose, and the other two due to a tornado). A student murder, on the other hand, is beyond rare. It strikes fear into every student, and perhaps even more so the parents.
This event served as the tipping point, with intense media attention and pressure on the city, county police force, and the university administration to assuage the fears and devise a solution to a constantly simmering problem.
Clearly, law enforcement is not a panacea for all of society’s ills, but it does share in the overall responsibility to work with the community and act creatively to combat crime. Moreover, the city, its residents, and the university all are stakeholders and have an incentive to ensure a safe community. Without community consensus and action, problems tend to continue and exacerbate, ultimately reaching a critical breaking point, as it did with the Malstrom murder.
Sounds like common sense, doesn’t it?
While it does, its simplicity belies the reality of human nature: people are naturally protective of their flock, and any interference is tantamount to a threat against natural order. Coalition naturally form as a reaction to a need to work together, not out of desire, but merely necessity. With the murder, all College Park stakeholders had no choice but to work collectively.
Although I had graduated months earlier, I was still reading the online version of The Diamondback, and I was immensely interested in following this story. Having such a personal connection to College Park, I began to think critically about why this happened and how the ongoing crime problem could be mitigated. Surely, I thought, police saturation was helpful, but unsustainable and politically adverse. Where the students going to stop partying? Absolutely not, so the “targets” would continue to exist.
Then, I began thinking that perhaps the most effective method was to institute additional safety programs (beyond the rarely used “Call A Ride”), or maybe even go as far as altering the built environment in such a way to reduce the likelihood of criminal activity, a consideration probably due to my urban planning studies at the time.
With all stakeholders finally working together (or, at least the appearance of it occurring), the potential for change was bright, and the leaders most certainly had a mandate to devise solutions.
The crime problem had reached its tipping point, so the environment was ripe for innovative ideas, beyond just law enforcement tackling the problem solo….
In my March 20, 2009 piece, I opined as to why, due to the economic downturn, a shift in housing preferences, and various other reasons, municipalities should lift age restrictions on previously approved developments in an effort to stimulate development and improve communities.
If the bill in support of lifting the age restrictions meanders its way through the New Jersey Legislature successfully and is signed into law by Governor Corzine, then this will become reality.
The New Wave Planner supports this measure wholeheartedly.
But, wait a second.
Shouldn’t all of the 565 municipalities within the Great State of New Jersey be fearful of such a bill that could result in more children within the 616 school districts (yes, this is not a typo; New Jersey has 565 municipalities and 616 school districts), increased demands on municipal services, and therefore spikes to already burdensome property tax bills—all in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?
This just doesn’t sound right.
Some politicians are against lifting these restrictions, and I cannot blame them for one reason: for better or worse, it’s what they have to do.
I understand the political intricacies in New Jersey—which is a “home rule” state, meaning that a lot of power is vested in local government—and like anything else, it boils down to being “all part of the game.” In order to save face with their constituencies, Mayors have to sometimes vocalize their disagreements relating to certain initiatives, especially on such an issue that is so volatile in New Jersey.
The public perception is that “property taxes” and “school age children” are both dirty words, and as such, understanding local politics, speaking out against this is just a method through which one can ultimately win the game.
However, as I will now argue, not supporting a lift on restrictions could actually be detrimental to communities, given that, even though there are public perceptions to the contrary, “age-targeted” communities do not place excessive demands on municipal services and school systems.
So, what is an age-targeted community?
Understandably, there is much confusion with respect to the difference between age-restricted—developments that are restricted to those 55+ and have specific amenities catering to that cohort—and age-targeted communities.
In an October 2, 2008 Asbury Park Press article, “Age restriction becoming a drag,” Linda Bernaski, president of the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey, noted that wholly age-restricted communities have been well known among municipal elected officials as being the most attractive residential land use, mainly due to a lack of children burdening school districts, which is one of the reasons for New Jersey’s high property taxes.
While certainly a valid concern, a designation change to age-targeted does not open the proverbial flood gates of families with school-age children rushing into these types of developments. In the current marketplace, the emphasis is not primarily on age, but rather on the quality of the living experience.
Age-targeted communities are designed and positioned to attract mature households, but they are not marketed as 55+ communities. Tracy Cross, a housing consultant and president of Tracy Cross & Associates, Inc., noted, in a September 18, 2005 Chicago Tribune article, “Do you want age-restricted or age-targeted?,” that “almost any condo is, by nature, age-targeted,” since the “newer condo buildings have the features that an older person would be looking for, such as an elevator and outdoor maintenance.” Other characteristic amenities include, but are not limited to, indoor or structured parking, master bedroom suites located on the same floor as the living room, dining room and kitchen to minimize the requirement of stair usage, modest bedroom capacities consisting primarily of one and two-bedroom floor plans; en-suite bathrooms that are captive to the bedroom areas to which they are attached, and the lack of exterior recreational facilities designed for the use by children.
Even though age-targeted communities do not prohibit those age 55 or under, the use of affirmative marketing techniques, such as using buzzwords like “care-free living” and “maintenance-free living,” appears to attract a market share that does not include couples with school-age children.
A potential explanation for the predominant market share of couples without children is the psychological impact of the types of words associated with aging. Bill Feinberg, whose Philadelphia-based consulting firm Feinberg & Associates works with several builders, stated that half of the people whom his firm interviewed in four focus groups in 2004 said they were not interested in any community labeled “age-restricted,” as discussed in a January 2004 article in Builder. Age-targeted communities also attract younger couples without children for similar reasons.
Doris Pearlman, a real estate and design industry veteran, in January 30, 1998 article in RealtyTimes, “Emerging Buyer Profiles: Who Will Dominate Tomorrow’s Market?,” opined that the demographics of housing changed during the late 1990s, when “buyer profiles started combining and recombining.” Up until the late 1990s, according to Pearlman, the industry had been generally traditional, consisting mostly of “first-time buyers, move-up buyers, third-time buyers, or middle-age high-achievers.” The late 1990s and early 2000s, which coincided with the oldest baby boomers becoming empty nesters, saw a shift in the dynamic, with “full-circle buyers” (older couples that are not ready to purchase a unit in a retirement community) vying for homes not just with first-time buyers (reflecting the commonly known desire to downsize homes to minimize unneeded space and costs associated with larger homes), but with “free-spirit buyers,” “who may be divorcees with children, same-sex couples, unmarried but related roommates, or the so-called “dinks” (double income, no kids).
Although this example of shifting housing tastes is broad and not necessarily applicable to any specific housing type, it demonstrates the dynamic nature of demographic changes over the past decade, and the blending of cohorts that are seeking similar housing experiences.
While there are no widely available demographic multipliers for the relatively new age-targeted market, the fact that apartment/condominium living imparts a slight impact on a school district, compared to that of single-family homes, is a substantive argument in favor of a change to age-targeted housing.
The Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University publishes demographic multipliers that are widely considered the de facto source for housing demographic profiling information in New Jersey. According to page 6 of the November 2006 release, Who Lives in New Jersey Housing, “in general, detached housing currently produces the highest number of residents and pupils compared to attached homes. Detached homes with more (4-5) bedrooms have the relatively largest household size and pupil generation.” However, it continues, “common types and configurations of attached housing, such as 2-to-3 bedroom townhouses and 1-to-2 bedroom multifamily units, have a relatively low demographic impact.” Parenthetically, it should be noted that the study notes that “demographic multipliers need to be continuously updated, refined and tested” (page 7) and “for best results, the state-level data presented here should be supplemented by local analysis” (page 8).
Nevertheless, the amenities prototypical of age-targeted communities simply do not attract households with school-age children.
Based on all of the quantitative and qualitative evidence presented herein, age-targeted communities do not present the commonly perceived deleterious impacts on communities. Especially in NJ, a state that has been losing residents for years and is now being hit with residential and non-residential development projects alike that are not moving through the market, it is imperative to work with the development community to devise an equitable and feasible solution for all parties, and the current bill in the New Jersey Legislature would do just that.
The “Jersey Fresh” program is under attack.
Implemented in 1984 by the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Jersey Fresh is a marketing program that promotes farm produced products from all reaches of the state, as well as farming related activities, such as agri-tourism events and attractions, and purchasing opportunities, including roadside markets, pick your own farms, and community farmers’ markets.
After all, New Jersey’s official nickname is The Garden State.
It is a successful program, as for 25 years, consumers and restaurant owners have known that high-quality produce is being grown within mere miles of their homes or establishments—as indicated by the ubiquitous “Jersey Fresh” labels—and available at their local supermarkets, farm stands, or community farmers’ markets.
The reach of this promotional mechanism may be drastically reduced if the $250,000 line item cut for the Jersey Fresh program survives in Governor Jon Corzine’s proposed budget—on top of recent reductions to the program. As reported in the Newark Star Ledger, according to Lynne Richmond, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Agriculture, marketing will continue, but enough appropriations may not remain for radio commercial airtime.
The ad nauseum political saying, “tough times require tough choices,” is a reality in New Jersey: during these recessionary times, faced with the responsibility of dealing with a sharp reduction in revenues, Gov. Corzine has no other option than to cut entirely or reduce significantly state funding for even the best programs. There are truly no winners, as every department, every program, and every citizen will be impacted.
I would argue, however, that funding for the Jersey Fresh program should be retained at current levels.
Why?
As noted above, the program is wide-reaching, and is welcomed by farmers, especially during tough economic times like now, as a tool to remind people to support local farming outfits and eating locally, a concept that has been receiving a lot of attention recently, most notably as a result of the Obama family’s garden at the White House.
The “locavore” movement, defined as eating food grown locally or within a tightly defined regional area, is a term that was coined by Jessica Prentice, the founder of Three Stone Hearth, a Community Supported Kitchen in Berkeley, California.
The reasoning for the movement is framed well within the “local food” entry on wikipedia.org:
Non-local food is often seen as a result of corporate management policies, heavy subsidies, poor animal welfare, lack of care for the environment, and poor working conditions. This limited interpretation is likely due to the fact that the organic movement is largely responsible for renewed public interest in local and regional markets. Those subscribing to this interpretation often insist on buying food directly from local family farms, through direct channels such as farmers’ markets, food cooperatives, and community-supported agriculture plans. For many, local food is interpreted as unprocessed foods to be transformed by the consumer or local shop rather than by the food industry. As such, local food (as opposed to global food) reduces or eliminates the costs of transport, processing, packaging, and advertising.
These are all noble reasons for eating locally, and it would be tough for almost anyone to sustain an argument against the promotion of local food. Another advantage relates to the planning process, land use, community and economic development, and real estate.
From a planning perspective, the locavore movement promotes community building, engagement, and interest. Eating locally helps our farmers earn a living, while also helping to ensure a balance of appropriate land uses in a state as disparate as New Jersey, with areas ranging from the most remote rural areas to extremely dense urban areas. Farmers’ markets bring communities together and provide a forum for interaction, thus in turn stimulating more involved and healthy citizens. Moreover, the markets create active public spaces in downtown areas throughout the week, which helps stimulate local interest in not only the products for sale, but also the local businesses that may be hurting for business and rely on pedestrian traffic, something that a weekly farmers’ market helps to generate.
A community poll taken in Madison Borough, New Jersey indicated that over 73% of respondents shop in downtown stores when they visit the weekly market. In addition, according to a presentation by Diane Eggert, Executive Director of the Farmers Market Federation of New York, the weekly Thursday night market in downtown Oswego, which has up to 40 vendors, prepared foods, and entertainment, has spurred 10 new shops and the transfer of other businesses to the downtown area to capitalize on an influx of foot traffic. Lastly, according to Ms. Eggert, the Ithaca market is directly responsible for keeping 35% of the vendors in business, as well as keeping 25% of vendors from reducing their operations.
It’s a tool for community, economic, and nutritional development.
Dozens of New Jersey’s suburban downtowns have seen a resurgence over the past few decades, and even through there are a bounty of reasons for this occurrence, the emergence of the farmers’ market parallels that of the suburban downtown. Clearly, both feed off each other, and farmers’ markets have helped to create a “buzz” in places like Highland Park, Kearny, Red Bank, Keyport, Highlands, Morristown, Metuchen, and Toms River, to name a few.
It’s simple: provide an outlet for fresh, locally grown food in a downtown area, and people will come and not only purchase some produce, but also perhaps meat at the local butcher or a shirt at the local boutique.
Eating locally translates directly into spending locally.
Perhaps the shock of a potential appropriations cut will force the Department of Agriculture to consider some innovative (read: free) marketing measures—beyond tapping the traditional media outlets that are costly—such as creating a Twitter account to selectively target New Jersey residents, or a Facebook “fan page” to reach a predominantly young demographic. There are dozens of social media methods through which the Jersey Fresh program can be marketed, and all should be explored.
In 2009, with a number of these same downtown areas under assault by this recession, with store closings and less revenue flowing into bars, restaurants, and shops, the relatively tiny amount of appropriations allotted for Jersey Fresh, a program that continually helps to remind us to support our local farmers and eat locally, should not be cut. We need people to flow into our communities to spend money, interact with each other, and indirectly, help to ensure a range of land uses statewide.
The post World War II American story is well known. With the GIs returning home en mass immediately following the end of World War II and fueled by a sense of optimism for a bright future, marriage rates increased steadily, city population declined, and the baby boom generation exploded onto the scene.
As a result, quality housing for the influx of new families became the salient issue, as demand exceeded supply tremendously. Iconic developers, such as Levitt & Sons, Inc., seized the opportunity to fulfill a market void by constructing mass-produced suburbs, produced under the tenets of speed, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Other developers quickly followed and continued to meet the demand, thus creating the archetypal suburbs, which still live on in the 21st century.
The story of the baby boomer generation is similarly well known. With their sheer numbers, their middle class suburban upbringing, the innumerable social movements that characterized that 1960s and 1970s, and their education and affluence, the baby boomers changed everything in their path. Just like their parents—and even more so—the housing market adapted to their desires, beginning with the garden apartment movement in the 1970s when most were just starting out, peaking in the 1990s with the McMansion craze at the peak of their earning power, and now, for some, transitioning to a desire to down-scale and live in communities that were built specifically for them. In a 1990 New York Times article, James W. Hughes, then chairman of the Department of Urban Planning and Policy Development in the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, noted that, by the year 2000, “the broad maturing middle-age population is going to do to the upper end of the housing market what they did to the school systems in the 1960s – push it to the limits.” His 1990 analysis was certainly prophetic, with a housing bubble forming in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and an accelerating age-restricted marketplace.
However, with the recent over-arching economic troubles, the housing industry has been hit hard, with developers seeking creative measures to retain as much solvency as possible in their ventures, especially in the age-restricted housing market. Since 2005, when the deterioration of the housing market began, it has been widely reported that sales have declined, inventory has risen, and as a result, home prices have declined. Once again, baby boomers and those slightly older are entrenched in this latest housing phenomenon, as some older people have begun to leave New Jersey for cheaper and warmer locales at a steadily increasing rate, while others have had an increasing preference to age in-place. With the influx of housing inventory, some baby boomers have also been unable to sell their present homes, forcing them to re-think housing changes.
As such, with baby boomers again reshaping the housing market and the affinity towards age-restricted communities beginning to wane in this economic downturn, developers are beginning to wonder how to tackle this issue, with some seeking to remove the age-restriction on their communities and replace with either an open market or an age-targeted designation.
According to Jeffery Otteau, a leading market analyst and proprietor of Otteau Valuation Group, Inc., in New Jersey, there are numerous projects for which age-restrictions have been lifted or lowered, including those in Maplewood, Fort Lee, Hackettstown, Mountain Lakes, Bound Brook, Princeton Township, Morris Township, Pine Hill Township, and Riverdale Borough. With the impacts of the recession hitting New Jersey relatively hard, municipalities cannot afford to let some newly built communities to amble on with low occupancies.
With economic feasibility becoming an issue for age-restricted housing, due to a lack of interest in bank financing due to higher construction costs, discounted market pricing, and an oversupply of projects, age-targeted housing is becoming an attractive option.
New Jersey lawmakers are now starting to realize that vacant, unfinished, or minimally populated developments present a complex trifecta—physical, psychological, and political—of problems. The experts agree that there is an abundant supply of age-restricted housing, and in my opinion, to just let projects remain in a static state is an untenable position.
So, what’s the solution? Lift the age-restriction on housing reserved for those 55 and older, lawmakers say, and in doing so, require that the developer set-aside 20% for affordable housing. All in all, if executed property, it’s a perfect carrot-and-stick approach. Not only would this serve as an inducement for bank lending and smelling salts for dormant developers, but it would also create more construction jobs and, perhaps most importantly, inspire some confidence in the people. Never discount the psychological impact of seeing active construction sites in a down economy.
Naturally, the opponents have emerged, and the paramount point of contention is that lifting the age-restrictions would result in an influx of school-age children into local school systems, thus potentially spiking already onerous property taxes. Certainly a way to strike fear into the millions of NJ residents paying exorbitant property taxes, but it’s a misinformed statement.
As I will demonstrate in an upcoming post, couples with school-age children are not generally drawn to developments originally designed for the 55+ cohort, as the living arrangments and amenities are simply not tailored to a family lifestyle.
Welcome, age-targeted housing.
[video]
As humans, interactions with others are essential. Certainly, most people do enjoy alone time, but we thrive off communicating with others and keeping up to date.
This is not a groundbreaking theory: just ask your typical twenty-something if s/he uses, let’s say, Facebook or Twitter on a daily basis; most do. Although our social networks extend well beyond the Internet, undoubtedly, the Second Generation of the Web (also known as Web 2.0, i.e. post dot-com bubble) have tightened our networks so quickly and stunningly, in such ways that we could not even envision just a few years ago.
Our world is now so entrenched in this New Media/Social Media process.
Much has been written about President Barack Obama’s internet prowess; his campaign managed to harness the power of a multitude of social websites (including Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube and his blog) and a massive database/email distribution list, both of which ultimately resulted in a grassroots network of interested parties and contributors. By just creating the web presence, maintaining the accounts, and disseminating the message, the Obama campaign product became viral — spreading effortlessly. Armed with record amounts of cash, an ironclad message of “change,” and an army of dedicated volunteers, Obama cruised to an historic victory. Now, the weekly presidential radio address and press briefings are broadcast via Vimeo.
People have woken up, and now realize that this interactive model can be applied to mostly anything.
For better or worse, the New Media has entered the mainstream consciousness. We have reached a critical mass in that not adapting with the New Media is to fade away into antiquity.
All of this in just a few years.
How does this relate to planning? Well, the planning process is participatory by nature, in that the most thoughtful plans are vetted among a disparate group, such as stakeholders, developers, public agencies, the press, etc. In the past, while all interest groups have had the ability to express their opinions on issues through their respective interactions, the general approach had almost always been controlled by the bureaucracy.
Now, with the ubiquity of the internet, a bottom-up approach is now tenable, and there is no reason that a critical mass of information and power should not be exploited by everyone. Even beyond this, municipalities should be tapping into the power of the new wave and promoting these invaluable to tools to their respective citizenry.
For instance, on the simplest level, a municipality could easily create a Twitter account to disseminate news instantaneously, solicit input from its residents, and engage in an ongoing two-way dialogue.
In addition, a municipality could create a simple mapping interface, linked to Twitter updates, for its residents to report broken street lights, property maintenance issues, and crime “hot spots,” among others. This could be displayed in real-time and updated when issues are rectified, thus holding department heads accountable.
Lastly, for the true urbanite, these same networks can be also used to streamline daily life, such as real-time updates of bus schedules, wait times at restaurants, and “rideshare” requests.
The interplay between internet technology, the New Media, and interactions in the planning process, a practice that I feel is ready and well suited for a dose of Web 2.0, should be both maximized and evangelized—and I will push this movement through this blog.
On the tech front, future updates will include:
I think I was born to be an urban planner. It’s true.
As a young child, I was fascinated with maps, highways, transit, and I’ve heard plenty of stories from my family about how I had favorite routes, always demanded to be the navigator, and “read” maps regularly. The reason why I write “heard plenty of stories” is because all of this occurred years before I had hit age 10, so my recollection is obviously hazy.
In NJ, one is first eligible to receive a driver’s license at age 17, and I took full advantage of my new found freedom. Typically, newly licensed drivers love to pack their friends in their cars, go on <short> road trips, and just generally experience the rush that accompanies driving for the first year. While I certainly had my share of “typical” fun my first year of driving, my idea of enjoyment was much different than most of my friends.
What did I do so differently than most of my other 17 year old friends? I drove off to esoteric municipalities in New Jersey, feeding my insatiable desire to expand my knowledge of all of those interesting places and routes that I had discovered on maps as a child. From High Point to deep in the Pine Barrens, I explored it all in my Jeep Wrangler, one hamlet, village, borough, township, and city at a time.
Now in my late 20s and going into my fourth year as an urban planner/land use consultant, I credit my passion for what I do on a day-to-day basis to my childhood interests. Even before I entered graduate school in 2003 (I received a Masters in City and Regional Planning from the Rutgers University Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy in 2005), I had real world knowledge of the functioning of municipalities that range from the smallest of hamlets to the largest of cities, all as a result of the maps, highways, and driving, as well as my experience in local politics and interning for a Congresswoman on Capitol Hill during college. The die had been cast, and all for the better.
I have decided to share my passion for urban planning with all of you. In this blog, I will write generally about various planning issues, planning as a profession, the impact of the current economic climate on our communities, and most importantly, stress to all of you that the time is ripe for a new wave of urban planning, based on the multitude of untapped internet based innovative resources available to individuals, citizen planners, professional planners, curious parties, stakeholders, and municipalities. Lastly, I will share the new wave techniques that I think are helpful to supplement the classical planning process, as well as discuss my new wave ideas.
Stay tuned, and enjoy.