This document discusses the relationship between architects, urban design, and societal control. It begins by exploring how public spaces can reflect and promote societal ideologies. The concept of "defensible space" is introduced, where space is designed to be under the control of residents. Central Park and Battery Park in New York are analyzed in terms of defensible space principles. Central Park fails to define territorial control or limit vulnerability, while Battery Park integrates surveillance and limits threats. Independence Square in Kiev is also discussed, noting how its surrounding buildings allow natural surveillance of the civic space. In summary, the document examines how design of public spaces can influence social behavior and control urban environments.

1. DIRECTING SOCIETY:
DEFENSIBLE SPACE AND SPATIAL MANIPULATION IN
THE MODERN CITY
CULIN THOMPSON – ARCH 600 – DIAZ

2. THOMPSON 2
1.
PREFACE
In today’s society, one begins to look at their personal life without exploration or
consideration of their surrounding context and built environment – we simply traverse
though the built city on our course of movement to our final destination. Focused on
achieving and accomplishing set schedules and agendas, society has further adopted
set standards of what one must achieve and focus on in an effort to conform and
maintain a ‘normal’ image within the social, political, and economic network of societal
standards.
In this essay, Directing Society begins to explore how defensible space and its
interaction with spatial manipulation of civic space, semi-public space, and private
space can begin to define the relationships between urban life, perception of one’s
environment, crime, and these societal standards of the community and unique network
occupying these zones. Architects hold themselves to a higher role in society in the
aspect that they view themselves as responsible for improving the built environment of
cities and spaces. While the typical architect or architecture student may discuss this
relationship of the architect and society by the desire to build ‘grand public buildings’ or
‘beautiful and inspiring structures,’ the role of the architect extends much further than
the physical confines of a site.
In both the historical city and the modern city, the public square or city market
serves as a critical element of urban design. Throughout history, this square has been

3. THOMPSON 3
utilized for economic, social, and political movements and innovations ranging from
political coups to food markets for urban farming. These public zones therefore begin to
reflect the ideology of the society that occupies them, and thus embraces a symbolic yet
physical billboard promoting the values and platforms of the movements and paradigms
of which they helped birth. The question therefore transforms to architects; do they have
a societal responsibility to design in a manner that allows for a certain degree of
freedom or of oppression in an effort to direct the activities that occur in our projects?
Does this question vary for the political or social institution in which we are designing
for? In the case of a smaller scale, should they be designing and organizing the modern
and futuristic cities of tomorrow in an attempt to control the philosophy and psychology
of its occupants and citizens?
Architects and urban planners hold the ability to control social interaction through
public space and how a society and community begins to interact and form relationships
in these zones of influence. They seek to formulate a response to this set of questions
and develop a sense of the nature to the direct link between the architect and the
operation of society.

4. THOMPSON 4
2.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ECOLOGICAL CITY
According to Kevin Lynch, the city can operate under an organic model: the
Ecological City (Shane 2005). In this model, the city is constructed from enclaves and a
series of armatures that intermix to formulate the pattern and fabric of the city looking to
replicate an organic relationship between the different design elements and city centers.
Operating as an organism in this model, the city begins to become self-organizing and
self-regulating – it begins to control itself and can return to a semi-balanced state
whenever acted upon and disturbed by a force not planned or designed. When we begin
to apply this model of the ecological city to the modern city, we can begin to develop a
new sense of understanding as to how these urban centers and urban plazas can begin
to be forces for sparking and serving as a catalyst in urban movements and political
swings.
According to Shane, these public spaces in the city of communal knowledge are
spaces that are deeply rooted and connected to communal activity – and as stated
before, these public zones therefore begin to represent the ideology of the society that
occupies them, thus embracing a symbolic yet physical billboard promoting the values
and platforms of the society which embraces them (Shane 2005). According to Thomas
More in Utopia (1516), the formal and spatial organization and rules (both social and
ethical) are expressed in this sacred public and civic space within the urban fabric and
city network of the Ecological City as a center and hub (Shane 2005).

5. THOMPSON 5
Figure 2.1

6. THOMPSON 6
3.
DEFENSIBLE SPACE
Defensible Space is defined as a “surrogate term for the range of mechanisms –
real and symbolic barriers, strongly defined areas of influence, and improved
opportunities for surveillance – that combine to bring an environment under the control
of its residents” (Newman 1973). Looking at defensible space within the modern city, it
can be applied to the larger cityscape as a methodology of controlling and ruling the
‘masses’ of society – directing their movements and actions in an effort to maintain
peace and limit crime and a loss of control over societal order.
What becomes interesting, therefore, is that defensible space, as Newman
describes, requires that “For one group to be able to set the norms of behavior and the
nature of activity possible within a particular place, it is necessary that it have clear,
unquestionable control over what can occur there” (Newman 1973). Per Newman’s
ideology that in order for a space to be idealized as a defensible space it must serve a
specific topic, it becomes curious that these public squares and gathering points within
the context of the city which we talked of within the Ecological City can be utilized as
flexible civic space. Does this mean, therefore, that all flexible public and civic spaces
directly break Newman’s persona of what defensible space is and how it is designed or
are these civic zones simply a manifestation and hybrid of Newman’s defensible space
within the modern city as it becomes realized and implemented within the actual fabric
of a city?

7. THOMPSON 7
While Newman may state that these spaces which are secure in design may
require a specified purpose, according to Shane, design (in the city as a machine
model) simply only requires “clear concepts that neatly articulate each piece of a
problem and isolate its properties” – in this sense, crime and manipulation of human
interaction and movements (Shane 2005). Does this mean that the city – when looking
at the fabric for spaces of crime prevention – is actually serving as the city as a machine
and not the ecological city? The key in this analysis is in the critical fact that the city as a
machine serves one purpose: expansion. This expansion involves enormous amounts
of capital and investment in the infrastructure of the city grid over the design of the city
and design intent, generating a lack in the “social mechanisms that one kept crime in
check and gave direction and support to policy activity … preventing such amity and
discourag[ing] the natural pursuit of a collective action” (Newman 1973).
We had earlier raised the question as to what exactly the role of the architect is
within society and if we should, as a profession, be encouraging collective action and
designing for a degree of freedom or allowing oppression through design. As designers
and shapers of future society, we (the profession) must now decide which path of action
we shall take within our modern cities: continue to design in an effort which prohibits
individualized expression and freedom or continue our tradition (as Newman states) of
this discouragement of collective action and personalized freedom. In the next section of
this essay, we will begin to analyze existing conditions within city fabrics and their
attempt or non-intended design actions which begin to inform them as spaces of crime
prevention or encouragement as centers of defensible civic space.

8. THOMPSON 8
4.
ELEMENTS OF DEFENSIBLE DESIGN
According to Oscar Newman there are four elements to physical design which
contribute to the creation of a secure environment for an individual (Newman 1973):
1. The territorial definition of space in developments reflecting the areas of
influence of the inhabitants. This works by subdividing the residential
environment into zones toward which adjacent residents easily adopt
proprietary attitudes.
2. The positioning of apartment windows to allow residents to naturally
survey the exterior and interior public areas of their living environment.
3. The adoption of building forms and idioms which avoid the stigma of
peculiarity that allows others to perceive the vulnerability and isolation of
the inhabitants.
4. The enhancement of safety by locating residential developments in
functionally sympathetic urban areas immediately adjacent to activities
that do not provide continued threat.
In the case of our argument, we can take these principles for residential housing
developments and begin to apply them to commercial and civic zones which we will be
analyzing – public squares and plazas. These four elements and principles of design
may translate into the civic sphere in this manner:

9. THOMPSON 9
1. Define the territoriality of the civic zone into zones of responsibility for
influence and adoption of proprietary care.
2. Position residency windows surrounding the square to territorially
monitor and naturally survey the square and civic zone.
3. Adopt building forms to limit vulnerability and isolation.
4. Locate the civic zone within an area of the urban fabric limiting access
to continued threat.
The first major modern paradigm shift (according to Oscar Newman) which
labeled the park and civic square as a symbol and division of the community rather than
as a direct asset of the privatized sector (though they technically are not truly public)
was the construction of Battery Park City in New York City. Battery Park, and similarly
the High Line Project, begins to deal with elements on Environmental Justice yet also
begin to engage active elements of the street and defensible design strategies within
the park rather than imposing a park or centralized plaza space onto the urban fabric,
as is the case of Central Park.

10. THOMPSON 10
5.
CENTRAL PARK + BATTERY PARK
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA
Central Park – Figure 5.1
Battery Park – Figure 5.2

11. THOMPSON 11
Battery Park – created from landfill in
the early nineteenth century – is one of the
most popular urban parks within New York
City. The park is located along the southern
end of Manhattan Island, and as previously
stated, marked the first major paradigm shift
from urban plazas and parks designed as
superimposed sites of the urban context to a
park and plaza which begins to become
integrated within the structure of the urban
fabric.
Central Park – though arguably the most
famous city park and the most utilized park
within New York City, is one of the worst park
designs in terms of defensible space. Looking
at our translated design elements for a positive
defensible public space, Central Park breaks
numbers one, three, and partially four – while
not following element two to the degree
required to successfully defensively define the space.
One: define the territoriality of the civic zone into zones of responsibility…. not
applicable to Central Park. The sheer size of Central Park and the extreme civic nature
Table 1
Park Borough
Total
Crimes
Reported
Alley Pond Park Queens 44
Blue Heron Park Staten Island 0
Bronx Park Bronx 66
Canarsie Park Brooklyn 4
Central Park Manhattan 470
Crotona Park Bronx 102
Cunningham Park Queens 51
Dyker Beach Park Brooklyn 12
FDR/Midland Beach Staten Island 3
Ferry Point Park Bronx 10
Flushing Meadows Corona
Park Queens 277
Forest Park Queens 32
Fort Washington Park Manhattan 6
Fresh Kills Park Staten Island 1
Great Kills Park Staten Island 3
Highbridge Park Manhattan 16
Inwood Hill Park Manhattan 14
Joseph T. McGuire Park Brooklyn 0
Kissena Park Queens 31
La Tourette Park Staten Island 0
Marine Park Brooklyn 33
Paerdegat Basin Park Brooklyn 0
Pelham Bay Park Bronx 32
Prospect Park Brooklyn 132
Randall's Island Park Manhattan 85
Riverside Park Manhattan 145
Rockaway Community Park Queens 0
Soundview Park Bronx 15
Van Cortlandt Park Bronx 31
Wards Island Park Manhattan 5
Wolfe's Pond Park Staten Island 1
TOTAL 1621

12. THOMPSON 12
which the park itself has adopted within portrays the park to become a space owned
and operated by the Parks department of New York City rather than a park owned and
monitored by the citizens of New York City. As Newman states, “When people begin to
protect themselves as individuals and not as a community, the battle against crime is
effectively lost. The indifferent crowd witnessing a violent crime is by now an American
cliché” (Newman 1973). What Newman is beginning to reference in this statement is the
ideology that once individuals begin to place their trust in a secure space within a
security guard or security force, they no longer feel obligated to help hold a role in
maintaining the upkeep and security of a public and civic space. This role now
relies solely on the hired guards, and therefore, security of the space –
regardless of the number of guards – is diminished exponentially from the number of
individuals occupying the zone to the number of hired men.
Two: position residency windows surrounding the square to territorially monitor…
not directly applicable to Central Park. The sheer size of the park, all 843 acres, lends
itself to become an oasis for crime within New York City. Central Park features nearly
70% more crime activity than any other park on Manhattan Island (see table 1) and
nearly 40% more crime activity than any park within New York City limits – with Queens
being the second highest boroughs for crime to Manhattan (NYC Park Advocates 2013).
Three: adopt building forms to limit vulnerability and isolation… not directly
applicable to Central Park. Giving Central Park the benefit here, the park does not
directly integrate many building forms within the park itself. The park does, however, fail
to deal with isolation of viewpoints in regards to the paths within the parkway itself and

13. THOMPSON 13
around elements such as bridges, etc. within the circulation path, though it does
encourage circulation within the park thereby increasing the likelihood of civilian
surveillance. Four: locate the civic zone within an area of urban fabric limiting access to
continued threat… negligible for Central Park due to the sheer size of the park. The
urban fabric directly surrounding the park has additionally become one of the most
expensive real estate markets in all of the United States, and thereby should reduce the
amount of crime. In reality, however, the size of the park has generated its own urban
fabric within the park that counteracts the expensive fabric directly surrounding the
edges of the park.
Battery Park, on the other hand, more directly applies the elements of defensible
space design to generate a park offering natural security and surveillance, as offices
and boat docks offer a natural territoriality to the civic and public zones of the park. This
naturally generated territoriality begins to deter, as Newman refers to them as,
wanderers. These wanderers often linger within parks and public zones without specific
purposes and therefore are often the individuals causing trouble and encouraging illegal
activities within public and civic occupiable zones.
Additionally, these offices and docks provide windows and surveillance
encouraging design element number two as well as protecting vulnerability and isolation
due to the size of the park, though the vegetation of Battery Park does shade patrons
from being visible within park boundaries. This smaller area and size of the park in
comparison to Central Park allows the park to be surveyed more easily as well as
naturally monitored by patrons of the park. Furthermore, the bordering of the Park by

14. THOMPSON 14
Battery Pl. and State St. provide an additional level of surveillance that because of the
width of Central Park does not exist within Central Park. These streets act as an
addition of the sidewalk and provide constant surveillance into the park, thereby
reducing the number of hired workers required to monitor and survey the park.

15. THOMPSON 15
6.
INDEPENDENCE SQUARE
KIEV, UKRAINE
Independence Square, alongside other national squares such as Tahrir Square,
begin to develop interesting dialogues regarding defensible space and begin to touch
upon the topic of squares becoming centers representing the morality and beliefs of a
society. These squares, when analyzed in terms of defensible space, seem to be some
of the safest spaces one can occupy within the urban fabric. Why then, can these
spaces turn into scenes of extreme violence and rebellion? In order to answer this
question, we must first complete this analysis of elements of defensible space.
One: territoriality of the square defaults to the surrounding commercial buildings.
What forms an interesting relationship with Independence Square specifically is the fact
that two of the buildings directly bordering the Independency Column are the National
Academy of Music and the International Center of the Culture and Arts of the Trade
Unions of Ukraine. These two institutions are two extremely public institutions serving
Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2

16. THOMPSON 16
the masses, and therefore portray the territoriality of the squares in an extremely civic
and public medium and manner.
Two: windows surrounding the square directly offer viewpoints and natural
surveillance of the square. When comparing Independence Square to other squares
such as Central Park or Battery Park, it is clear that sight lines are extremely well
preserved, as evident in Figure 6.2. The lack of trees on the site allows 24/7
surveillance of the square and monitoring by individuals within the surrounding
buildings. Looking at Figure 6.1, we can also see that these commercial institutions
surrounding the square begin to completely border the square, providing complete
surveillance of the square and complete protection from urban crime (not counting
alleys and other elements of the urban fabric not included within the square itself).
Three: the buildings surrounding the square do not aid vulnerability and isolation.
This concept is an extension off of the analysis for the second element of design of a
defensible space. Again looking at Figure 6.1, we can see that the design of the square
results from carving out the square from the urban fabric in a unique method which turns
the square into a transept of Khreshchatyk St. This central road of the capital of Ukraine
provides an additional method of surveillance breaking down vulnerability and isolation
within the central square of the city. Furthermore, the use of loggia within the buildings
directly surrounding the square provide a glacis between the centralized buildings and
the square which can be occupied and utilized as a central barrier for observation of the
urban square itself.

17. THOMPSON 17
Four: the civic / public zone limiting continued threat extends from the concept of
the loggia interacting with the square and the transept of the square by Khreshchatyk
St. These two factors, according to Newman’s theory, will directly limit the amount of
crime and illegal activity occurring within Independence Square. When looking and
analyzing the square for these factors, Independence Square appears to be one of the
safest public areas within the city, and when compared to Central Park, it seems to
become the utopia of public plazas and public parks within an urban fabric. Why then
did the square transform into one of the most violent scenes of protest (see Figure 6.3)
in the past five years?
Figure 6.3

18. THOMPSON 18
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5

19. THOMPSON 19
Now that we have determined the design of Independence Square, we must
analyze if the design of the square impacted the brutality of these protests. We have
already established the existence of a glacis within the square itself – the loggia of the
surrounding commercial buildings and institutions. As crowds gather and begin to
occupy the square, however, the glacis becomes an irreverent factor in protecting and
creating a physical boundary space between Independence Square and the buildings,
as seen in Figure 6.4, as the crowd of protestors and occupiers begin to flood into the
loggia and into the space of the commercial institutions. While this situation may not
present a direct danger at the moment portrayed in Figure 6.4, it can quickly turn into a
violent and dangerous situation for all of those surrounding the square as depicted in
Figure 6.3 showing a side-by-side comparison before and after the protests have
occurred.
Did the defensible space strategies allow the protest to reach this level or did this
simply occur due to Independence Square’s significance as a diplomatic center and
physical center of the city? In an effort to answer this question, we must begin analysis
from the moment the square becomes fully occupied by protestors. This point of
occupation brings about a critical point of circulation in Newman’s theory of defensible
space requiring a “constant flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, … providing an
element of safety” (Newman 1973). Once this constant flow of pedestrian traffic through
or around Independence Square transforms into a permanent occupation of the square
as seen in Figure 6.4, the square transforms from a space designed with consideration

20. THOMPSON 20
of all elements of defensible design into a square presenting an issue of uprising and
revolt without a method of suppression.
As previously mentioned, as architects and urban planners we hold the ability to
design spaces either in a manner to encourage the freedom of protests and freedom of
speech or the ability to design spaces which encourage suppression and oppression of
these freedoms. By designing a space according to the principles of brutalism, one can
begin to design a space that is essentially riot proof. In the case of a public square,
however, especially one which can become as occupied as seen in Figure 6.4, in an
effort to dismantle the threat to institutions and individuals (re-instating crime prevention)
it is necessary to re-define the glacis of the space and create a new glacis within the
confines of the city and pubic square. For Kiev and the riot prevention as well as for a
majority of modern day cities, this is accomplished through the use of riot police as seen
in Figure 6.5. These police generate a new moving wall and extend the confines of the
glacis from the loggia of the constructed environment through the square to the limits of
their newly created wall. The buffer zone that emerges inside of this newly created dead
space becomes, as also seen in Figure 6.5, a newly generated buffer zone serving to
separate the built context and environment from the disorderly and dangerous occupied
square.
We can therefore deduce the fact that designing spaces with defensible
strategies allows us to effectively manage and control the actions of individuals and limit
criminal activity within a space as long as society is using the public square and area in
the pre-defined usage of the space or is following the status quo. As soon as a situation

21. THOMPSON 21
violating the status quo (riots, protests, etc.) begins to emerge within the equation of
defensible space, the openness and visibility of the space can transform from a spatial
design protecting citizens and institutions into a designed space accelerating the spread
of uprising and brutality requiring the re-defining of spatial elements (glacis, border,
edge, etc.) in an attempt to re-stabilize the public sector.

22. THOMPSON 22
7.
CONCLUSION + FINDINGS
After the careful analysis of Central Park, Battery Park, and Independence
Square we can now deduce that incorporating principles of defensible space within the
urban fabric of a city can either have a directly positive or a long-term negative impact
on the institutions and citizens of the city. These enclaves of the city, originally designed
to be occupied during distinct hours of the day (daylight) have over time transformed
into zones which, as Rem Koolhaus states, can take advantage of a “second daytime …
[by] the introduction of electricity” (Koolhaas 1994). The transformation of these
enclaves into centers that can be occupied both during the day and night requires the
design of them to be extremely defensible and occupiable. Without natural surveillance
and a natural sense of protection, these centers would no longer be occupied zones and
would simply become abandoned.
Let us revisit the questions we initially asked within the Preface of this essay: do
architects have a societal responsibility to design in a manner that allows for a certain
degree of freedom or of oppression in an effort to direct the activities that occur in our
projects? Does this question vary for the political or social institution in which we are
designing for? In the case of a smaller scale, should they be designing and organizing
the modern and futuristic cities of tomorrow in an attempt to control the philosophy and
psychology of its occupants and citizens?
While we have explored the elements of designing a defensibly safe space, we

23. THOMPSON 23
may not have been directly able to answer these questions we set out to formulate an
answer to. We discovered that yes, architects and urban planners do hold a direct role
in designing spaces which, in the case of Independence Square, can either encourage
or diminish freedom and the freedom of expression and speech. By incorporating design
strategies which allow urban plazas and parks to be freely experienced by citizens of
the city in which they are located, designers are encouraging these freedoms. The
extension of the glacis, as seen with the reclamation of Independence Square, begins to
limit this freedom and reclaims back the urban center into the calmness and order of the
urban fabric.
Naturally, the project does vary per design, and therefore, the political or social
institution for which designers are designing for would vary, as would the design
intention of the role. With the amount of power each design may carry, as we have seen
in the past case studies, it is important that architects and urban planners begin to
consider the intentions of their clients and consider the morality behind their design
intentions.
Though the morality behind design intentions and programs of architects and
urban planners may not be able to be definitively answered, as it is not possible to
define a correct response to a problem, we can define the definitive purpose that
architects and designers must begin to consider the consequences and safety of their
respective designs. By placing design elements and imposing them into a structural or
urban fabric without consideration of the interaction of their design or without any
consideration of defensible design strategies, one may be designing the next Central

24. THOMPSON 24
Park within a city which therefore begins to harbor and spawn crime and violence. With
simple consideration of the techniques laid out by Oscar Newman and discussed within
this essay, cities can begin to design parks and plazas which can protect the general
public which occupy them in normal situations and look at how to deal with radical
situations which may emerge.
The most essential element of defensible space, however, is its context within the
ecological city. Within this self-correcting city, parks and plazas designed using
defensible elements begin to serve as these enclaves of morality and societal
viewpoints which self-correct the rest of society through projection of views and public
oversight. In an effort to maximize the use of city public spaces including parks and
plazas, architects and designers must adopt the responsibility of designing in terms of
public safety and public image of what occurs within these parks and not simply shift the
ideology of public safety to the enforcement of public safety officers, but begin to
proactively address the issue through design.

25. THOMPSON 25
Bibliography
Department, NYC Parks. Battery Park.
http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/batterypark/history (accessed May 10, 2014).
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York. Italy: The Monacelli Press, 1994.
Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space . New York, New York: Collier Books, 1973.
NYC Park Advocates. "Total Major Felony Crime Complaints by Park." New York City,
NY: NYC Park Advocates, March 31, 2013.
Shane, David Grahame. Recombinant Urbanism. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
2005.