I picked this up from one of the USENET groups. The writer poses an
interesting question.
***
From: duffells@xxxxxxxxxxx
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Safety in public spaces, cars v people
Date: 6 Oct 94 15:06:32 NZDT
Organization: Christchurch City Council, New Zealand.
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <1994Oct6.150632.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bilbo.ccc.govt.nz
I'd like to get some comments/information on the issue of whether
cars or people contribute to the safety of public urban spaces. This
is the situation......
I'm a Planner with Christchurch City Council, in New Zealand. We
currently have a proposal to redevelop our Cathedral Square, which is
a space of about 1.5 hectares with (not surprisingly!) a large
cathedral in the middle. Currently, there are roads around 3 sides of
the Square, and it is on 2 of these that most of the area's retail
activity takes place. One corner in particular has attracted retail
activity that many see as less than desirable - video parlours etc.
The Council's current favoured plan gets rid of the roads on all but
one side, and this would be for public transport only. The rest
of the Square would be developed as a pedestrain space, with lawns,
cafes and retail.
However, this has greatly upset the retailers of the are, who claim
that eliminating traffic would kill their businesses. They also
believe that it will become more dangerous without the 'informal
surveillance' provided by passing cars. The Council argues the
opposite point - that eliminating the cars will create a more
people-friendly place, where the pedestrians will provide the
surveillance.
It's now got to the point where we are requiring some good
solid evidence to support either point. I would be very
interested in locating any studies and research relating to
this, in particular whether passing traffic is an effective
means of 'public surveillance', especially at night. We
already have quite a lot of information on the effects of road
closure on retail activity, so I'd appreciate some that relates
specifically to safety issues.
Please e-mail me in preference to posting here, my reception
of this group is a little patchy. (Or do both!)
Thanks very much
Sarah Duffell
DUFFELLS@xxxxxxxxxxx
============================================================
David Sucher... Seattle, Washington
author...CITY COMFORTS: How to Build an Urban Village
ISBN # 0-9642680-0-0
available November, '94
============================================================
'City comforts' are the small and seemingly minor details that makes city
life pleasant. In over 210 photos and sketches CITY COMFORTS shows a wide
range of them. CITY COMFORTS tells us how to look at the city as a series
of details to create an 'urban village,' a place where you can walk to the
grocery and where they know your name, a place where neighbors recognize
each other and smile hello but where the economy is diverse and the
opportunities bountiful.
============================================================
interesting question.
***
From: duffells@xxxxxxxxxxx
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban
Subject: Safety in public spaces, cars v people
Date: 6 Oct 94 15:06:32 NZDT
Organization: Christchurch City Council, New Zealand.
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <1994Oct6.150632.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bilbo.ccc.govt.nz
I'd like to get some comments/information on the issue of whether
cars or people contribute to the safety of public urban spaces. This
is the situation......
I'm a Planner with Christchurch City Council, in New Zealand. We
currently have a proposal to redevelop our Cathedral Square, which is
a space of about 1.5 hectares with (not surprisingly!) a large
cathedral in the middle. Currently, there are roads around 3 sides of
the Square, and it is on 2 of these that most of the area's retail
activity takes place. One corner in particular has attracted retail
activity that many see as less than desirable - video parlours etc.
The Council's current favoured plan gets rid of the roads on all but
one side, and this would be for public transport only. The rest
of the Square would be developed as a pedestrain space, with lawns,
cafes and retail.
However, this has greatly upset the retailers of the are, who claim
that eliminating traffic would kill their businesses. They also
believe that it will become more dangerous without the 'informal
surveillance' provided by passing cars. The Council argues the
opposite point - that eliminating the cars will create a more
people-friendly place, where the pedestrians will provide the
surveillance.
It's now got to the point where we are requiring some good
solid evidence to support either point. I would be very
interested in locating any studies and research relating to
this, in particular whether passing traffic is an effective
means of 'public surveillance', especially at night. We
already have quite a lot of information on the effects of road
closure on retail activity, so I'd appreciate some that relates
specifically to safety issues.
Please e-mail me in preference to posting here, my reception
of this group is a little patchy. (Or do both!)
Thanks very much
Sarah Duffell
DUFFELLS@xxxxxxxxxxx
============================================================
David Sucher... Seattle, Washington
author...CITY COMFORTS: How to Build an Urban Village
ISBN # 0-9642680-0-0
available November, '94
============================================================
'City comforts' are the small and seemingly minor details that makes city
life pleasant. In over 210 photos and sketches CITY COMFORTS shows a wide
range of them. CITY COMFORTS tells us how to look at the city as a series
of details to create an 'urban village,' a place where you can walk to the
grocery and where they know your name, a place where neighbors recognize
each other and smile hello but where the economy is diverse and the
opportunities bountiful.
============================================================