In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, Jane Jacobs dictates that a safe area is a place that is well-used and highly populated by strangers who are willing to monitor the area as evidenced in my observations at Rittenhouse Square. Philadelphia is not ranked as one of the most dangerous cities in the country, but the reputation it possesses would suggest otherwise. Rittenhouse Square is a unique and very small fragment of Philadelphia, but does it have the qualities to be considered a safe space as defined by Jacobs’ standards?
Jacobs’ whole argument is based off her most basic question of what makes a street well-used in contrast to it being shunned. An area that is frequented by more people, occupied by stores and is overall inviting to the general public would be considered well-used and is more likely to be safer than areas that are vacant and less appealing. According to Jacobs, in order for a space to be well-used, it must have the basic qualities that prepares it for use: users on the street, eyes on the street and a clear demarcation of private space vs. public space. Rittenhouse Square would definitely be considered safe by Jacobs’ standards because it possesses all these essential qualities.
A space is safer if it is well-used and therefore, must be a place that people are attracted to and would be willing to spend their time there. It is pertinent for an area to have a reason for people to go there and use the space appropriately. “You can’t make people use streets they have no reason to use. You can’t make people watch streets they do not want to watch” (Jacobs 36). If people don’t find a place attractive and inviting or a practical use of their time, they won’t inhabit the area. If people don’t inhabit an area, it is more likely to become an unsafe area. To prevent this occurrence from happening, the area must have multiple businesses, shops, restaurants, etc. If an area is strictly residential, there would be no cause for any strangers to wander in and increase the amount of users upon the street. It is important to have communal places in each area that are frequently populated to promote users and a higher concentration of strangers.
Rittenhouse Square is a park area with surrounding streets that are filled with various shops, vendors, businesses and restaurants. All these elements encourage a high population of users to inhabit the area and spend their time there. Many people go to Rittenhouse Square to kill some downtime and relax. It is a beautiful park filled with trees, plants, statues, fountains and open grass-filled areas. You could potentially spend all day there relaxing, reading a book, writing in a journal, painting, listening to music, walking your dog, enjoying a nice iced coffee or just simply people-watching. The versatility of this space encourages plenty of users to occupy this location. The inhabitants of this park definitely use the space to their advantage. One interesting man spent all day there just painting various scenic landscapes throughout the park. Along with getting his painting done, he also brought joy to the many passersby who stopped to observe his art. There are also vendors on specific days that set up throughout the whole street that the park is located on. These vendors sell various fruits, vegetables, plants and handcrafted items. You can often find people enjoying their newly purchased fresh produce throughout the park. This area always has something going on and is very inviting and attractive to pedestrians. These communal areas that encourage usage not only keep the area safe, but also keep the surrounding areas safer.
A large amount of users in a space also ensures a large amount of eyes, which is good for the security of a space. Users on a street are pertinent “both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in the buildings along the streets to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers” (Jacobs 35). A high population of strangers promotes people-watching which forces users to monitor the streets. Jacobs references an incident of a little girl who was seemingly being dragged off by an older man. All of the occupants of the local businesses along that street heard the commotion and were quick to respond. Even though this girl was a complete stranger and the man she was with happened to be her father, all of the people witnessing the event felt the need to involve themselves in order to protect an innocent girl. “Nobody was going to allow a little girl to be dragged off, even if nobody knew who she was” (Jacobs 39). Imagine if this man were not the little girl’s father. The girl would still have been safe because so many people were willing to protect her and none of them happened to be the police. They all did their job as monitors of the society in which they live. The people of a community are those who protect it and each member of that community has to have the mutual desire to keep their space safe. People-watching is one of the best and simplest ways to keep a space safe. It is a security measure within itself and guarantees that there are eyes watching the area at all times.
Rittenhouse Square is the perfect space for people-watching. The way the park is set up promotes this specific activity. All of the benches are set up so that they face the pathways where people walk through. There are so many seating areas along the pathways so if you need to sit down, you’re forced to also participate in monitoring the area. Most of the people who dwell in the park are simply there to people-watch and relax. As Jacobs has observed, “Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity” (35). People-watching not only keeps the area safer, but it is also very calming and an enjoyable way to spend your time.
Along with people-watching being a great tool for security, a higher population also creates a neighborly community. A large population of strangers in a condensed area not only makes that environment safer but also creates a friendlier setting and promotes altruism. As I sat there observing the park, I saw so many pleasant interactions between people who had not previously met before. One delightful encounter was between two men on a bench who were complete strangers to each other. They started a conversation and after a while, the one man gave the other man his iPod to show him some music that they were discussing. They talked for a long while on the bench and then happily went their separate ways. It was so nice to see this interaction and to see how comfortable and trusting they were with each other even though they had just met. Rittenhouse Square definitely has a friendly and sociable atmosphere to it that makes it a nice, safe and relaxing place to spend your downtime.
Some could argue that a large population of strangers in such a small, condensed area would lead to a higher crime rate and a more dangerous environment. People could commit a number of crimes discreetly and nobody would notice because the area is so crowded. I used to believe this to be true, but through my observations at Rittenhouse Square and the city of Philadelphia in general, I have found this statement to be false. Because there are more people around, there are more witnesses and people who are inclined to help in any given situation. When there’s a higher population of strangers, there’s also a higher population of people who are always willing to assist those in danger and do the right thing. There tends to be more good strangers than bad in densely populated areas. Even though an area is highly populated, it can still be considered a safe space.
Another prevalent part of a safe and well-used space is a clear demarcation of private and public space. According to Jacobs, “Public and private spaces cannot ooze into each other” (35). It is critical that users know what areas of the city are considered communal and which are not. Unlike suburban areas, there must be a clear boundary between public and private space. Sometimes the boundary of these two very opposite spaces can be quite vague, but it is critical for this barrier to be defined in order for the space to be considered safe. Rittenhouse Square definitely does a great job of clearly marking what is private property. The park itself is surrounded by walls, but it is clearly stated that it is for public use. Also, you can see the large amount of people who come and go through the park which is a big indicator of it being a public space. Knowing a designated area is meant to be used by anyone who wants definitely encourages users to take advantage of the fact that it is a communal space. Having both public and private spaces is critical in modern day society, but it is also very important that there be a clearly marked boundary between the two.
Rittenhouse Square is an ideal space and a valuable part of the city of Philadelphia. It possesses all the qualities of a safe and well-used area. This park is a safe space that is frequented and highly populated by strangers who are willing to monitor the area. Philadelphia could definitely use more spaces that are similar to this park because it has all the perfect qualities of a safe location and it also keeps the surrounding areas safer by association. If there were similar areas spread throughout Philadelphia, the city that has such a horrible reputation could potentially be safer which would be beneficial to the well-being of its inhabitants as a whole.