Skip to content
Header banner full

Urban Safety After Dark, Rethinking Design in Nightlife Districts

Nightlife districts play a crucial role in city centres not only do they create entertainment but they attract large crowds to the city which greatly contribute to the economic state of the area, in particular, alcohol related establishments (Van Liempt and Van Aalst, 2012). These large crowds, however, can pose as a serious safety concern especially when combined with nightlife culture. So how can we use urban design to mitigate these safety concerns whilst preserving the essence of these cultural entertainment hubs.

Figure 1: London’s crowded nightlife scene

The use of Crime prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is one of the more successful ways in which safety in nightlife districts can be improved. CPTED is defined by C Ray Jeffery (1977) as “the 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”. Aspects of this include the use of Natural Surveillance, the creation of a sense of ownership in the area, the maintenance of an area, and social cohesion. Although these are not the traditional or most common governmental response of the intensification of surveillance an policing (Norris, 2007), these methods reduce these safety issues while maintaining the character of these centres of cultural enjoyment.

Figure 2: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design diagram

Nightlife districts are favoured and popularised y their edgy, adventurous, and sometimes dangerous character (Hubbard, 2006), which is why the safety design is crucial to balancing public order with the vibrant, edgy appeal that makes nightlife districts attractive.

Another relevant theory is the Broken Window Theory. This is the idea that a well-maintained space with little visible disorder sends a subconscious message to the general public that anti-social behaviours is not tolerated and that the area is monitored (Ren, Zhao and He, 2017). According to the theory, signs of neglect can instigate a sense of lawlessness.

Ultimately, the creation of safer nightlife districts does not have to strip the character away from the area. Through less used design strategies like CPTED and the principles of Broken Window Theory, cities can mitigate safety concerns while preserving culturally and economically rich spaces. Design strategies which prioritise natural oversight, well maintained environments, and community ownership help designers ensure that nightlife areas remain both safe, and exciting.

 

 

List of Figures:

Cover Image: Avdeeko, A. (27AD). Reconstruction Uspenska Square in Dnipro. ArchDaily.

Figure 1: London’s crowded nightlife scene (Accessed From: Piero Cruciatti (2013) Nightlife in London, Dreamstime.)

Figure 2: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design diagram (Accessed From:MBA, G.H. (2021) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Paragon Architecture.)

 

References:

C Ray Jeffery (1977). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hubbard, P. (2006). The Geographies of ‘Going Out’: Emotion and Embodiment in the Evening Economy. In: Emotional Geographies. Routledge.

Norris, C. (2007). The Intensification and Bifurcation of Surveillance in British Criminal Justice Policy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 13(1-2), pp.139–158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-006-9032-1.

Ren, L., Zhao, J. “Solomon” and He, N. “Phil” (2017). Broken Windows Theory and Citizen Engagement in Crime Prevention. Justice Quarterly, [online] 36(1), pp.1–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1374434.

Van Liempt, I. and Van Aalst, I. (2012). Urban Surveillance and the Struggle between Safe and Exciting Nightlife Districts. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), pp.280–292. doi:https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v9i3.4270.

3 responses to “Urban Safety After Dark, Rethinking Design in Nightlife Districts”

  1. I found the section on the Broken Window Theory compelling, especially the idea that a clean, well-maintained urban environment signals «that anti-social behaviour is not tolerated and the area is monitored». This made me question: if urban order reduces anti-social behaviour, why do many English cities have neglected central areas where nightlife thrives?
    When I visited Copenhagen, I was struck by how clean the streets were. In contrast, moving to Newcastle, I was shocked by the litter in the city centre. According to Numbeo (2025), Aarhus, Denmark (population ~352,000) has a pollution index of 23.95, while Newcastle (population ~300,000) scores 36.85. The “Dirty and Untidy” index for Newcastle is 43.75, compared to Aarhus’ 23.61. Similar patterns are seen in Leeds (45.11) and Manchester (53.30).
    Why is this the case? Some reasons include:

    • The UK’s “on-the-go consumption” culture leads to high levels of single-use packaging, much of which ends up on the streets. Britons are among the highest consumers of takeaway food and drinks in developed countries (Silverman, 2024).
    • Cuts to local council budgets have reduced resources for street cleaning and maintenance. A report shows only 10% of streets and parks in England are litter-free (Lee O., 2025).
    • Waste systems fail to manage organic waste, causing rat problems in nightlife back alleys where rubbish from bars and restaurants piles up.

    Interestingly, a study in Lowell, Massachusetts found that improving environments in crime hotspots — such as removing litter and fixing lighting — led to a 20% drop in police calls (Braga, A., Bond, B., 2008). Cleanliness is not just about appearances — it plays a key role in public safety and order.

    References
    1. Braga, A., Bond, B. (2008). Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Criminology. 46. 577 – 607. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227673973_Policing_Crime_and_Disorder_Hot_Spots_A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial (Accessed 11/05/2025)
    2. Lee O. (2025) Just one in 10 English streets and parks litter-free, report says. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/29/just-one-in-10-english-streets-and-parks-litter-free-report-says? (Accessed: 11/05/2025).
    3. Numbeo (2025) Pollution Comparison Between Newcastle upon Tyne and Aarhus. Available at: https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Denmark&city1=Newcastle+upon+Tyne&city2=Aarhus&tracking=getDispatchComparison (Accessed: 11/05/2025).
    4. Silverman R. (2024) How Britain became a ‘rundown and filthy’ dumping ground. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/how-the-uk-city-centres-became-litter-dumping-grounds/ (Accessed: 11/05/2025).

    Reply

  2. This blog offers a balanced and reflective analysis of urban safety in nightlife districts, with design-based solutions taking precedence over regulation. It effectively uses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to advocate for safety measures that do not compromise the cultural spontaneity that defines vibrant nightlife districts (Van Liempt & Van Aalst, 2012). Importantly, it defies the more common binary formation of vibrancy vs. safety by drawing on Hubbard (2006) to argue that some “edginess” is inherent and even requisite to nightlife culture.
    The over-regulation argument adds greater complexity, campaigning for an end to policing-led solutions in favour of more design-led solutions to public space that retain authenticity. However, the blog could be strengthened by examining the role of community participation in the development of safer spaces. CPTED is top-down in its approach; the inclusion of examples of participatory planning or co-designed public space – campaigns by Jacobs (1961) and Carmona et al. (2010) – would strengthen the argument for safer, community-led safety.
    Along with that, even though the blog properly cites Broken Windows Theory, it would be beneficial if it acknowledges its critics – that is, how it has been linked to in-your-face police and reinforcing social inequalities (Harcourt, 2001). Some reference to these critics would indicate a higher degree of knowledge regarding the policy and ethical aspects.
    Overall, the blog strongly argues for the redesigning of urban nightlife as both safe and culturally vibrant using inclusive design approaches.

    References:
    Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T. and Oc, T. (2010). Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Routledge.
    Harcourt, B.E. (2001). Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing. Harvard University Press.
    Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
    Hubbard, P. (2006). The Geographies of ‘Going Out’: Emotion and Embodiment in the Evening Economy. In: Emotional Geographies. Routledge.
    Van Liempt, I. and Van Aalst, I. (2012). Urban Surveillance and the Struggle between Safe and Exciting Nightlife Districts. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), pp.280–292.

    Reply

  3. This blog offers insights into how urban design strategies such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and the Broken Window Theory, can enhance safety in nightlife districts while preserving their cultural and economic appeal. By encouraging natural surveillance, social ownership, and improving the maintenance of these urban spaces, the methods provided become viable alternatives to traditional, often heavy-handed, policing approaches (Jeffery, 1977) (Ren, 2017).
    However, there are limitations. While CPTED can reduce certain types of crime, it may not address deeper social issues such as alcohol fuelled violence or socio-economic disparities, which are frequent incidents that contribute to creating unsafe conditions in nightlife districts (Van Liempt and Van Aalst, 2012). Additionally, the Broken Window Theory has drawn criticism for justifying increased surveillance and disproportionately targeting marginalised populations, sometimes leading to the over-policing of minor offences (Norris, 2007). This can erode the sense of freedom and inclusivity that characterises vibrant nightlife cultures (Hubbard, 2006).
    Through making nightlife spaces a safer environment it will benefit those who are nervous to be involved in the culture but it risks diluting the unique identity of these nightlife hubs through gentrification or excessive regulation. A balance is required and should not only reply on the policing strategies that is rolled out.
    Ultimately, urban design can play a valuable role, but it should complement, not replace the inclusive strategies set out to protect those enjoying their nights out.

    References
    • Hubbard, P. (2006) The Geographies of ‘Going Out’. Progress in Human Geography, pp. 365–372.
    • Jeffery, C.R. (1977) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
    • Sage. Norris, C. (2007) ‘Surveillance, crime and social control’, in Newburn, T. Handbook of Policing. pp. 905–927.
    • Ren, L Et al. (2017) ‘Broken windows theory: Past, present, and future’, Crime Science, pp. 1–10.
    • Van Liempt, I. and Van Aalst, I. (2012) ‘Urban Surveillance and the Struggle Between Safety and Sociability in Nightlife Areas’, Urban Studies, pp. 2827–2844.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. I found the section on the Broken Window Theory compelling, especially the idea that a clean, well-maintained urban environment signals «that anti-social behaviour is not tolerated and the area is monitored». This made me question: if urban order reduces anti-social behaviour, why do many English cities have neglected central areas where nightlife thrives?
    When I visited Copenhagen, I was struck by how clean the streets were. In contrast, moving to Newcastle, I was shocked by the litter in the city centre. According to Numbeo (2025), Aarhus, Denmark (population ~352,000) has a pollution index of 23.95, while Newcastle (population ~300,000) scores 36.85. The “Dirty and Untidy” index for Newcastle is 43.75, compared to Aarhus’ 23.61. Similar patterns are seen in Leeds (45.11) and Manchester (53.30).
    Why is this the case? Some reasons include:

    • The UK’s “on-the-go consumption” culture leads to high levels of single-use packaging, much of which ends up on the streets. Britons are among the highest consumers of takeaway food and drinks in developed countries (Silverman, 2024).
    • Cuts to local council budgets have reduced resources for street cleaning and maintenance. A report shows only 10% of streets and parks in England are litter-free (Lee O., 2025).
    • Waste systems fail to manage organic waste, causing rat problems in nightlife back alleys where rubbish from bars and restaurants piles up.

    Interestingly, a study in Lowell, Massachusetts found that improving environments in crime hotspots — such as removing litter and fixing lighting — led to a 20% drop in police calls (Braga, A., Bond, B., 2008). Cleanliness is not just about appearances — it plays a key role in public safety and order.

    References
    1. Braga, A., Bond, B. (2008). Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Criminology. 46. 577 – 607. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227673973_Policing_Crime_and_Disorder_Hot_Spots_A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial (Accessed 11/05/2025)
    2. Lee O. (2025) Just one in 10 English streets and parks litter-free, report says. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/29/just-one-in-10-english-streets-and-parks-litter-free-report-says? (Accessed: 11/05/2025).
    3. Numbeo (2025) Pollution Comparison Between Newcastle upon Tyne and Aarhus. Available at: https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+Kingdom&country2=Denmark&city1=Newcastle+upon+Tyne&city2=Aarhus&tracking=getDispatchComparison (Accessed: 11/05/2025).
    4. Silverman R. (2024) How Britain became a ‘rundown and filthy’ dumping ground. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/how-the-uk-city-centres-became-litter-dumping-grounds/ (Accessed: 11/05/2025).

    Reply

  2. This blog offers a balanced and reflective analysis of urban safety in nightlife districts, with design-based solutions taking precedence over regulation. It effectively uses Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to advocate for safety measures that do not compromise the cultural spontaneity that defines vibrant nightlife districts (Van Liempt & Van Aalst, 2012). Importantly, it defies the more common binary formation of vibrancy vs. safety by drawing on Hubbard (2006) to argue that some “edginess” is inherent and even requisite to nightlife culture.
    The over-regulation argument adds greater complexity, campaigning for an end to policing-led solutions in favour of more design-led solutions to public space that retain authenticity. However, the blog could be strengthened by examining the role of community participation in the development of safer spaces. CPTED is top-down in its approach; the inclusion of examples of participatory planning or co-designed public space – campaigns by Jacobs (1961) and Carmona et al. (2010) – would strengthen the argument for safer, community-led safety.
    Along with that, even though the blog properly cites Broken Windows Theory, it would be beneficial if it acknowledges its critics – that is, how it has been linked to in-your-face police and reinforcing social inequalities (Harcourt, 2001). Some reference to these critics would indicate a higher degree of knowledge regarding the policy and ethical aspects.
    Overall, the blog strongly argues for the redesigning of urban nightlife as both safe and culturally vibrant using inclusive design approaches.

    References:
    Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T. and Oc, T. (2010). Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Routledge.
    Harcourt, B.E. (2001). Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing. Harvard University Press.
    Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
    Hubbard, P. (2006). The Geographies of ‘Going Out’: Emotion and Embodiment in the Evening Economy. In: Emotional Geographies. Routledge.
    Van Liempt, I. and Van Aalst, I. (2012). Urban Surveillance and the Struggle between Safe and Exciting Nightlife Districts. Surveillance & Society, 9(3), pp.280–292.

    Reply

  3. This blog offers insights into how urban design strategies such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and the Broken Window Theory, can enhance safety in nightlife districts while preserving their cultural and economic appeal. By encouraging natural surveillance, social ownership, and improving the maintenance of these urban spaces, the methods provided become viable alternatives to traditional, often heavy-handed, policing approaches (Jeffery, 1977) (Ren, 2017).
    However, there are limitations. While CPTED can reduce certain types of crime, it may not address deeper social issues such as alcohol fuelled violence or socio-economic disparities, which are frequent incidents that contribute to creating unsafe conditions in nightlife districts (Van Liempt and Van Aalst, 2012). Additionally, the Broken Window Theory has drawn criticism for justifying increased surveillance and disproportionately targeting marginalised populations, sometimes leading to the over-policing of minor offences (Norris, 2007). This can erode the sense of freedom and inclusivity that characterises vibrant nightlife cultures (Hubbard, 2006).
    Through making nightlife spaces a safer environment it will benefit those who are nervous to be involved in the culture but it risks diluting the unique identity of these nightlife hubs through gentrification or excessive regulation. A balance is required and should not only reply on the policing strategies that is rolled out.
    Ultimately, urban design can play a valuable role, but it should complement, not replace the inclusive strategies set out to protect those enjoying their nights out.

    References
    • Hubbard, P. (2006) The Geographies of ‘Going Out’. Progress in Human Geography, pp. 365–372.
    • Jeffery, C.R. (1977) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
    • Sage. Norris, C. (2007) ‘Surveillance, crime and social control’, in Newburn, T. Handbook of Policing. pp. 905–927.
    • Ren, L Et al. (2017) ‘Broken windows theory: Past, present, and future’, Crime Science, pp. 1–10.
    • Van Liempt, I. and Van Aalst, I. (2012) ‘Urban Surveillance and the Struggle Between Safety and Sociability in Nightlife Areas’, Urban Studies, pp. 2827–2844.

    Reply
logo
  • Log in

    • School of Architecture
    Planning and Landscape
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Tyne and Wear, NE1 7RU

    Telephone: 0191 208 6509

    Email: nicola.rutherford@ncl.ac.uk