safe nightlife programs - stadsnachtwacht.nl · microsoft powerpoint - ivl aag 2011...
Post on 17-Oct-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Safe Nightlife Programs
Rationales, Local Differences and
Side Effects
Ilse van Liempti.vanliempt@geo.uu.nl
2 Safe Nightlife Programs in Rotterdam & Utrecht
1Why Safe Nightlife Districts?
Outline
3 Different legitimizations and local differences
4 Effects of Safe Nightlife Programs on Nightlife Districts
Why do cities want ’safe’ nightlife districts?
Cities have always had nightlife districts
Why this sudden urge for safety?
Focus on leisure & consumptionSafe and clean spaces attract more visitors
2
Policy analysis & expert interviews
RotterdamWorking class citySecond largest city
PopulistNo-nonsense Zero tolerance
Policy analysis & expert interviews Utrecht Student city
Fourth largest city Socialist/Green Human Rights
Collaborations between different parties:
City council
Nightlife industryPoliceVoluntary actors
‘the extended policing family’
Everybody takes their responsibilityBoundaries between public and private are mystified
What are Safe Nightlife Programs?
3
Urban design: lighting, public toilets
On-site patrols---Increasing private forms of security
Safety measures
CCTVMobile camera surveillance
Laws and regulations to fight ‘disorder’
Enforcement of codes, standards and certain moral
ideals
Safety measures
High tech measures such as CCTV very popular, (especially in nightlife districts)but proven to have limited effectiveness (especially in nightlife districts)
Low tech measures such as lighting not very popular, but proven to be effective
Legitimizing safety measures
4
One warning signfor each public camera
Utrecht has put a maximum on the amount of
cameras for the total city (87) and images are only watched live on clubbing nights
Local Differences in Surveillance Discourse
‘In Utrecht we do not want to spy on innocent citizens, we only actively watch camera images if there is a considerable risk that something might happen’
Rotterdam has the highest number of
cameras in the Netherlands (350) and images are watched 24/7
Local Differences in Surveillance Discourse
One warning signfor 3 public cameras
5
‘In Rotterdam we do not want to create an illusion of safety, we do not want an empty box. One very important pillar of our safety policy is that we watch
video images 24/7’
Safe Nightlife Programs may result in more visitors feeling at ease, but they also contribute to the exclusion of other visitors
The search for a risk free nightlife
Who are (potential) ‘troublemakers’ & according to whom? What does this mean for the public character
of public space?
top related