Something I have been thinking about lately is the disappearance
        of public space and the culture of fear in America.  By
        disappearance of public of public space I mean the increasing
        prevalence of gated housing communities, and the lack of
        investment in public spaces like parks.  Increasingly people
        gather together publicly in private spaces like shopping malls,
        stadiums, movie theatres etc.

        I think one of the major reasons public space is being
        devalued in America is the climate of fear that is largely
        created by the media through sensationalistic reporting of crime
        on T.V.  The perception of most Americans is that crime is on
        the increase, yet most studies show that crime rates have stayed
        relatively flat since the 1960s.  Nonetheless this perception of
        rampant crime means that Americans increasingly refuse to visit public
        spaces, and in fact only feel safe in spaces patrolled by private
        security agencies.  According to a book review in Wired
        (September 1995) private security guards outnumber the police in
        the USA.

        This seems like an alarming situation to me for a number of
        reasons.  The first is that private security guards are poorly
        trained and more likely to violate civil liberties than the
        police (not that the police are any angels as the LAPD seems to
        show).  The second is that it increases the already large gap
        between the rich and poor in this country.  It means
        increasingly that certain spaces are not open to people unless
        they have the proper ID, or they conform to a communities
        standards of visual appearance so as not to arouse the
        suspicion of "neighboorhood watch."  Finally it means that
        Americans are closing their minds to diversity (at least
        economic diversity) and they are refusing to deal with people
        who are from outside their community.  In this mindset the poor
         & homeless are to be contained in certain decayed areas of
        cities and left to fend for themselves with whatever limited
        resources they have at hand.

        Before anyone accuses me of being a hopeless liberal, I have to
        say that I think big governments "solutions" to these problems
        have been for the most part failures.  Putting people on welfare
        and warehousing them in public housing projects contributes to
        the hopelessness and problems with crime that plague our inner
        cities.

        I guess what I'm looking for is some private solution that will
        allow Americans from all social classes to reclaim public spaces
        (streets, sidewalks, parks, etc). Are we just going to sit back
        and head towards a future like the one portrayed in Gibson's
        "Neuromancer" without public debate?

88 responses total.

        Note sorry for the typo in the first paragraph. People living
in Ann Arbor are lucky in that we have a fair number of well used parks
like the arb.  People in most U.S. cities are not as lucky as us by far.

I think a book that is a closer analog to the "privatised future" would be
Larry Niven's _Oath of Fealty_, which was based on having private communities
("arcologies") with private security, etc. and limited visits by outsiders.

I think the neighborhood reclamation projects tht have been happening are a
positive sign, as has the still uncommon practice of reestablishing "beat"
cops who know the neighbors, etc.

(is this the "summer of great items" or what?)

        I haven't read the Niven book, I'll have to check that out.  Thanks
for the tip.

It's interesting that you entered this today.  There was a big article about
private communities in the New York Times this morning, which had me
considering entering an item like this.  The New York Times article quoted
ads for these communities and people who live in these communities saying that
the wonderful things about them were that everything was predictable and
looked the same, and that all the people they lived with were like them, and
things like that.  As I read the article, I decided that living in one of
those communities would be about the most boring thing I could imagine.

My first impression is that there *isn't* a trend toward the disappearance
of public space in America, today, that is different from the effect of
the growth of the size of cities. Small towns still have public space
(where everyone knows everyone else, as they say), but throughout history
as city size grows, people tend to become strangers to one another (except
in associated private communities). Is there really a greater loss of
public space today than long ago, in cities of the same functional size?
(I said functional size, as the "size" effect here is probably linked to
other factors, such as transportation, etc). 

Crime rates. Do the figures show the gross number of crimes decreasing,
or is it the rate per 100,000 of the total population?  I don't know,
but I perceive that the "randomness" of violence is more pervasive
in our lives. Certainly the media sensationalize, but I wonder if
this is worse than 30 or 40 years ago? Is it possible that
crimes like car-jacking (which is almost totally random), and
home-invasion which implies the need for a fortress-like home
to be safe, are causing people to worry more about their personal
safety, and with some justification? I would like to see
a index of "viciousness" and also one of "randomness" in the 
statistics on crime.  Thanks for raising the questions, raven.

Here's a partly-baked idea.....

Machines, including cars and computers, are reducing the need for
including other people in our lives.  Cars mean we don't need trolley
and bus drivers.  Radio and television allow us to be entertained in
our homes without others being there.  My computer allows me to work at
home with no other support staff.  All of these machines are
"de-socializing" us.

What we have to do is find a way to both use the machines and still
remain social.  Grexing is one way to do this.  The question is whether
or not technology is changing faster than we can change our social
institutions.  If it is changing faster than we can adapt, then we'll
find ourselves in a "cyberpunk" situation.  I'm more hopeful, but it's
a real tenuous hope.

Re 6, as to crime rates.  I addressed this in item 75.  I can post lots
of statistics if you want, but the recent history of crime rates in the
U.S. (rate per 100,000 population) is really quite simple:

    1945-1960  Crime rates were stable at what we would now regard as
               a very low level.

    1960-1975  Crime rates increased steeply from year to year; by 1975
               rates were approximately *triple* what they were in 1960.
               Supposedly 1975 was the peak year for crime in U.S.
               history.

    1975-1992  Crime rates very gradually declined from the 1975 level,
               but not very far.  On the whole, crime rates were pretty
               stable at several times the low level of the 1950's.

    1992-1995  Crime has suddenly dropped sharply, especially in major
               cities where the crack epidemic is ebbing.  However, most
               experts are bracing for another huge increase because of
               expected growth in the teen/young adult population.

Or, to put it somewhat more graphically (simplified and not to scale):


|                                          ...
C                                       ...   ..............
r                                    ...                    ............
i                                 ...                                   ..
m                              ...
e                           ...
|                        ...
|........................
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945   1950   1955   1960   1965   1970   1975   1980   1985   1990   1995
Year

The primary sources for this are (1) death rates from homicide from the
Vital Statistics of the U.S., and (2) rates for violent crimes from the
annual FBI victimization study, in which a large cross-section of the
population is surveyed to find if they have been crime victims in the
last 12 months.

As mentioned above, there are several disturbing aspects to all this:
(1) The ratio of crimes to police officers is about 10 times what it was
in the 1950's.  (2) There is a bulge coming in the prime crime-committing
age group of 15-24.  (3) There is a strong trend of serious crime being
committed by younger and younger children, e.g., 11-13 year olds doing
armed robberies, murders, etc.

        I didn't start this as the crime item but as the dissaperance of
public space item.  I guess it does say something about the U. culture
of fear though <sigh>.  I'm watching the Twilight zone marathon now on
the Sci-Fi channel, many of the episodes mock the U.S. attitude of
conformity and fear of difference that existed in the 50s. It seems to me
with the rise of gated communites, "neighboorhood watch" etc that we are
returning to the climate of fear that characterized the U.S. in the 50s.

That was just the beginning of what I wanted to say about this, anyway.

There was an article in the New York Times (?) about movie theaters, in
the concept of "sold out" is discussed.  The current trend is to declare
the theater "sold out" (and stop selling tickets) well before every seat
is filled.  That means, for example, that if you really want to get in to
see a specific movie at a specific time, and are willing to make a scene,
you will probably be able to get in and get a seat.

But the *reason* for this trend is what the article described as a growing
public aversion to sitting next to strangers.

(I mean, people space themselves out, leaving empty seats between couples
or groups of people who came to the theater together.  People don't just
naturally fill up a theater the way they used to.)

        re # 8 Sorry if #9 seemed shrill I do appreciate the effort you
put into typing out those crime statistics.  I just get frustrated some times
that people seem so focused on crime that they are willing to overlook the
social costs involved in being constantly afraid about becoming a victim
of crime.
        I personaly was hastled by neighboorhood watch twice when I was
canvassing (door to door fundraising) for Greenpeace. On both occasions
the police were called out to stop my canvassing, despite rulings
at the Federal level (supreme court??) that canvassers are protected under
the first amendment.

I am not trying to argue about the statistics. I am trying to understand
them. danr has posted a cogent response. Boring as it may seem, this 
discussion will need to define terms before it can be constructive. Every
post here so far has evidence of sincere concern and thoughtful analysis,
but the subject is fluid and sticky at the same time. We need a statistitcian
to help. A sociologist to interpret, and a psychologist to caution us.

To some extent this is a phenomenon that drives itself.  The example that
comes most readily to mind is skybridges; connecting buildings in an
urban area decreases sidewalk traffic and tends to leave sidewalks entirely
over to the less desirable elements of society, effectively removing 
them from the area of "public space" (or at least public space that you 
would want to use.)

Re 14.  That really depends on the environment and the volume of
pedestrian traffic.  If the sidewalks were thickly congested with
people walking, and skybridges added more capacity to handle the
load, then they might well improve things (and *expand* the amount
of public space, especially if the skybridges were public streets).

The best book on this subject is "The Social Life of Small Urban
Spaces", by William H. Whyte.  Highly recommended.

Another book worth poking your nose into is "A Pattern Language".  I don't
recall all the authors.

        I did read "A Pattern Language" several years back.  The author
of the book is Christopher Alexander, and it's an *excellent* primer on
the design of community spaces.

(Can't say as I know of many/any places where Skybridges are any more
"public space" than the interior of a shopping mall is.  I also can't
name a whole lot of places outside of Manhattan where sidewalks are
*that* crowded routinely.)

(Manhattan is the main subject of Whyte's book.)

Are we discussing architecture, sociology, criminology, or none of the
above? How about we issue baseball bats to all citzens and requrie they
carry them at all times when in public places. Plus we educate our
citizens on their "duties" to each other. Perhaps shoppers with bats
would help send a message to the bad people?

I have noticed that the older generation seems scared to death. Ever since
I was in junior high, my mom has cut out articles in the paper about someone
being raped or attacked. Scare tactic... to keep me from ever going out again,
I guess. She is 52 now and still keeps the doors bolted shut whenever I come
over. I used to think she was nuts until my friends told me of their parent
acting the same way. I do fear being attacked or raped, or having my home
broken into at night.  But I'd also ahte to live my life in terror. You just
exercise good judgment and common sense, and hopefully you'll be fine.

Certainly it is possible to empathize with your statement, beeswing.
Is it not the problem to understand what "good judgment" and
"common sense" are when you need a quart of milk at 11 pm. and
the local minute-marts are traditional targets for predator?

   Trisha, I know exactly what you are talking about.  My mother
is the same way, as well as a lot of other past-65 people I know.

   Fear is a never ending thing I think; I have never lived my
life with a general sense of that, and neither does Glenda.  UI'm
trying to teach our kids this feeling too, but its hard.  Some
number of months ago, my son (Damon) was reading the sign up atop
the gas pump, where it advertised the virtues of using a credit/ATM
card to pay for gas.  It read in part "... It's safe".  That got
him to ask me about it, and the more I thought about it the more
disgusted I became.

   Fear of public places: there is a thriving industry of private
parks that sells blocks of time to campers for a yearly fee; I
don't remember the lecture we got when we were enticed out to
one of them for a "free TV", but I do remember the feeling of
fear that they played on.  The natiional parks are unsafe, but
with us, you will be cared for.  None of that rifraff about.

   Recently I've noticed monitors at Meijers and Wal-Mart,
displaying the roof mounted cameras as they pan the parking
lots.

   I think this is at least partly regional; from my trips
through the western states, it felt to me as if there were
less of this feeling there.  This is perhaps directly related
to the population density?

        Re # 21 & 23  This is the sort of thing I am talking about, thanks
to both of you for putting it so clearly. STeve I did notice less fear of
public spaces when I lived in San Francisco.  On the other hand LA seems to
be in the vangaurd of this increasing fear of public spaces.  I think
it's more of a function of population density or perhaps the trust a region
places in the fear mongering media.

I think it is about the loss of community.  When I step outside my apartment,
I am immediately surrounded by strangers.  Strangers are scary.  Younger
people have adapted a wee bit better to living in a world of strangers than
older people have.

I plan, once I have beaten my apartment into some civilized shape, to invite
the folks in the neighbor over for an afternoon snack, as a chance to get to
know them in a civilized manner.  I think it possible that making a small
effort to cultivate a bit of a sense of community can make everyone feel
better.

   Thats a neat idea, Jan.  I just hope that you'll get some people to
come by.

I did that once - a long time ago. Invited acquaintances and the
neighbors. No one showed up. What a downer - but I am still not paranoid.

A neighborhood get-together is a wonderful thing to do. A suggestion:
do a little preparation before you extend the actual invitation, or
at least include some information about yourself, and your purpose,
when you extend the invitation. As noted, people can be a little
leary of strangers, even wonderful strangers. Perhaps a little
bio or something similar delivered to the neighbors before the
event would be wise? <adbarr gives up animals and moves to advertising>.

        <This item now linked to the cyberpunk conf.  Type j. cyber at
        the next Ok: prompt>

I usually try to plan ahead so I don't have to make the milk run at 11 p.m.
When I was 18/19, I'd go to the grocery store alone at 3 a.m. (I'm very much
of a night person). I quit doing that after I had a nightmare of being
attacked in its parking lot... a very realistic nightmare, the kind where you
wake up and think it really happened. There was a murder close to where I
live. More than one murder in fact. But my roommate and I are planning to move
closer to school/work anyway soon. I've had karate and I have pepper spray
(a gift from mom!) but I always wonder if I'd freeze up if someone were to
approach me.

Oh, my God we're out of milk!
It's the middle of the night and we're out of milk!
The grocery store is four blocks away.
Good luck mary, don't get killed.
Don't get killed, don't get killed.
That's the main thing, Don't get killed.
Run real fast down the middle of the street.
I love you mary, don't get killed.

  (Did you just make that up or is that a popular song?)

I think the best way to meet people, where ever it is that you call home,
is to start out by just giving them a friendly, sincere, greeting when you
happen to meet them.  With time the greetings will get longer and after a 
while conversation will come.  Remember that most people live in fear of
strangers.  We are taught that in Safery Town, by our parents and peers
and the media and police pound it into us every chance they get.  
 
There is an older man (70 plus) who walks around our block every day.  He
has a friendly word, smile and piece of advice for everyone he meets.
When the kids see him coming they run out to meet him.  Though we have
never talked with him for more than five minutes, we trust him, consider
him our friend and watch out for his well being.  That also goes pretty
much for every one else in the neighborhood too.  You can bet he's well   
looked after on his walks and has plenty of folks to talk with.

It's a song by Andy Breckman, one of my favorite singers of odd songs.

 
        Part of the problem is that while the world is getting smaller, so are
the roles that people play in that world.  The concept of the community itself
seems to be rapidly disappearing, as the scope of that community increases
and the lines between community and outsiders blur.  

        It's even happening on the 'net.  What was once a last bastion of the
true dedicated hobbyist - expensive to set up, and difficult to use - has
become increasingly available to the public, and while this also opens it up
to many worthwhile people who otherwise would never have even known about it,
it also opens it up to a much more vocal and numerous body of people who seem
to be the living equivalent of line noise.

"living equivalent of line noise" - nice phrase. Another rcurl? <no, no!>
Jazz, this is well said, but there seems to be a counter movement toward
"tribalisim" with the communities becoming smaller and more tightly
integrated, with less concern for the outside world. Unless I do not
understand your post. Tribalisim implies walls against the rest of the
culture in which the tribalists exist. Racial and ethnic divisions
seem, to some, to becoming stronger.  Question, as people become
more bound to "their" community/tribe/religion/race do they become
more willing to demonize all others?  Why?

        re # 36  I like your last question there.  I personally think one
can be triabalist and open to other people.  I think *everyone* in western
industralized cultures belongs to a subculture whether they are willing
to admit it or not.  This is due to the fact that post/modern/industrial
society is too large and complex for anyone to get a full grasp of what's
happening in it.  I think the best we can do is be open & unafraid of
people coming from different paradigms/backgrounds, while expecting people
to cling to their fear of others especialy as the world changes ever more
rapidly.  Most people unfournatuly fear change and will tend to retreat
into religious/cultural/socioeconomic backgrounds rather than face the new
global society IMHO.

Yes, raven. Our job is to see that your first sentence is reality.

Well, big OOPS. SECOND Sentence. Sorry.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss