Justin Auciello: The New Wave Planner

CPTED will change your community. Just ask Sarasota.

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:

Consensus building within the community;
Efficient teamwork between planning and law enforcement professionals;
Creating incentives for developers to build in accordance with CPTED techniques;
Reducing crime, but not through target-hardening (i.e. security fences, unattractive metal bars placed on windows, etc.); rather, through softer design techniques;
Minimizing exposure to premise liability lawsuits;
Appeasing politicians via a low-cost, highly effective solution; and,
Most importantly, redesigning a district where people can simply walk around at night and not be worried about victimization.

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: