I think it's culture. I actually feel safer in higher-density environments where I feel like there is a community there to help if something goes wrong. I enjoy seeing my neighbors walk the paths each day, and while no one is explicitly on neighborbood watch, we certainly all notice if there's something or someone amiss. The great Jane Jacobs talks about this a lot, of course.
But, you're right that more density equals more people and so there will be more problems. And because the American way says "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" instead of "let me help you up," people respond accordingly in how they interact with others.
"The sort of thing that doesn’t happen, or doesn’t feel like it happens, in small towns and quiet low-density suburban neighborhoods."
This definitely feels like a perception people have and it's hard to shake, but I remember lots of casual vandalism, public nuisance stuff when I went to college in the sticks (Storrs, CT). But the crime itself just has less people to bother.
I see a lot of lax attitudes toward crimes in the suburbs tbh, like say drunk driving. But that's _different_ 🙄
i think when people know the kids doing the vandalism, they take a "oh, kids will be kids" attitude. When it's done by kids they don't know it becomes a "THOSE HOOLIGANS" attitude. Crime happens in the burbs - mailbox baseball didn't develop in the city, bikes get stolen, lawns get TP'd - but the perception of it is very different, as "pranks" not vandalism
I think it falls into the idea of per capita rates vs single events. There's higher raw numbers of events in large cities even when the rate of violence is much lower than elsewhere. Personally I've regularly walked by myself at night on my way to a transit station without feeling any concern.
And then you have my situation from growing up out in a sparsely populated rural area.
Within about a mile of the house where I grew up there has been:
-Multiple domestic murders
-Numerous meth labs
-Squatters taking over an abandoned property
-A fake kidnapping
-An escaped sex slave walking naked down the road
-And all the comparatively friendly vandalism and petty thievery commonplace in any human occupied area
In my experience, the only true difference between crime in urban and rural areas is that out in the country, nobody can hear you scream. I don't know if it's like this everywhere in modern rural America, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture! There was a time long ago where rural folks had real community, but to me, these days, rural areas are really just much sparser suburbs, but filled with people who choose to live in a sparse area because they don't like other people, or are hiding something. Thank goodness I moved to a nice safe traditional small town where all that would be unheard of.
As someone who moved from the type of suburb where we left our front door unlocked all the time to a Chicago neighborhood with a moderate amount of crime, I am someone who has willingly accepted the "more crime in exchange for the benefits of a dense urban environment" deal. That said, I don't think more density inevitably leads to more crime since, as you note, we can find examples of cities with high density and low crime rates.
Chicago in particular has long treated violent crime as more of a fact of nature than a problem to be solved, as long as it remains confined to certain neighborhoods. Of course, the violence inevitably does not stay confined, and we end up with armed robberies in affluent neighborhoods and shootings downtown.
What is the solution? We know that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by young men and adolescent boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. Part of the solution needs to be giving these young people, to the extent we are able, the same advantages as their more well-off peers. Invest in public schools, after school programs, summer programs, safe spaces for teens to hang out, etc.
This is not a complete solution. I don't have all the answers. I will note that the track record of "tough on crime" approaches to reducing crime has been spotty at best.
Street crime (far more serious in the USA due to guns) is only one aspect of it. Whether in Hong Kong, NYC, or Barcelona one faces constant noise (people yelling, cars, motorbikes, sirens, construction), smelly and polluted air, ubiquitous filth and grime, a near-total lack of trees and greenery along your daily routes, certainly no private "nature" space equivalent to a yard or garden except for the very richest, and the constant accumulating irritation - day by day, minute by minute - of being always surrounded and crowded in by other people everywhere you go. Adding insult to injury is that big city living often entails much higher costs - in taxes, costs of owning a car (or the costs of not owning one in terms of inconvenience, renting a car when needed, etc.) and private schooling in many cities.
The more nuanced picture is that these negative effects scale with both overall size, and the degree of density. They're most severe in huge, densely packed cauldrons like New York, but much less so in a town or small city of mostly 2-3 story townhouses and mixed-use commercial with a few small apartment buildings, and highly localized control over ordinances, schools and the like.
I believe the key point is to pivot (both rhetorically and in practice) from "density" to "human-scaled". Car sprawl isn't human-scaled, but neither is Manhattan.
I think this is a great point, and one pushed by this substack. Density doesn't have to be megacities - it can be small towns. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live in Manhattan/Tokyo/Paris, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to live somewhere where you can see the stars at night, where you can walk to the store, and still have the quiet life while also having urban amenities and livability
I mostly agree with the takeaway, with the caveat that "human-scaled" means mixed-use, i.e. urbanism - density without urbanism is just a bad party, as Chuck Marohn has described it. But... I also wanted to re-write this comment... here we go:
Petty vandalism (far more serious in the USA due to guns) is only one aspect of it. Whether in Greenwich, Atherton, or Lake Forest, one faces constant noise (leaf blowers, lawnmowers, powerful cars racing down narrow streets, kids screaming) smelly and polluted air from backyard fire pits and barbecues, a near-total lack of sidewalks and bike paths along your daily routes, and certainly no public recreation space equivalent to a typical city park, except for massive private structures in the yards of the richest, and the constant, accumulating irritation - day by day, minute by minute - of being always surrounded and crowded in by massive SUVs everywhere you drive. Adding insult to injury is that suburban living often entails much higher costs - in taxes, costs of owning a car (or the costs of owning three cars, a lawn tractor, a septic system, a patio set, etc.) and private schooling in many areas.
The more nuanced picture is that these negative effects scale with both overall size, and the degree of required lot sizes. They're most severe in spread out, lightly packed former-farms like Greenwich, but much less so in a big or small city of mostly 6-8 story townhouses and mixed-use commercial with a few medium apartment buildings, and localized control over ordinances, schools and the like.
Community is the operative word here. People have to have things in common and a stake in their lived environment.
As for differences in American versus European cities, they vary based on standards set by local communities/politics. Berlin has for years been notorious as a graffiti riddled place and places in Belgium and Paris could be described as apocalyptic.
American cities vary in their appearance widely and it must be due to local standards and tolerance of aesthetics and behavior. The great former cities of both coasts, such as San Francisco and New York, are purposely being encouraged to disintegrate and cities in the rest of the country are more lovingly maintained.
I just visited Vancouver and it is a beautiful place though it is very dense. People who live there are proud and wouldn't allow their metro to devolve so tragically as we have cities in the coasts of the US.
I think it's culture. I actually feel safer in higher-density environments where I feel like there is a community there to help if something goes wrong. I enjoy seeing my neighbors walk the paths each day, and while no one is explicitly on neighborbood watch, we certainly all notice if there's something or someone amiss. The great Jane Jacobs talks about this a lot, of course.
But, you're right that more density equals more people and so there will be more problems. And because the American way says "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" instead of "let me help you up," people respond accordingly in how they interact with others.
Good point. I remember that passage from Jane Jacobs. I’ve been meaning to read her book again. It was very insightful and moving.
"The sort of thing that doesn’t happen, or doesn’t feel like it happens, in small towns and quiet low-density suburban neighborhoods."
This definitely feels like a perception people have and it's hard to shake, but I remember lots of casual vandalism, public nuisance stuff when I went to college in the sticks (Storrs, CT). But the crime itself just has less people to bother.
I see a lot of lax attitudes toward crimes in the suburbs tbh, like say drunk driving. But that's _different_ 🙄
i think when people know the kids doing the vandalism, they take a "oh, kids will be kids" attitude. When it's done by kids they don't know it becomes a "THOSE HOOLIGANS" attitude. Crime happens in the burbs - mailbox baseball didn't develop in the city, bikes get stolen, lawns get TP'd - but the perception of it is very different, as "pranks" not vandalism
I think it falls into the idea of per capita rates vs single events. There's higher raw numbers of events in large cities even when the rate of violence is much lower than elsewhere. Personally I've regularly walked by myself at night on my way to a transit station without feeling any concern.
And then you have my situation from growing up out in a sparsely populated rural area.
Within about a mile of the house where I grew up there has been:
-Multiple domestic murders
-Numerous meth labs
-Squatters taking over an abandoned property
-A fake kidnapping
-An escaped sex slave walking naked down the road
-And all the comparatively friendly vandalism and petty thievery commonplace in any human occupied area
In my experience, the only true difference between crime in urban and rural areas is that out in the country, nobody can hear you scream. I don't know if it's like this everywhere in modern rural America, but it doesn't paint a pretty picture! There was a time long ago where rural folks had real community, but to me, these days, rural areas are really just much sparser suburbs, but filled with people who choose to live in a sparse area because they don't like other people, or are hiding something. Thank goodness I moved to a nice safe traditional small town where all that would be unheard of.
As someone who moved from the type of suburb where we left our front door unlocked all the time to a Chicago neighborhood with a moderate amount of crime, I am someone who has willingly accepted the "more crime in exchange for the benefits of a dense urban environment" deal. That said, I don't think more density inevitably leads to more crime since, as you note, we can find examples of cities with high density and low crime rates.
Chicago in particular has long treated violent crime as more of a fact of nature than a problem to be solved, as long as it remains confined to certain neighborhoods. Of course, the violence inevitably does not stay confined, and we end up with armed robberies in affluent neighborhoods and shootings downtown.
What is the solution? We know that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by young men and adolescent boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. Part of the solution needs to be giving these young people, to the extent we are able, the same advantages as their more well-off peers. Invest in public schools, after school programs, summer programs, safe spaces for teens to hang out, etc.
This is not a complete solution. I don't have all the answers. I will note that the track record of "tough on crime" approaches to reducing crime has been spotty at best.
Street crime (far more serious in the USA due to guns) is only one aspect of it. Whether in Hong Kong, NYC, or Barcelona one faces constant noise (people yelling, cars, motorbikes, sirens, construction), smelly and polluted air, ubiquitous filth and grime, a near-total lack of trees and greenery along your daily routes, certainly no private "nature" space equivalent to a yard or garden except for the very richest, and the constant accumulating irritation - day by day, minute by minute - of being always surrounded and crowded in by other people everywhere you go. Adding insult to injury is that big city living often entails much higher costs - in taxes, costs of owning a car (or the costs of not owning one in terms of inconvenience, renting a car when needed, etc.) and private schooling in many cities.
The more nuanced picture is that these negative effects scale with both overall size, and the degree of density. They're most severe in huge, densely packed cauldrons like New York, but much less so in a town or small city of mostly 2-3 story townhouses and mixed-use commercial with a few small apartment buildings, and highly localized control over ordinances, schools and the like.
I believe the key point is to pivot (both rhetorically and in practice) from "density" to "human-scaled". Car sprawl isn't human-scaled, but neither is Manhattan.
I think this is a great point, and one pushed by this substack. Density doesn't have to be megacities - it can be small towns. There's nothing wrong with wanting to live in Manhattan/Tokyo/Paris, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting to live somewhere where you can see the stars at night, where you can walk to the store, and still have the quiet life while also having urban amenities and livability
I mostly agree with the takeaway, with the caveat that "human-scaled" means mixed-use, i.e. urbanism - density without urbanism is just a bad party, as Chuck Marohn has described it. But... I also wanted to re-write this comment... here we go:
Petty vandalism (far more serious in the USA due to guns) is only one aspect of it. Whether in Greenwich, Atherton, or Lake Forest, one faces constant noise (leaf blowers, lawnmowers, powerful cars racing down narrow streets, kids screaming) smelly and polluted air from backyard fire pits and barbecues, a near-total lack of sidewalks and bike paths along your daily routes, and certainly no public recreation space equivalent to a typical city park, except for massive private structures in the yards of the richest, and the constant, accumulating irritation - day by day, minute by minute - of being always surrounded and crowded in by massive SUVs everywhere you drive. Adding insult to injury is that suburban living often entails much higher costs - in taxes, costs of owning a car (or the costs of owning three cars, a lawn tractor, a septic system, a patio set, etc.) and private schooling in many areas.
The more nuanced picture is that these negative effects scale with both overall size, and the degree of required lot sizes. They're most severe in spread out, lightly packed former-farms like Greenwich, but much less so in a big or small city of mostly 6-8 story townhouses and mixed-use commercial with a few medium apartment buildings, and localized control over ordinances, schools and the like.
:-)
Community is the operative word here. People have to have things in common and a stake in their lived environment.
As for differences in American versus European cities, they vary based on standards set by local communities/politics. Berlin has for years been notorious as a graffiti riddled place and places in Belgium and Paris could be described as apocalyptic.
American cities vary in their appearance widely and it must be due to local standards and tolerance of aesthetics and behavior. The great former cities of both coasts, such as San Francisco and New York, are purposely being encouraged to disintegrate and cities in the rest of the country are more lovingly maintained.
I just visited Vancouver and it is a beautiful place though it is very dense. People who live there are proud and wouldn't allow their metro to devolve so tragically as we have cities in the coasts of the US.