The aim of this short paper is to show how the spatial layout of neighbourhoods affect the behaviour of its dwellers. An area's social and spatial composition influences anti-social behaviour in built environments. However, social conditions can overrule spatial ones. A more adequate understanding of the relationship between an area's social and spatial composition requires studying a set of dwelling areas with and without social problems. For an according, exemplary investigation, four different types of dwelling areas were analysed. Two pre-War dwelling areas were chosen - one with large social problems (Ondiep in Utrecht) and one without (Hof van Delft in Delft). Similarly, two post-War urban areas were chosen - one with large social problems (Oosterwei in Gouda) and one without (Ommoord in Rotterdam). Static snapshots were taken in all four areas, during a whole day and evening on a week day and on a weekend day. The results were correlated with the following spatial configurative analyses: all-lines analyses and segment based angular analyses (in order to identify the main routes through cities). As it turns out, dwelling areas with a topological deep structure on their street net contribute to a separation of space use of various types of users. Group of youngsters tend to gather together in streets one topological step away from main streets or shopping centres with "blind" walls. The higher concentration of low income groups and immigrants, the larger the anti-social behaviour problems are in the dwelling areas in terms of vandalism and group forming of youngsters. Dwelling areas without main routes through them lacks a natural input of through travellers in which function as a social control for an area. Public spaces with low degree of inter-visibility of neighbours and few doors connected to streets affect an area’s degree of safety and street life. In Ondiep, the unsafest part is the street with few dwelling entrances connected to it. Likewise, inter-visibility is reduced by the way all inhabitants have their curtains closed most part of the time. As this initial investigation suggests, streets with high degree of inter-visibility and adjacent to main routes can contribute to create safe and vital dwelling areas.
[1]
Jan Gehl,et al.
Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space
,
2003
.
[2]
Frank Emspak,et al.
A Community of Interest
,
1998
.
[3]
David Banister,et al.
Configurational Modelling of Urban Movement Networks
,
1998
.
[4]
K. Pease,et al.
Secure foundations : key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety
,
2000
.
[5]
J. Jacobs.
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
,
1962
.
[6]
Alan Penn,et al.
Natural Movement: Or, Configuration and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement
,
1993
.
[7]
Bill Hillier,et al.
Space is the machine
,
1996
.
[8]
A. Van Nes,et al.
Space and crime in Dutch built environments: Macro and micro scale spatial conditions for residential burglaries and thefts from cars
,
2007
.
[9]
Wrg Hillier,et al.
Crime and urban layout: the need for evidence
,
2000
.
[10]
O. Newman,et al.
Defensible Space; Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.
,
1973
.
[11]
Bill Hillier,et al.
The social logic of space: Contents
,
1984
.
[12]
Simon Chih-Feng Shu.
Housing layout and crime vulnerability
,
2000
.
[13]
Barry Poyner,et al.
Design Against Crime: Beyond Defensible Space
,
1983
.