Creating safe and inclusive neighbourhoods

Keeping Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) away from Alberta Avenue

I have spent the last year getting to know the Alberta Avenue area and the people who live here. I’m amazed at how safe I feel here compared to my previous neighbourhood in Saanich, BC.

Given my past experiences of being harassed and assaulted, I feel safest when I’m connected to people in my neighbourhood. I want people nearby who are looking out for each other, care about each other, and want to help. 

In 14 years of living in Saanich I only knew the people who lived right next to me. In just one year of living in the Alberta Avenue area, I’ve met everyone who lives on my block. When I’m out walking I often have casual conversations with other people sitting on their porches, on the grass, or on benches.

My Saanich neighbourhood had a similar income mix to Alberta Avenue. Many people couldn’t afford a car and, like me, relied on the bus. But the Saanich neighbourhood was designed for people with cars. My block had no sidewalks, so few people walked by. There were no benches for people to sit on and watch the world go by. And there weren’t many free public spaces where people could gather and get to know each other.

When I moved here, I immediately noticed how many benches are on 118 Avenue. On residential streets, many people sit on grassy boulevards chatting with friends or taking a nap. I was intrigued. I have a chronic illness and tire easily. Sometimes when I’m walking I need to sit or lay down. But in my old neighbourhood, anyone sitting down in a public space was treated as a nuisance or a threat. Most stores with patios were gated or had signs saying, “No sitting except for customers.” Here, people sitting or laying down are still part of the neighbourhood.

Community-building benches and tables outside Paraiso Tropical, 9136 118 Ave. | Trish Pal. 

To help me understand the difference between the two cities, I spoke with writer and researcher Stephen Harrison. His blog Needs More Spikes explores how the theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has been taken up by police and urban planners to design neighbourhoods to shape people’s behaviour. Stephen also pointed me to the work of Cara Chellew, a public space researcher in Toronto. Much of the information in this article comes from these two sources.

What is CPTED?

Defensive architecture isn’t new: physical barriers like walls, drawbridges, and moats have been used for centuries to keep out groups of people. Today, common CPTED measures used across North America include:

• Physical barriers like fences or gates to control people’s access. 

• Removing features that make a space pleasant to be in: like benches, water fountains, trees, and public bathrooms

• Using deterrents like harsh lighting, loud music, sharp rocks, or uncomfortable seating to make it unpleasant to be in a space for a long time.

• Promoting surveillance through cameras or Neighbourhood Watch programs

In the early 1970s, criminologist C. Ray Jeffery’s book Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and architect Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design laid the groundwork for CPTED today. They focused on street crime in low-income neighbourhoods in Oakland and New York. They claimed crime happened in these areas because residents didn’t feel sufficient ownership of the space to defend their territory. 

Early advocates of CPTED suggested fixing broken windows, cleaning graffiti, and removing litter to show would-be criminals that people cared about the space and were therefore prepared to defend it. They suggested territoriality could be enhanced through physical barriers and surveillance (like removing trees to unblock sightlines). Jeffery hoped eventually police would be involved in architecture planning, to create buildings designed for territoriality and surveillance.

Does CPTED make our neighbourhoods safer?

“Crime prevention through environmental design” sounds good in theory. We all want to be safe, and it’s empowering to consider what we can proactively do to improve our communities. Where there are real physical risks, barriers are protective — a fenced dog park lets dogs play without running into traffic; caution tape lets people know about a trip hazard. 

But CPTED measures aren’t about mitigating the physical risks in our neighbourhood. They position people as threats to each other and try to discourage people from connecting. Disconnection makes our neighbourhoods less enjoyable and less safe. For this reason, some advocates say CPTED should instead be called “hostile architecture,” which more accurately describes its impacts.

CPTED weakens neighbourhood cohesion. It’s often framed as "taking back our streets” and asserting dominance. It encourages people to be vigilantes and police each other. When we put money into unnecessary high tech security measures, tall spiked fences, hiring security guards, and increasing policing, we live in a bunker mentality and divert resources from creating safer spaces for everyone. I want to live in a neighbourhood with a culture of friendliness, respect, and inclusion, rather than in one with a siege mentality.

Surveillance promoted by CPTED is also unhelpful. Watching out for each other comes from a place of care. Watching each other is rooted in fear and suspicion.

Fundamentally, CPTED misdirects our communities to worry about danger from strangers. But we are much more likely to experience violence from people we know at home, at workplace, at school, or in our peer group. In the past year, Edmonton Police Service investigated 8,594 incidents of family violence, compared to 688 instances of robbery. 

Bus shelter on 118 Avenue near 89 Street. Bars in the middle of seats are designed to prevent people from laying down to rest. The seating is unworkable for people with bigger bodies. The spiked fence right behind also discourages people from laying down on the grass behind the bus shelter. | Trish Pal.

Is CPTED discriminatory?

From its beginnings, CPTED has promoted stereotypes that people with low incomes are inherently dangerous. It doesn’t seek to address social inequities or make sure everyone has a safe place to live and socialize — it just tries to control people’s movement.

In a society that racially and socially profiles people, surveillance components of CPTED increase violence against Black and Indigenous people who are visibly poor. 

Public space design affects everyone, but it particularly impacts unhoused people who live 24/7 in public space. Many modern CPTED measures are designed to make it hard for people to sleep or rest in public. These aren’t crimes and don’t threaten anyone’s safety. 

Some anti-poor hostile architecture is already happening in the Alberta Avenue area.

Bench on the corner of 118 Avenue and 87 Street, with a bar in the middle to prevent someone from comfortably laying down. | Joshua Goldberg.

What can Edmonton learn from Saanich?

In the 1980s, Saanich police persuaded the city government to require CPTED measures for new buildings. Under current requirements, building or rezoning permit applications must include a statement on how the plan encourages CPTED. 

The disconnect from my neighbours when I lived in Saanich wasn’t a fluke: decades of deliberate architecture and urban planning decisions helped create that disconnect.

In Edmonton, CPTED hasn’t yet gained as much traction as in Saanich. Here, police and the city promote it through educational workshops, but it’s not required for new builds. We have an opportunity to stop CPTED from spreading and support inclusive neighbourhoods instead.

The Alberta Avenue neighbourhood has many examples of positive design. Alberta Avenue Park & Playground is a highlight for our household. The park is designed to encourage people to stay and interact with each other, with features like a chess table and winter firepits. As a person with disabilities, I especially appreciate the seating options for different kinds of bodies, a ramped play area for kids, a public bathroom, and a water fountain accessible to people in wheelchairs.

Amenities at Alberta Avenue Park promote public interaction and create enjoyable space for everyone. | Trish Pal.

It’s important to speak up and let our city government, community leagues, business owners, and neighbours know we want public spaces in our neighbourhoods that promote social connection. We can also speak up against CPTED and explain why it makes our communities less inclusive and safe.

When we see hostile architecture, we can ask for it to be replaced. We can contact Edmonton Transit Service to ask them to stop using benches with bars in the middle, and to replace them with seating that is better for more kinds of bodies and allow people to stretch out their legs or lay down. 

We can be friendly in our neighbourhoods. We can make a point of saying hello, checking on our unhoused and housed neighbours to see if they need anything, and organizing block parties or other chances for people to get acquainted. In our homes, we can consider what security measures are reasonable and what might be unnecessary barriers to interaction. We can ask our neighbours what helps them feel safe, and encourage conversations about building welcoming spaces.

We can work together to build the connected neighbourhood and world that we want and need.