Eyes on the Street

Steven Weissman and Juliet Lamont talked about reducing the downtown crime rate by designing buildings and storefronts in a way that put more “eyes on the street.” I wanted to know more about the approach to crime reduction.

The “eyes on the street” theory was developed by Jane Jacobs in her 1961 book The Death and Life Great American Cities. The book critiqued architectural trends that prevented residents from keeping their eyes on the street and reducing the number of street users.[1] Jacob and her contemporaries were met with criticism by people who felt neighborhood crime was caused mainly by social processes (like area reputations, child density, etc.) rather than architecture.[2]

I had a difficult time finding studies that directly tested Jacobs’ theory that physical diversity in cities encourages neighbors to relate to each other and discourages crime.[3] The one quantitative study I could find was conducted in Toronto and compared neighborhood physical characteristics with crime statistics. The researchers examined Jacobs’ four independent variables of physical diversity: (1) a mixture of land uses, (2) a concentration of uses, and (3) a mixture of old and new buildings, and (4) short blocks.[4] The data supported the first part of Jacobs’ thesis: there was a relationship between physical diversity and neighbor contact, lower rates of juvenile delinquency, and fewer incidents reported by residents. However, no relationship was found between neighbor contact and resident-reported crime.[5] I note that this article did cite a number of studies, mainly from the 1970s, that attempted to document the link between physical environment and social behavior, but none applied to directly to the “eyes on the street” theory.

A qualitative study from the UK tested the “eyes on the street” hypothesis as it applies to the impact of housing located over stores on crime, vandalism, and anti-social behavior. The researchers relied on interviews with police, property owners and managers of commercial operations, residents, insurers and housing associations. They found a widespread belief that homes located over retail had the potential to reduce crime because the residents would provide additional eyes and ears. They also found from discussions with young offenders that evidence of occupation of the space over stores can discourage burglary and street crime. Additionally, virtually all of the residents interviewed said they would report suspicious behavior. However, when faced with a specific incident, many people did not take action, and of the residents who had seen something, only 35% had told someone.[6]

The theory by having more “eyes on the street” to discourage criminal activity and increase reports of crime intuitively makes sense. However, given the tendency of people to over-estimate their willingness to report crime, I would like to see documentation showing that implementation of specific strategies to increase the amount of eyes on the street is linked actual reductions in criminal incidents.

[1] Paul Ekblom, Less Crime, by Design, 539 Annals of the Am. Acad. of Pol. and Soc. Sci. 114, 117 (1995).
[2] Id.
[3] E.P. Fowler, Street Management and City Design, 66 Soc. Forces 365, 367 (1987).
[4] Id. at 367-68.
[5] Id. at 381.
[6] Barry Goodchild, Oliver Chamberlain, Karl Dalgleish and Bob Lawrence, Crime and the Homefront: The Impact on Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour of Housing People in Town and City Centres, York Publishing Services 1997, available at http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/H203.asp.