A City Divided
Authors: A.Bennett Simon 
Published: October 2020

Imaginings of cities are powerful...imagination can be either an escape...or an act of resistance or both
(Bridge and Watson 2000: 16).

Imagination and the city are closely entwined for Gary Bridges and Sophie Watson who organise the relationship between the city and the imagination in two areas: how the city affects the imagination and how the city is imagined. They see that the city provides both constraints and stimulus on the imagination of all its inhabitants. From screenwriters to urban planners to policy makers to city visitors from suburbs or country towns, each person has his or her imagined city and this is reflected in the way we live (lifestyle), where we choose to live (urban versus suburban) and how we use public and private space. The effects of the city on the imagination are also apparent from the way cities are represented in film, the way they are planned and how they are produced in a range of discourses. However, these diffuse imaginations can be opposing and it these opposing imaginations that forge the distinctions between an imagined city and an urban imagination. So where is this evident?
The most visible evidence is found in the use and role of public space. Both Mike Davis and George Morgan document how public space is viewed as a threat giving rise to what Davis calls defensible space and a clear demarcation between public and private space (1994, 79). Davis witnesses that this practice, when applied, results in a fortress mentality of guarded properties and walled-in private suburbs that is destroying accessible public space(1992, 226). Documenting a more sociological approach is Jane Jacobs' argument that the city and social interactions within are a street ballet (2000, 107) and Lewis Mumford's notion of urban drama (2000, 92). This sociological approach views public space as providing an opportunity for people to invest in and interact. These longstanding opposing views toward public space as either a threat or an opportunity are a large part of the urban imagination and have consequences for the way in which the city is designed and planned.
General concerns on security are evident by the ever-increasing reliance on architecture to provide security. This is most noticeable in urban areas where the rise of defensible space is apparent. Defensible space can be achieved by applying a commonly accepted practice amongst urban planners known as CPTED (pronounced sep-ted and standing for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). CPTED recognises that proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life (Howe, http://www.cpted-watch.com, 2002). CPTED principles are built on four overlapping strategies of natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, natural access control and target hardening. These strategies are equally apparent in urban theorists like Morgan, Davis, Bridges and Watson; indeed even Jacobs can be seen as an early pioneer of CPTED with her views on natural surveillance. However, the application of these strategies differ in the separation of public and private space and how public space is designed and planned.
Davis may concede CPTED's existence as perhaps only one small component of urban theory and practice that, for the most part, he argues, ignores the existing trend of fortifying the built and natural environment: Contemporary urban theory has been strangely silent about the militarisation of city life that is so grimly visible at street level (1992, 223). For Davis, who is referring to Los Angeles, Hollywood fiction has, ironically, been more realistic and politically perceptive in its representations of the urban. And these representations support Bridge and Watson's view of how the city affects the imagination as they only extrapolate from actually existing trends (Davis 1992, 223). Davis also sees a post-Liberal Los Angeles obsessed with the physical (security systems) and collaterally with policing of social boundaries through architecture. Such developments though are not unique to LA. In Australia the use of CPTED principles, though relatively low-key, are applied to the new Brisbane Busway Stations. In this instance it is the use of natural surveillance, a design concept primarily aimed at maximising the visibility of people and space through site location (parallel to highly utilised suburban streets and a major freeway) and site design (use of glass walls and bright lighting). The application of CPTED principles indicate that the role public space plays in a community has been in the imagination of the planning fraternity and the wider public for many years.
Whilst the Brisbane Busway initiative may seem tame in comparison to enfortressed LA, Morgan reveals how CPTED principles have been key to urban and suburban planners in Australia since the late-nineteenth century and involved the imposition of middle-class ideals of how and where to live. Drawing on Sydney's urban planning response to two contrasting moral panics in the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Morgan locates an ironic contrast between the fear of a dense and public sociability at the turn of the [20th] century and the contemporary fear of urban crime which is based on lack of sociability in street spaces that are not occupied or controlled (1994, 80). This contrast depicts the use of public space as associated with inner urban living to the more private existence of outer suburban living which has its roots in the urban planning undertaken in the late nineteenth century. The planning at that time was a response, in the main, to middle-class fears of social ills and disease that over-crowding in the inner city were thought to produce. This same middle class further extended their influence by pushing a population outward and in the process changed the use of public space by disconnecting the existing social and cultural networks of established communities.
This outward movement eventuated in suburbs that were founded on the modernist thought of progress reflected in decentralisation, growth in car ownership and a denial of traditional urban life which were seen as dissonant and unacceptable (Morgan 1994, 82). These unacceptable traditions of a gregarious street life were controlled ultimately by urban planning through the design of new suburbs that were sold as a utopian landscape that offered land ownership a concept only previously dreamt or imagined. As the populace spread and thinned out, new communities developed. These new suburban arrivals adapted similar lifestyles and a degree of homogeneity formed within the community that eventually established and then fostered a socio-psychological division between public and private personas as suburban living nurtured a more private existence (1994, 84).
This division is a very real danger to Jacobs' idea of a city as a street ballet and to Mumford's notion of urban drama as it takes the view of public space as not a place to stop and interact but as a space to be used, in many cases literally, as a thoroughfare to another private destination. This use of public space is exemplified in the everyday activity of driving a private vehicle straight from work to home. And, more importantly, this use of public space has detrimental affects on the role of public space, most noticeably on streets and sidewalks a city's most public of spaces. Jacobs recognises that the key to making a neighbourhood a community and making a city livable is, first and foremost, the use and safety of the street: Streets and their sidewalks, the main public places of a city, are its most vital organs, Jacobs suggests, and if a city's streets look interesting, the city does so (107).
Jacobs addresses the issue of safety as the fundamental task of a city street and sidewalk and is critical of planners, and their inability to understand that people and their subsequent activity leads to attracting even more people to use or watch a sidewalk. By indicating that nobody watches an empty street, Jacobs implies that people do not seek emptiness from an urban setting and by removing the players from the drama also means removing the audience: in this case, the street's natural observers or, in CPTED terms, the safety net that natural surveillance can provide.
Despite this apparent resonance between CPTED planning and critical urban theory, there are important distinctions. Mumford's sociological view of what a city is supports Morgan's and Jacobs' views that planners often did not understand the social web of community. In questioning the role of the city as a social institution Mumford identifies a handicap in that planners have had no clear notion of the social functions of the city...(and)... derive these functions from a cursory survey of the activities and interests of the contemporary urban scene (2000, 93). The risk as witnessed with the spread of garrison-suburbia is that the physical organisation of the city may deflate the essential drama and imaginative spur that Mumford believes a city requires. When Mumford identifies that the city fosters art and is art; the city creates the theatre and is the theatre (2000, 94) he is urging that planning considers the fulfilment of people's imaginations, or put another way, their fantasies. The physical layout and organisation of a city is not an end in itself and it must not solely shelter the human body but also the human imagination; it must not simply be at the convenience of industry but must account for social and cultural needs. Or as Mumford states the physical organisation of a city, its industries and its markets, its lines of communication and traffic, must be subservient to its social needs (2000, 94).
These social needs can be physically catered for by urban design if public space is approached by planners as an opportunity rather than a threat. Viewing public space as a threat has seen planning and urban design respond with defensible space and a fortress mentality that affects the imagination by playing on fear and security with a preference for separating public and private space. In contrast, by viewing public space as an opportunity, the response of planning and urban design could then deliver public space that inspires and drives the imagination through nurturing social interaction and allowing people to be legitimately active. The response by planning and urban design is then a critical one and plays a very influential role in shaping both the imagination and the material space of the lived city.

References

Bridge, Gary and Watson, Sophie (2000) A Companion to the City, Blackwell, Oxford, M.A. (Chapter 1, City Imaginaries).
Davis, Mike (1992) City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, Vintage, London (Chapter 4, Fortress L.A., 223-8).
Howe, Dorinda R. (2002) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, CPTED Handbook, http://www.cpted-watch.com
Jacobs, Jane (2001) (1961) The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety in R.LeGates and F.Stout (eds) The City Reader, 2nd edition, Routledge, London. 106-11.
Morgan, George (1994) Actsof Enclosure: Crime and Defensible Space in Contemporary Cities, in K.Gibson & S.Watson (eds) Metroplois Now: Planning and the Urban in Contemporary Australia, Pluto, Sydney, Chapter 5. 78-90.
Mumford, Lewis (2000) What is a City? in R.LeGates & F.Stout (eds) The City Reader, 2nd edition, Routledge, London. 92-6.

Links

http://www.cpted-watch.com

Citation reference for this article
MLA Style

Bennett, Simon A.. "A City Divided" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5.2 (2002). [your date of access] < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0205/divided.php>.

Chicago Style

Bennett, Simon A., "A City Divided" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5, no. 2 (2002), < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0205/divided.php> ([your date of access]).

APA Style

Bennett, Simon A.. (2002) A City Divided. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(2). < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0205/divided.php> ([your date of access]).