NEWMAN, Oscar Writing on the Wall Horizon Documentary

>> Children. The people

moved from this
kind of area

had no money for
security guards,

and the buildings
they moved

into were so impersonal.

They needed more
guards, not none.

Some thought if
tower blocks

looked better,
they'd work better.

In France, the architect
Le Corbusier started

a whole movement
by relating

the proportions
of his buildings

to the human figure,

evolving modular
design where

dimensions were
tailor made for

a new concept of

practical but
aesthetically

satisfying architecture.

To increase the sense
of space around

his buildings and stop

them becoming
visual barricades,

he built them on
huge pillars.

This one near
Marseilles has become

almost a shrine
where architects

come to do homage
to his memory.

Its design was to
be the model for

thousands of
similar projects

all around the world.

The Americans were
not to be outdone.

In St. Louis, Missouri,

they have the biggest
triumphal arch on Earth

to celebrate their being

the gateway to the west.

To rehouse their slums,

they commissioned the
finest architects,

and these models
illustrate

the prize winning design.

>> It was built following

all the latest concerns,

all the most up to date

philosophies of the
architectural profession.

The architect
followed the dictates

of the International
Congress

of Modern Architecture,

the plans of Le
Corbusier and ideas.

He took the population
and put them in

11 and 12 story buildings

when he had other options,

intentionally to
free a lot of

ground space for
children to play in.

What he saw was a
river of trees.

That's how he wrote
about it. He designed

the interior of
the buildings

as well for sun
to come in.

Huge corridors was

his vision, children
playing there,

mothers tending to clothes

and variety of
other things.

It was a beautiful
image, a new image,

an image of how
people should live,

a new alternative for
living in cities.

Put the people up,
give them a view.

The view happens to be
the other buildings,

but give them a view.

Give them space
down below,

free the grounds. It
was a great image.

And, of course, he

was received and welcomed

by the architectural
profession.

He got every single
award in the year.

Almost from the start,
the building began

to be vandalized and began

to be crime ridden.

And this went on and
became acutely worse.

As people refused
to move in,

gangs began to move in and

occupy the
apartments and use

the apartments
as a base of

operation to

victimize the rest
of the population.

The play spaces on

the ground were
too distant

for the mothers to

allow their
children down to.

They became sewers of

glass and garbage

rather than
rivers of trees.

The insides of
the building,

the interior spaces
were vandalized,

the heating equipment
torn apart,

garbage strewn everywhere,

lights smashed,
windows broken,

and not isolated
instances,

but uniformly across
the entire project.

The net result of

all this quality
design was,

in fact, the production

of an environment of fear.

He could have built
a project which

would have simply blended

into the rest of the city.

He could have
built low income

housing as Pruitt-Igoe is.

So it was virtually
indistinguishable

from the surrounding
middle class housing.

But instead, he wanted to

build something that
would be prominent,

something that
would be new,

something that
would stand out,

that would capture
the attention.

Pruitt-Igoe dominates

the St. Louis landscape.

His high rise buildings

can be seen everywhere,

and the project
stands out.

But for the rest
of the population,

for the people
who live in it,

just as the people
who live around it,

it stands out as a
sore. It's a stigma.

>> It was really a
beautiful place.

It was really
beautiful down here.

It was clean. People
had pride then.

I don't know what
happened to that pride.

I don't know that
over the years,

that pride just got tired.

>> Pruitt-Igoe had
some vacancies

in it almost from
the first day.

And it climbed from
50% vacancy rate

to 85% vacancy rate
in recent years.

The project, of
course, is not

economically viable
and never was.

>> Some people cared and

it was enough that they

cared and couldn't
do anything

about the way that

the buildings had
deteriorated.

And then the federal
government decided

that maybe we
didn't care enough.

>> They

tried to

remove several floors of

Pruitt-Igoe using
high explosive.

It was not a success.
Oscar Newman

reports on the
situation today.

>> The current
Secretary of

Housing has decided
that Pruitt-Igoe was,

in fact, a
disastrous mistake,

and that it was foolish

from his point of view for

the government to
adopt a policy

of trying to salvage
these things,

better admit to the error

and simply tear the
entire thing down.

>> This is the Aylesbury
Estate in London.

We invited Oscar Newman

to England to see if we're

making similar mistakes to

those he's researched
in America,

mistakes that
relate closely

to explosions in crime.

>> When you see
Aylesbury Estate

from the surrounding
streets,

it's almost as if
creatures from

another world
have come down

and build their
own environment.

It's that foreign.

The important
thing though,

is that Aylesbury
Estate has cut

off the surrounding
streets from itself,

isolate itself with
walls on all sides.

>> King come here.

>> Kids still
play football

amongst the cars.
They're not supposed to.

They're supposed to use

the elevated
walkways to go to

play areas sometimes
half a mile from home.

On walkways, you're
safe from traffic.

But Newman questions
if this is really

the right approach
to home sweet home.

>> This delightful
area faces

due north and never
receives any sun.

Far worse than that,

there are no windows from

the dwelling
unit that look

out onto the space.

A mother of a young
child can't really be

asked to allow the child

to play out here when
she can't see it.

There isn't even a window

in the door of the unit so

that the child can
play immediately out

the door with any
degree of safety.

>> Children are put

out to play and
they can no

longer be seen by their
mothers and fathers.

This also doesn't help

neighbors in

becoming neighbors
with one another.

The pattern of living is

not designed
that way at all.

And it tends to develop

a isolation in the minds

of many mothers
and many family.

>> Walking along
these walkways

in the evenings late,

you get quite
nervous, actually.

There's so many nooks
and crannies in

these places where
anyone could be.

I think people
prefer to be in

the street where they can

see street doors
and things.

When they walk along,
they feel safer.

>> To be quite honest,

Minton drive me mad when I

first looked because
he couldn't get down,

he still can't get
down unless one of

my other children
take him down

unless I take him down.

He doesn't like the
lifts. I don't like

him using the
staircase because

it's at the back
of the flats.

You never know he's
on the stairs.

There have been a
couple of incidents

of men being
on the stairs.

And I just don't

like him using the
stairs at all.

>> There's nowhere
for the kids to play.

They're playing the grass.

They've got to get up.

And the carts
will say they're

not allowed to
play on the grass.

So I said, well,

give them
somewhere to play,

and they got some.

>> They

put the elderly people

such as me with children.

That's being ridiculous.

I've had my share
of kids years ago.

>> Well, I think that

they ought to separate
the old people

from the mixed
families where there's

big families because they

get no privacy here.

They go all the annoyance.

>> Yes, see,

you've got three
flats codes

together there, ain't you?

Can hear everything
anyone says, can't you?

No privacy here at all.

>> We front rooms
downstairs,

and then two bedrooms
right there.

And everyone's walking
on your head as you're

trying to have a sleep

when they come
out the pubs.

>> What about the

general look of the
place, do you like?

>> Oh, well, look
at it for yourself.

And, it's like
prison, isn't it?

[LAUGHTER] Look.

All gone through,
isn't it?

>> Concrete jungle,
as we all call it.

No, they're very
depressing places.

The rent you pay, will.

And what they're doing

to make. It's horrible.

No, you say to people, we

live on the s to so,

pus say that place.

>> In America,
Newman's proved

a direct relationship

between vandalism
and crime.

In Britain, we already

now have the vandalism.

It remains to
be seen whether

our new
architectural legacy

will bring us
the violence,

the muggings, the
murder, and rape.

Many turn a blind
eye on graffiti,

but we ignore it
at our peril.

It protests against

the new
architectural style

which makes housing
so big and tall.

>> Part of the reason
it looks and becomes

this big monolith
is we've had

to raise the entire
building off the ground.

Raise it to provide

places for the automobile.

And the pedestrian
ways we saw up in

the air as well, they
add to the height.

But when you
take a look at

these wonderful garages,

take a look at the space

provided for

the automobile under
the buildings,

we find that the
people don't use them.

We find that it's

simply if you park
your car here,

it'll be vandalized
at night.

There's no point
in it, and

people end up putting

their car on the street
where it can be seen.

>> If you put your
car in the garage

and leave there,
take it kit.

It's perfect and all.
So you can watch it.

>> You got to watch
all the time.

If tell you a
little nausea at

the winds you
help your car,

man. It's terrible.

Some think it's
terrible, but

many are grateful
for their new homes.

Southwark has

a very much better
housing record

than many other
London boroughs.

>> Well, I brought

three children
up in two rooms,

and they were well fanned.

My father lived
downstairs.

But when he died,

they said, take
the ass over.

I wasn't in it two
years and they

put me around here,
well, it's seven.

I'm in a bathroom,
have him water,

they're up and
downstairs with

slock piles on water.

Kiddies can have a
bathroom [inaudible]?

It's come too late
because they're

getting married there.

>> The architect of Libya.

That's the reason here.

He wouldn't have come
in Libya for a week.

See his mistakes.
He won't.

>> Few architects
ever live in

the end product of
their sketched utopias,

their visual echoes
of Venetian piazzas.

This is how one such dream

turned out in real life.

In bricks, mortar
and concrete in

London is the Caledonian
Market Estate.

>> Like a good deal our
projects in America,

the architects of

the Caledonian
Market Estate were

motivated in
their design to

create as much open
space as possible.

The buildings on

the left here
were raised off

the ground to provide

a continuous expanse of

space through the project.

The plaza area was
freed of any building,

and then the
entire project

was developed
as a series of

high rise blocks to free

as much ground and
green area as possible.

But the entire thing is

really quite unworkable.

Children are not, in fact,

allowed to play down here,

and the estate management

insists that both
the plaza area

and the abundant
green space

not be used for
children's play.

>> Children must
keep off the grass.

They're not
supposed to play on

the walkways.
They do both.

This lawn is only a
few hundred yards

from an adventure
playground,

but many kids
won't go there.

It's too far away, so

they play here
close to home.

But is this housing
our only option

if we must live cheek
by jowl in cities.

Strangely enough,
it's not.

And bang next door
to this project,

almost the same number
of people are housed

on a similar acreage
in a compact,

low-rise estate,

where most families
not only live

near the ground
but even have

their own garden,
however small.

It comprises flats and

maisonettes built on

a human scale where people

know their neighbors
and don't get lost in

the anonymous
impersonality

of big housing blocks.

In San Francisco, there's

a public housing
project built

before Pruitt-Igoe
in St. Louis,

and at almost the same
density per acre.

It's not much to look
at, but it works.

It's the home of very

similar families
to Pruitt-Igoe,

but they live
around courtyards,

half of which serve
as parking lots for

the cars and half

as play spaces
for children.

Most of the occupants
are colored.

Many are on welfare,

but for America, there's
very little crime.

Why? Newman cites
this fencing

as one simple reason.

You know you'll
be observed

if you wander into
this project.

You enter the
courts through

arches which are
lit at night,

and you're immediately
visible to anyone

looking from any window
inside the yard.

Everyone knows everyone
else by sight,

so intruders are quickly

spotted and reported.

All the houses are small,

one-story flats facing
onto open corridors,

the courtyard,
or the street.

It may not look
your ideal home,

but it does exemplify

certain principles
which Newman

calls defensible space.

Even the flats facing
onto the street have

a symbolic dividing
line between

public pavement and
private entrance.

Then there are the steps

protected by a wall,

and finally,
the front door.

Although it's close
to the street,

it's somewhere you'd feel

uncomfortable if you
were up to no good.

The wall beside
the front door

serves to
physically identify

the semi-private
threshold to each home

from the more
public territory

of the yard or street.

Another simple but
important element of

defensible space is that

the entrance to every flat

is overlooked
by neighbors,

providing a constant
unpaid security check.

All the comings and goings

of both residents and

strangers are easily
seen from other flats.

It may sound a bit
lacking in privacy,

but there's a long
waiting list of people

wanting to move here
because of the friendly,

safe atmosphere
it's achieved.

There's virtually
no vandalism,

and apart from the
occasional burglary,

almost no serious crime,

but most
significant of all,

more people are
housed here per acre

than in the high-rise
Pruitt-Igoe blocks,

which are being blown
up in St. Louis.

With land at a
premium in cities,

the number of people and

homes you can pack into

a given acreage is
of vital importance.

Every family from
those streets

could fit into
this tower block,

saving ground space,

but creating the
problems we've seen.

Move them to a
low-rise block of

apartments like
North Beach,

and you've still got what

architects call
high-density housing,

and not all the extra
space is wasted on

tarmac for cars to
occasionally use.

>> There are two
housing projects

in the Brownsville
section of Brooklyn.

It happens to be
one of the higher

crime areas in the
city of New York,

but they're both designed

at the same density.

They house 288 people
per acre, both of them.

Both house equal
populations and tens

of same social
characteristics,

family sizes,

income group are
virtually identical.

Same backgrounds.

>> The high rise are
called Van Dyke,

the walk ups Brownsville,

and both house
the same number

of people per acre.

But in general crime,

Van Dyke has a
much worse record

than Brownsville with

nearly four times
as many robberies

committed per year in
the high rise blocks.

Like Pruitt-Igoe, the
Van Dyke project was

built high to leave

as much open space
as possible.

On the left is
Brownsville,

a series of low-rise
walk-up blocks.

Because they're next
to one another and

house the same people,

often large families
deserted by

fathers and supported
by mothers on welfare,

they're a unique
opportunity to see how

the same people react

to different environments.

The wide communal
grounds in

Van Dyke are little used
even during the day,

and at night, it's a
dangerous place to walk.

To get from the street
to an entrance,

you have to walk

through grounds
where muggings

are frequent because
no one can see you.

Mothers won't let young

children down
to these areas,

and they've become
a wilderness

roamed by teenage gangs.

The graffiti and
barricaded windows

speak for themselves.

This is the bottom
of the lift shaft.

The lifts are
often broken,

and the authorities
bricked in the windows on

the fire stairs as they

were always being smashed.

The lights on the stairs

were all broken long ago,

making them dark
and very dangerous.

Mothers and children are

often robbed of
handbags and

wallets as they climb

these stairs after
going out shopping.

The only real
sanctuary people

have is the interior
of their apartments.

Behind bolted doors,

many residents
are very house

proud and often put on

a brave display of
seeming affluence,

but most would
sell the lot

for a chance to move
somewhere better,

where every
venture outside

isn't clouded by fear.

To improve the
public grounds,

the housing
authority invested

thousands of pounds
in play equipment.

The older children
use it occasionally,

but even the expensive
new climbing frames

and slides still rarely

tempt mothers to let
the gangsters down

away from the
relative security

of their apartments.

From the windows
of Van Dyke,

you can look down
across the street

to the Brownsville
housing project.

It's a few years
older than Van Dyke,

and a quick glance reveals

it was never a
masterpiece of

modern architecture

but residents
seem to like it.

They plant flowers
in communal areas,

and no one rips them out.

By the entrances, they
set out picnic areas,

and the fragile lamps
they hang above

it don't ever seem
to get broken.

Inside, the residents
have decorated

the public stairs with

their own wallpaper
and pictures.

Nobody asked
them to do it,

but by extending
this house proudness

into the semi-public
areas of the project,

it all becomes that
much less impersonal,

more private, less
comfortable for intruders.

They've been given
no expensive

public play equipment,

but the kids seem to
make do very happily.

The interesting thing
was to find out why

two socially
identical communities

behave so differently

in these two environments.

Newman and his
research team

soon found that it
was by no means

as simple as saying

high rise is bad,
low rise, good.

Public entrance
lobbies were found

less inviting
to intruders if

they could be easily
seen into from

the street by people
or cars passing by.

Equally important,
occupants need

to see who's going
in and out of

the main entrance and to

be able to watch
the behavior of

people in the public space

immediately
surrounding the block.

Both are vital factors

contributing to Newman's
defensible space.

At Brownsville, even the

stairs overlook
the entrance,

enabling not only those

inside to see
who's arriving,

but those outside
to see who may be

waiting for them on
the landings inside.

>> Now, we did an
interesting experiment.

We took a tape recorder,

and we recorded a man
and woman arguing.

And the argument got
successively louder,

appeared to be
more violent

and we took this
tape recorder,

and we played it in
the corridors in

Brownsville and in the
corridors in Van Dyke.

Well, in Brownsville,

it was very hard
to even sneak

into the building
with a tape recorder

without being spotted and

questioned by
the residents.

But the moment you
start playing it,

people came to the door to

find out what
was going on.

It's because

their children are
playing there.

Many of the doors
in Brownsville

are kept ajar,

kept open so
that people can

monitor all the noise and

activity in the corridors.

In Van Dyke, the doors
are kept locked.

When we played

the tape recorder
and we stationed

people next to each door

to see their reaction,

we found that as

the argument on the tape

recording got louder,

people bolted their door.

As it got louder still,

they threw the
second lock.

And if it got very loud,

some of the people
would turn on

a television set to
drown out the noise.

The statistics
everywhere in

this country showed that

the larger the number of

families that share
a particular entry,

a particular building, the

higher will be the
crime rate within it.

Becomes

a much more anonymous
type of environment.

>> Here, one can see how

the number of robberies
committed per

thousand families
in New York goes up

horrifyingly as
buildings get

bigger and contain
more flaws.

But not all tower
blocks are equally bad.

This one actually looks

down over the Van
Dyke project,

but it doesn't
contain the usual

social mix where children,

young mothers,
the middle aged,

and the old are all
lumped together.

Its apartments are
solely for the elderly,

and there's hardly
any crime at all.

>> When the elderly are
put in environments,

particularly high-rise,

dangerous environments,

and mixed in with
families with children,

the crime rate
against them will go

from 3-5 times
the average,

depending on certain types

of mixes and conditions.

But if the elderly are

put in high-rise
buildings,

which they have
exclusively to themselves,

the crime rate can

be virtually
reduced to zero.

>> Unprotected. How can
one man come in here

and compete with maybe
12 or 15 old ladies?

They'd kill them.

>> That lady lives here,

a building exclusively
for the old.

Intruders don't
venture in.

They're too
easily spotted,

and with no teenagers
wrecking the lifts,

it's a haven of peace.

But apart from limiting
the occupation of

tower blocks exclusively
to the elderly,

how else can we improve

the high-rise
we've already got?

This attempt at a
solution was to pile

two-story houses one
on top of the other,

giving each some
defensible space

with a walled
patio in front.

This is the view from

a similar building
opposite,

enabling residents
to look across and

make neighborly checks
on who's doing what.

As additional security,
residents were

given keys to the
entrance of the project.

It's a much-praised
design, but even here,

the problem of seeing
what the children are

up to hasn't really
been solved.

On another
project, they've

tried a very different

and some consider

highly alarming
new approach.

>> Lauren? Come off

this side of the
pole like that.

I said, come down
off the side of

the pole like
that. You hear me?

I want you to
come upstairs.

No. Come on upstairs.

No, you can't say
no. Come upstairs.

>> We may be used
to entry phones,

but here as a
double check,

the unsuspecting caller
is also monitored by

a television camera linked

again to sets in
every apartment.

>> You can even check
on television that

nothing happens to your
guest in the lift,

a favorite spot
for muggings,

for they've put a
camera there, too.

>> We've also taken
the central grounds

at Broxdale, which
were a long,

continuous walk
which had a history

of many crimes that
have occurred there.

We've set up
television cameras

on the buildings
looking down on

this walk to provide

a continuous image of

what takes place there,

and the tenant
patrol sitting

essentially at
a TV panel with

four monitors can
watch what goes on on

these public
grounds and can

actually direct his
cameras panning,

tilting, zooming in.

I suppose with all this

television surveillance,

you begin to get
the image that

we've recreated in 1984,

or rather created
for the first time.

And it certainly sounds
very much like that.

Originally, when we
proposed the idea,

we thought the tenants
would be up in arms,

and in interviews,

we found much
to our surprise

that they wanted
surveillance of

areas by not
tenant patrols

or tenants in their
own apartments,

but rather by housing
authority police.

They were that frightened.

We didn't allow that,

but it was our
decision, not theirs.

>> But high-rise
blocks of flats aren't

the only form of housing

particularly
vulnerable to crime.

Ironically,
this project is

called Marion Gardens,

but the one thing you'll
not see is a garden.

It's just a vast
expanse of concrete

strewn with anonymous
drab buildings.

There are neither
slow lifts nor

long corridors to
invite trouble,

but police regard it as

a high-crime area as

there's no
defensible space.

>> But you can drive
a car through it

in 18 different
directions.

Cars and children vie for

open space and the right
to use the grounds.

Now, this may be a
walk-up project,

but because of
the total lack

of definition of space,

because all the
grounds are

public, because in effect,

even in a walk-up,

a person's private space

stops at his apartment.

This area is overrun.

It's filthy,
it's run down.

People work hard at

maintaining their
own apartments,

but simply cannot identify

with any of the
space outside.

It's not theirs in
any sense at all.

>> Projects like
this would seem to

defy attempts
at improvement,

but in this very
similar depressed area,

that's just what
Oscar Newman and

his team have
succeeded in doing.

>> We were able
to test many of

our ideas in a project

in the Bronx, New York.

We had a unique
opportunity there of

taking an existing project

that was badly designed,

badly laid out from
the first instance,

and then going in
with a sizable sum of

money and modifying
the grounds,

changing the layout
of everything,

in essence, producing

a totally different
environment.

And by testing before and

after with the
same population,

we were able to see
whether, in fact,

the physical
modifications, whether

physical design changes,

really had the effect

that we predicted
it would.

>> To get over the drab

look of Klassen Point,

they offered residents
a selection of

colored stucco to
brighten up each house.

To look more like nearby
middle-income homes,

each house was
decorated with

a mock brick finish to

disguise the cinder
blocks beneath,

and fake stone lintels

were painted above
the windows.

New front doors were

painted to each
tenant's choice.

The transformation
was remarkable.

Gray uniformity was
replaced by warm color,

but perhaps more
important was

the provision of
defensible space by

redistributing the
previously public

ground and giving
most of it

back to the tenants
in the form of

a small patch front and
rear for each house,

it wasn't long before
residents took

pleasure and pride in
their new territory,

and they quickly
supplemented

new fencing provided by

the authority with their

own to mark and
protect it.

This city slum began to

look more like a
country village.

>> We were able to
change the image.

Now, this is simply
window dressing.

There's no question
about that.

But it's window
dressing, I think,

with some skill in

the sense that what
we were trying to do

was capture the image

of a surrounding
community.

That class in point,

instead of standing out

and being readily
identified,

stigmatized, if you will,

was now virtually
impossible

to distinguish from
the surrounding

middle-income community.

>> Planners had
despaired of

the depressed squalor
of this area,

but now residents were

actively improving
it themselves,

buying their own
paints and taking

a personal interest
in the look of

the outside of
their houses.

They seeded the
bare ground,

growing lawns
and flower beds.

There's hot
competition over

who has the best garden.

The authority
provided play areas,

and they're
intensively used.

Sitting out
relaxed like this

was unheard of only
three years ago.

Yet now the project has

become the
environment where

many other New
Yorkers would dearly

like to move to bring
up their children.

Surprisingly, however,

some residents don't
appreciate the change.

>> Like I said, there's
gangs around here.

It hasn't really changed.

>> Modifications

haven't changed
a little bit.

>> It was supposed to.

It didn't change at all.

>> Why not?

>> Why?

>> Why not?
Because there's

still the same
people living here.

And just putting the
outside on a building

isn't going to
change the people

that live here completely.

Maybe people might
like the way

it looks better,
something like that,

but it's not going
to change the person

or the people who were
having the crime.

>> Fortunately,

the carefully
researched facts

tell a very different
story about

the real effect the
modifications have had on

the people here.
Oscar Newman again.

>> The most
radical difference

is the crime rate.

Crimes are down in

the second year of

modifications
to one-tenth of

what they were
three years ago.

And this is parallel

to a condition in
which crimes have

been increasing in the
surrounding community

by about 25 to 30%.

And what has
happened is that

the residents
not only have

begun to take care of

the grounds that were
assigned to them,

they've begun to
watch the paths,

they've begun to
extend their new

felt territorial
feelings to

encompass the
entire project.

The new paths that
are well lit and

seating provided
there have become

play areas and

gathering spaces
for residents.

And now the residents
are concerned

about the safety and

activity that
take place on

the previous public
grounds of the project.

>> Before, they used to

steal things and
run right through.

Now, they have to
watch themselves

cause these gates
are closed.

There's only one place
that they could run,

and that's the fun part.

But before, they
used to run, hide,

and go through the back
way every which way.

Now there's only one way
that they could run.

The ones had to climb
over the fence.

>> And you'd
think that it was

this fencing that
contributed most strongly.

But there really is
another type of barrier,

which I happen to think
is just as important,

and it's this
curbing here.

Prior to the installation
of the curbing,

the sidewalk continued,

and the public
space continued and

went right up to
the dwelling.

It was possible.

In fact, you could
feel comfortable

walking from the sidewalk
up to the building.

It was one continuous
public space.

But this curb now says in

a very clear and
unmistakable way that,

frankly, this is where
the public sidewalk

ends and the private
dwelling begins here.

This is now a
semi-private space.

The moment you
step onto here

above and over the curb,

you simply don't
belong here.

And walking into
the grass and

walking up to the window

clearly defines you
as an intruder.

This space is
semi-private.

That window is
the beginning

of the private dwelling.

The private
dwelling has been

extended up to the
public sidewalk.

>> It's a relief to learn.

Professor Newman
doesn't think

every single postwar
housing project

needs modification.

San Francisco seems to do

better than most
American cities,

and these children are

playing in the precincts

of one of

the best developments
Newman has found.

It's called St.
Francis Square.

Like many old
English squares,

the entrances are
on the street while

the backs face a
semi-private area.

They may look like

three-story
private houses,

but in reality,
they're flats,

each with its large
balcony or small garden,

six families sharing
keys to each entrance.

With 35 families
to the acre,

it's very dense housing,

denser than many ten-story
blocks but here,

by clever compact design,

the architect has not only

achieved a real
sense of space,

but given residents
a friendly

living environment

which they feel proud of.

Kids aren't too
restricted in

where they play
or ride bikes.

The community
is small enough

for parents to know one

another and discuss
problems and complaints.

But more significant in

America is the fact that

although a
resident teenager

here can loaf
around at leisure,

any suspicious stranger

would be spotted
instantly.

Again, it's
defensible space.

Both old and young use

the communal facilities
to the full.

There's space
for everyone to

play or just
sit in the sun.

This is a similar
project in

South London called
Pollard's Hill.

Here the housing
is made up

of masonets and flats,

all backing onto
small gardens and

a shared square
of grass lawn.

Surprisingly, there
are more people

housed here than in
many high rises.

>> For all its appearance
of low density,

Pollard's Hill
actually houses

115 families to the acre.

It does much
more than that.

It gives virtually every

family its own garden,

its own entrance
in the front,

and a parking
area, and it goes

one appreciable
step further

beyond the tradition of

the English row house.

It creates a
series of closes,

contained areas like this,

contained on all
sides by buildings

that belong to
a particular

grouping of families,

and this is the
collective play space.

>> These tiny
backyards may not

be your concept of utopia,

but they're a happy
alternative to families

used to living
15 stories up.

Unfortunately,

as Professor
Newman points out,

this project has turned
its back on the car.

An English
tendency, he says,

is to banish the
car to the back of

buildings where it takes
up valuable space.

Many might disagree,
but he thinks

we've overreacted to
the dangers of traffic,

and by trying
to keep people

and cars completely
separate,

we've dehumanized
our streets,

creating greater
dangers for

ourselves on
lonely pavements.

Who really can feel their

coming home if they have

to get there through
this maze of concrete?

So far, this is a
much improved area,

but for how long?

There's graffiti
here, lots of it.

Current British
housing policy

is against tower blocks,

but building contracts for

many high-rise blocks
were signed ten,

even 15 years ago.

The Aylesbury
estate we saw

in Southwark still
isn't finished,

it will be, and so
will many others.

Plans have been passed,

and building goes on.

>> The real problem

with the architectural
profession

is that it has
led us all down.

Architects have
been entrusted.

With a certain
responsibility by

people and in fact,
they've bomb dug.

They have taken the
faith we have and

their ability
to understand

our needs and translate
them into buildings,

and they've gone ahead and

got along their
own course.

In the end, they are not

concerned with the needs

of people and don't,

in their buildings,
answer them.

They answer
their own needs.

They are more concerned

in the design
of projects and

buildings with
producing something

that's going to win
them a design award

and receive the applause
of other architects.

>> The applause for
Pruitt-Igoe has died.

It's being knocked down

because it's unworkable.

By comparison,
no product of

British architecture
has so far

proved such a disastrous
white elephant.

Policy has at least pushed

high-rise off the
drawing board,

if not the building site.

Low rise has now
become trendy,

but as we've seen, it,

too, can pose problems.

Professor Newman
points out that

architects have a wide
range of options.

Where high density
is essential,

the solution
doesn't have to

be high or low rise,

but a mixture,
high rise for the

elderly, for
childless couples,

low rise for families
with children,

and most important of all,

buildings designed
with defensible space

to make people feel
safe and secure,

homes they can
be proud of.

>> In America,
an environment.

A project like this

would produce a very high

crime rate,
sufficiently high,

in fact, so that

in a short period
of a few years,

the environment would
have to be closed down.

We'd have to close it

down and possibly
even tear it down.

What we've got to do

is some of our more
notorious projects.

Crime is not a situation

here as it is in America.

One wonders, there are

children growing up here.

This is the
first generation

that has lived in
projects like this,

we've had our generation
grow up in them.

One wonders
what happens to

the children who
grow up here?

Do they ever
really develop

any sense of pride,

any sense of self,

any understanding
of responsibility

in an environment that is

so open and undefined?

Can they ever really
develop a sense of

their own rights and

a corresponding sense of

the rights of others?

It's very difficult to

believe that
children who grow up

here will grow up

feeling any sense
of responsibility,

any sense of a
role in society,

any sense of a contribution
they can make.

There is no
evidence as yet

that this type of

environment
produces criminals.

We know that it facilitates
the commission of

crime for the
simple reason

that it's so easy
to get away with.

What we find
here in England

is a lot of
attending vandalism.

But not the crime rates
we have in America.

But one wonders will

these children grow up

to become the criminals

that we seem to have so

much of in America
in such abundance.