"Crimogenic?" No, Bunkogenic.

I ran across this teaser at the New Urban News:

British anti-urbanism study debunked
A British study claiming that new urban design encourages crime has fallen victim to its own false premises. In October, Randal O'Toole, organizer of a campaign against smart growth and New Urbanism in the US, circulated a study by a police officer in Bedfordshire, England, alleging that new urban design techniques make communities more vulnerable to crimes such as burglary and car theft. Closer inspection reveals, however, that the English study was not based on new urban communities at all, but on developments containing design features that new urbanists commonly reject.

As I had posted on this particular British study myself, I was curious at the reverberations.

Subsequent to my own posts, I had run across an article by dogmatic anti-urban Randall O'Toole --- New Urbanism Promotes Crime -- at Reason Public Policy Institute. So today, after seeing the New Urban News page I went back to check to see if any of the proponents of this bizarre view of New Urbanism had taken cognizance of the criticisms. Alas, O'Toole's piece is still up. I was surprised, disappointed. O'Toole's post, based as it is on a flawed British study, should have been taken down quite a while ago.

Or, in the alternative, Reason should ask O'Toole to respond to the criticisms. See Crooked Timber: Crime and the new urbanism and Crooked Timber: New urbanism and crime ...probably lots more places.

It seems to me O'Toole and the British author of the underlying study should respond; the competency of their work is called into question.

(I mean there is no question in my mind. The underlying study is a mess. And O'Toole is both smart- and well-informed enough --- I met him in a taxi going from the old Denver airport to Boulder years ago --- to know better that to accept that British study as factually accurate in its depiction of New Urbanism. I also wrote to the British policeman back in November to alert him, as I thought fair, of my own crit of his "study" -- but the only response was silence, which is sometimes a tactically-wise response for a propagandist. The work is not what one hope for from a British policeman. I am trying to be polite. )

So far as I can see, the issue of New Urbanism being "crimogenic" is actually "bunkogenic."

UPDATE: I've had some useful email exchanges with some of the personally very pleasant RPPI folks and I start to see some of the problem: relativism.

My criticism (and others' better informed than I) of the British police study and of O'Toole for using it is that it is in error -- errors of fact -- in its depiction of New Urbanism and it then bases its opinion on such false premises.

The sense I get is that RPPI is a big tent and makes room for lots of opinions and that O'Toole is simply stating his opinion as in (and I making up this quote to exagerate) "Oh well that is simply Randall's opinion. And of course as Derrida says politics and life is simply a matter of where one stands, how one is privileged. There are no real facts and O'Toole's opinion --- even if I personally thnk it's based on ignorance and cant -- is still a very valid opinion and we wouldn't dare take it down for fear of being accused of censorship." (That's my opinion, btw.)

Now that sentence above was NOT explicitly stated but it's the sense I got: Facts don't matter; opinions do. Oh! for conservatives who stand for traditional & fixed certainties such as accuracy counts.

Comments

[Michael Mehaffy]

I suspect that Reason is not so much a fan of Derrida, as they are of the "all's fair in love and polemics" school. All else is marginal -- including, it would seem, academic integrity.

I did send a letter to Reason Magazine pointing out the "serious flaws of accuracy and methodology" in O'Toole's report in early December; to date I've had no response. FYI I wrote:

Sirs,

I would like to advise you (if you have not been advised already) of serious flaws of accuracy and methodology contained in a report published on your website on October 16, 2003. The paper by Randal O'Toole cites a study by a Bedfordshire, UK police officer of a single alleged "new urbanist community" that is not identified. No critical evaluation is given of the report or its source. Yet its sweeping polemical conclusions are reported as indisputable fact. Mr. O'Toole even says at the outset that the report "reveals" that New Urban design greatly promotes crime.

The report might be of interest in evaluating aspects of New Urbanism -- or one example of it -- were it not for a curious problem: on the evidence of photos below the original report, it is clear that this unidentified community is simply not a "New Urbanist" community at all. It lacks such core features as vehicular access to pedestrian areas, "eyes on the street" (and on pathways), properly designed civic space, and "defensible space" -- all important features of New Urbanist communities. In fact in his narrative the author betrays remarkable ignorance about the basic concepts of New Urbanist planning.

But Mr. O'Toole seems only too happy to ignore these egregious flaws. On the basis of this one erroneously characterised community, Mr. O'Toole repeats sweeping polemical generalisations about the "criminogenic" character of New Urbanist developments. This would be laughable (particularly in the face of so much abundant counter-evidence) were it not for the way that Mr. O'Toole represents the work to your busy readers as credible and authoritative.

Mr. O'Toole has maintained that he is a believer in free consumer choice. Many consumers freely choose to live in New Urbanist communities, and in fact pay a premium to do so. But the chief problem in building such communities is that they are still illegal in many jurisdictions in the US. I was under the misconception that Mr. O'Toole would be sympathetic to that situation. Instead he has embarked on a campaign of defamation and distortion. What could be behind such hypocrisy -- is it his personal dislike of this particular lifestyle? Does Mr. OToole want "libertarianism for me, but not for thee?"

I believe that Mr. O'Toole owes your readers an apology and a retraction.

Sincerely,

Michael Mehaffy
Director of Education
The Prince's Foundation
19-22 Charlotte Road
London EC2A 3SG

[Laurence Aurbach]

It's an ongoing trend that's becoming more and more apparent: Commentators confuse "editorial opinion" with "freedom to cite unsubtantiated evidence as truth." Hey, it's my opinion, so I can quote whatever sources I want, right?

An editorial is like a brick house, built up piece by piece. When the pieces are weak, the structure collapses. Any editorial worth its salt is built on solid factual evidence - and the better editorials address both sides of an issue. The conclusions belong to the writer, but interpretation is no excuse for fabrication.

[praktike]

David, how about this one?