Design Out Crime? Using Practice-based Models of the Design Process
- PDF / 228,353 Bytes
- 20 Pages / 595 x 842 pts (A4) Page_size
- 11 Downloads / 198 Views
Design Out Crime? Using Practice-based Models of the Design Process Lorraine Gamman and Tim Pascoe1 This paper compares and contrasts design models associated with ‘design against crime’ and ‘crime prevention through environmental design’, so that professionals can better understand, as well as use, each other’s methodologies and practices. It teases out the differences between the models of design linked to crime prevention for consumer markets, on the one hand, and on the other for social housing and public space, where building regulations and other public-sector drivers have some sway. The paper is divided into two sections, both of which question what is meant when the word ‘design’ is used in practice by these different methodologies. Key Words: Design Against Crime; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; design models; design process; situational Design against crime as a practice-based research methodology? Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design (CSM) has been at the cutting edge of developing ‘design against crime’ (DAC). It has attracted significant funding partners, and has delivered design resources (Gamman, 2001) and design benchmarks2 aimed at fighting crime. The CSM DAC methodology is different from other anti-crime projects in that it is concerned with practicebased research3 which aims to show people, as well as tell them, how to ‘design out’ crime. The approach is linked to the creation of case studies or other visual resource material, and of innovative commercial prototypes or actual products. These have potential to be tested for their effectiveness in crime reduction via the commercial marketplace, or under test conditions. Examples of the commercial approach are the ‘Karrysafe’ range of anti-theft bags and accessories, and the ‘Stop Thief’ furniture research projects, images of which are shown in Figures 1 and 2 and which have been designed to counter common techniques of bag theft. Figure 1. Karrysafe anti-theft designs4
Photo: Andrew Hobbs
Figure 2. (i) Stop Thief chairs and (ii) new chair design for the All Bar One chain5
Photos: Marcus Willcocks
Copyright © 2004 Perpetuity Press Ltd
37
Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 2004, 6 (4), 37–56
Both projects are linked to commercial outcomes and relate to the designing-out of opportunities for crime and to other ideas emanating from ‘situational crime prevention’ (Clarke, 1992). They share some of the common theories that support the ‘crime prevention through environmental design’ (CPTED) approach, such as ‘opportunity reduction’, or address what Felson (1998) has called the ‘crime triangle’. In brief, the theory suggests that for a crime to occur a target, an offender and a context are needed, and a capable ‘guardian’ (or lack of one) can be significant. If the designer can prevent an object or place being targeted by manipulating opportunities via design planning and design detail, it is possible to prevent the crime occurring. DAC deals with products, CPTED with places. DAC research at CSM
Data Loading...
