Chief Superintendent Michael Lehmann explains why architecture plays an important role when it comes to preventing crime.
If Michael Lehmann had one wish, he would wish to be in every single meeting room where new projects are discussed during the usual land-use planning procedures. There he would talk about how the entrances to buildings should be designed, the arrangement of sidewalks, the positioning of underground parking garages and their lighting. And very importantly: visual axes and visual connections. Lehmann is a chief inspector at the Hamburg State Office of Criminal Investigation. He is responsible for the security of residents in the criminal investigation department. His specialty: urban development. A relatively young department in the police structure there, but one that is nonetheless of enormous importance to Lehmann: “If the police can get involved in the right place in the urban planning process, then the end result can be a better quality of life for people.”
Quality of life instead of security
The chief inspector chooses his words carefully: “The usual concept of security is too narrow. A person’s subjective perception is made up of many points. Even minor ‘misdemeanors’, such as an obviously abandoned bicycle or speeding cars in residential areas, can make people feel uncomfortable.” Crime prevention therefore begins – as the term suggests – before criminal behavior even arises. The police officers responsible not only prevent break-ins, but also prevent disorder in the broadest sense.
When it comes to crime prevention, architecture plays an important role for Lehmann: “Buildings definitely have an influence on the structure of crime.” For the crime consultant, as he calls himself, architecture can reinforce or inhibit deviant behavior in this sense. “Which doesn’t mean that architects have to fear that murder and homicide will prevail later if they plan their building project in this or that way now,” he adds. For Lehmann, architects are very important cogs in the overall structure. But of course they do not bear full responsibility for the safety of a neighborhood, he stresses.
In addition to Hamburg, numerous other police departments and state criminal investigation offices have the topic of urban crime prevention on their radar. There are countless guidelines on what safe living can look like – and projects such as the “Socially Integrative City” in North Rhine-Westphalia or the Safety Partnership in Urban Development in Lower Saxony, which even awards a quality seal for safe living. Prevention is currently high on the agenda in politics, administration and the police. Numerous institutions and research facilities are working on crime prevention in cities. They all speak of people’s basic need for security. Professor Herbert Schubert is a social scientist at the TH Cologne, where he researches urban security aspects: “Although the built city makes a significant contribution to the residents’ sense of security, it is not solely responsible for this.”
Around 40 years ago, people saw things very differently. In 1972, the US American Oscar Newman developed the concept of “defensible space” – the use of architecture to promote security. “At that time, large housing estates in particular were branded as a cause of crime. “That definitely went too far,” says Schubert. The “Broken Windows” theory from 1982 follows a similar line and states that even one broken window can lead to the neglect of entire neighborhoods. In the 1990s, the focus shifted to creating positive spaces that were intended to convey a sense of security. Together with architects, Schubert drew up a checklist that sets out specific criteria for creating security. “This should not be seen as a set of rules, but as recommendations,” he emphasizes. The criteria that buildings should fulfill in order to create a sense of security revolve primarily around the concept of order. The “artifacts” – the buildings – should offer legibility and orientation, be clearly defined in terms of design, unambiguously arranged and clearly laid out. In addition, the access conditions of entrances and the territorial boundaries between private/semi-public/public should be clearly defined.
Review the design
“These points can help you to ask yourself test questions during the planning process and check your own design for security aspects,” says Schubert. Such questions could be as follows: How is the orientation in the room? Is signage necessary? Are the usage functions arranged in such a way that they contribute to revitalization? “It doesn’t have to look like the Berlin Wall,” emphasizes the social scientist. On the contrary: he describes building projects that meet these criteria and are also aesthetically pleasing as intelligent architecture.
It is also clear to Schubert that architects cannot be held responsible for the security of a neighborhood. For him, other dimensions influence the safety perception of areas. These include the urban planning component with traffic connections and the arrangement of buildings, the technical equipment, the management of an outdoor space or social cohesion: “Architecture can only have a limited influence and provide indications. This can result in a high degree of responsibility – but that is not the rule.” Chief Inspector Lehmann would love to take on this responsibility. Unfortunately, however, his wish does not often come true: “The police can comment on security aspects and hope that architects have the issue on their radar,” says Lehmann, “but there is no security law that would make this mandatory.
Therefore, there is also no obligation for developers and investors to involve the police. “However, architects are already doing a lot of things right. Modern construction methods are often free and open so that, for example, social control is in place and residents can take responsibility,” concludes Lehmann. After all, this is the very essence of security: A sense of responsibility and social control by people who fill places with life.
