ABSTRACT

Newman’s research reviewed crime records for 100 of the projects, sorting them by building height and the number of apartments contained within each. Based on his statistical analyses, which have been criticised on a number of methodological grounds (Mawby, 1977; Mayhew, 1979), he concluded that building height and project size were factors in the occurrence of crime in that high-rise housing (which he defined as anything over 7 storeys) and larger projects (defined as larger than 1,000 units) were more likely venues of crime and vandalism than low-rise, smaller projects. For comparative purposes, he also focused on a number of specific projects, including some that were not within the Housing Authority sample. He compared, for example, Brownsville and Van Dyke (height differences), Breukelen and Pruitt-Igoe (site design, interior corridors, surveillance features and entry areas), Sarah Lawrence College’s new and old dormitories (corridor and entrance design), Bronxdale Houses and Highbridge Gardens (lobby design and surveillance), Stapleton Homes and Columbus Towers (interior, single loaded corridors and surveillance), among others. This site-specific research bolstered his general conclusions as to now familiar defensible space principles based on territoriality, surveillance, image, and the juxtaposition of ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ activity areas. He concluded that low-rise, smaller buildings were less likely crime venues than large, impersonal towers, and that those buildings and sites that provided design features that increased possibilities for resident territoriality and surveillance were generally safer than buildings and sites that did not.