John Gilbert is a leading authority on sustainable design in Scotland. He likes Danish furniture.

The concept of 'defensible space' is now well understood. It is clear that there is a hierarchy of spaces between the individual's personal world and the public realm.
'Secured by Design' is now a requirement for nearly all social housing projects, but its premise lies in a belief that strangers are a threat, rather than an asset. Certain security measures simply have the effect of increasing our perception that crime is on the increase, raising our 'fear of crime' and making the environment seem unoccupied and unsafe.
How can we create environments that encourage trust between individuals? 

Defensible Space?

The appeal of 'defensible space' is that it puts forward what appears to be a straightforward 'common sense' solution to crime. It proposes that crime can be 'designed out'.
'Defensible space' made some sense as a reaction against modernist 1960s layouts, where the public areas were ill-defined by the surrounding housing, but today it seems to produce isolated, often empty enclaves which promote fear rather than safety.

Secured by design, designed by police?

Places like cul-de-sacs and gated communities assume that strangers are not welcome, yet safety of place comes with the reasurance that comes with busy spaces, inhabited by strangers and where you are free to wander. Secured by Design is the accreditation offered by the police, which nearly every Housing Association and registered social landlord (RSL) will ask for because it is meant to bring some kind of piece of mind to housing providers. This leaves us in the strange position of having our buildings and spaces designed by the police, rather than the architects we appoint to interpret the vision of a community.

Advocates of Secured by Design like to see high lighting levels, secure fences, car parks which look like parade grounds, a lack of vegetation as well as high security locks, smaller windows and CCTV systems. Some designs may tick all the right boxes but they don't produce welcoming places or friendly environments.
The role of strangers in our streets is central because it determines the level of trust in such places. Most of this trust is encouraged through social interactions, where people meet when buying their paper, at the bus stop or just nodding to a neighbour. The sum of these public contacts at a local level should be encouraged, as the trust it produces is what reduces the fear of crime. Instead we are being blindly driven to create environments which discourage strangers and diversity, where people retreat inside their homes, shutter up their shops and rely more on the police than each other. The more we legislate for good behaviour, the less likely we are to find it occurring naturally. CCTV is a case in point. Britain has an estimated 4.2 million cameras, more than the whole of Europe put together.

Does CCTV make places safer?

Most people think that CCTV will make places safer, but a study by criminologist Jason Ditton for the Scottish Office of CCTV in Glasgow found that recorded crime actually increased after CCTV had been installed. In fact CCTV does not make people feel safer, it may actually remove responsibility from strangers who might otherwise contribute to the safety of a street. This is the point that Anna Minton makes in her book 'Ground Control':

"Giving up responsibility for personal safety is one aspect of the abdication of control over surroundings that comes with CCTV. In Britain, we can leave the problem to a CCTV operator or a security guard. In the rest of continental Europe, where the culture of CCTV and security is less well developed, people are more likely to look out for each other."

Children wear hoods because of CCTV cameras. 'Hoodies' induce a fear of crime. Trust needs to be encouraged.

Why is it that in Scandinavian countries, there is a much higher level of trust amongst strangers and no CCTV? Their more equal society helps, but also their emphasis on family support for the young, the early socialising of children and the provision of places for children to play. This tradition of group work and social responsibility failed to take hold in Britain, instead we spend more money on ASBOs rather than on youth services.
The public environment in Denmark would get few credits for Secured by Design status. Hedges around car parks abound. Schools are open and used by the community. Lighting levels are low. The environmental quality encourages street activity with places to meet and pass the time.  Lanes and routes which encourage people to walk or cycle and generally use the spaces between buildings.

Let's build trust in our environments

Rather than provide designs where the emphasis is on 'designing out crime', let us have environments and social policies which encourage trust, where people are encouraged to use spaces and where strangers are encouraged to be participants in making places safe and not seen as a threat. Small interventions on a human scale can be more effective than grandiose 'masterplans' which seek to maximise the value of property and land. Jan Gehl, the Danish urbanist, speaks of how urban places are used and distinguishes between the functional requirements and those optional and social activities that occur as a result of how the space between buildings is organised.

Many new housing developments, constrained by regulations set by planning departments, roads engineers and Secured by Design can simply end up looking lifeless and dull. No wonder that children prefer to stay inside and watch television or play their Xboxes. When there are few children playing, few people sitting outside and few walking by, there is not much to see. The street becomes a negative place. For example, we know that the distance between the front door of a house and the street which is best to encourage social contact whilst retaining personal privacy is about 3.5 metres, yet planning requirements often dictate that a minimum front garden width should be 5 metres (ostensibly this simply encourages the placing of a car in the front garden)

The process of reducing the number of people and events on our streets increases with the dominance of the car. When the street has no activity it becomes a no-man's land where nobody wants to be. Once crime, or the fear of crime predominates, everyone stays away from the street and the vicious circle is complete.

We should be designing our housing layouts and urban spaces to encourage social contact and neighbourliness. The informal day to day contacts which encourage street activity help to reduce the fear of crime and should then lead to more stable and enjoyable places.

References:
Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space by Jan Gehl (Danis Architectural Press 2006)
Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City by Anna Minton (Penguin Books 2009