LC ED 2018 - Speaker Deck

Slide 1

Slide 1 text

DEFENDING URBAN SPACE: SYSTEMATIC STREET CLOSURES IN ST. LOUIS CHRIS PRENER, PH.D. LEARNING COMMUNITY ED TALKS 2018

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

CONTRIBUTORS Joel Jennings, Ph.D. Taylor Braswell, M.A. Abby Block  Andrew Smith  Jeffrey Meyer  Stephanie Fortune Kyle Miller, B.A. Abbey Curran  Cree Foeller  Maddie Baumgart   

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

QUESTION 1 How do our social   experiences shape the   built environment? ?

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

No content

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

No content

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

No content

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

A SEGMENTED STREET GRID

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

A SEGMENTED STREET GRID

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

PUBLIC SAFETY & BARRIERS

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

SIMPLE CLOSURES

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

VANDEVENTER Enright Ave Delmar Blvd W Bell Pl N Newstead Ave

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

CUL-DE-SACS

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

Botanical Ave Shenandoah Ave Tower Grove Ave SHAW

Slide 14

Slide 14 text

POCKET PARKS

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

Laclede Ave N Boyle Ave Forest Park Ave CENTRAL WEST END

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

MULTIPLE CLOSURES

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

Gibson Ave S Newstead Ave Chouteau Ave Arco Ave FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

Gibson Ave S Newstead Ave Chouteau Ave Arco Ave FOREST PARK SOUTHEAST

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

BARRIER LOCATIONS Current Barrier Density City of   St. Louis Projection:  NAD 1983 Missouri State Plane East greater density n of barriers = 270 Data:  Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

QUESTION 2 How does the built  environment shape our  social experiences - speciﬁcally,  does a neighborhood with more barriers have less crime? ?

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

rho = 0.441 (p < 0.001)

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

QUESTION 3 If barrier density is   positively related to crime  at the neighborhood level,  are blocks that are closed safer than the surrounding neighborhood? ?

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

“ISLANDS IN A STORM”

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

QUESTION 3 - BLOCK LEVEL EFFECTS ON CRIME CITY-WIDE RESULTS This analysis focuses on violent crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. Closed blocks have, on average, higher violent crime rates. Category n mean Not Blocked 15037 0.365 Blocked 959 0.556 W = 6397000, p < .001, d = .143

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

QUESTION 3 - BLOCK LEVEL EFFECTS ON CRIME CITY-WIDE RESULTS This analysis focuses on part 1 crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. Closed blocks have, on average, higher part 1 crime rates. Category n mean Not Blocked 15037 1.509 Blocked 959 2.578 W = 5401200, p < .001, d = .262

Slide 26

Slide 26 text

QUESTION 4 Do barriers operate with  different consequences in  different parts of the city? ?

Slide 27

Slide 27 text

LOCAL EFFECTS? Current Barrier Density greater density n of barriers = 270 Data:  Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations

Slide 28

Slide 28 text

LOCAL EFFECTS? n of barriers = 270 Segregation Current Barrier Density greater density Data:  Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations

Slide 29

Slide 29 text

LOCAL EFFECTS? n of barriers = 270 Current Barrier Density greater density Data:  Equal interval classes; k-density raster output of barrier point locations 1 - 6 Barriers per  Neighborhood 7 - 12 13 - 17 18 - 23 24 - 29 Data:  Equal interval classes n of valid neighborhoods = 49

Slide 30

Slide 30 text

NEIGHBORHOOD RESULTS This analysis focuses on violent crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. 6 of the 49 neighborhoods had a statistically signiﬁcant mean difference between open and closed blocks. Neighborhood % closed mean, open mean, closed p d Downtown West 1.6% 0.434 0 p < .001 0.402 Covenant Blu / Grand Center 9.7% 0.554 0.077 p < .001 0.278 The Ville 10.9% 0.575 0.077 p < .001 0.431 Kingsway East 19.2% 1.086 2.158 p < .001 -0.616 Penrose 4.5% 0.627 0.182 p < .001 0.322 Skinker DaBaliviere 36.4% 0.147 0.535 p < .001 -0.579

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

NEIGHBORHOOD RESULTS This analysis focuses on part 1 crime counts because of the high number of blocks with a “0” population. 9 of the 49 neighborhoods had a statistically signiﬁcant mean difference between open and closed blocks. Neighborhood % closed mean, open mean, closed p d Tiffany 16.4% 1.125 2.909 p < .05 -0.832 Downtown West 1.6% 2.244 14.833 p < .05 -2.505 Central West End 32.9% 2.946 4.591 p < .05 -0.220 Vandeventer 3.7% 1.924 0.333 p < .05 0.607 Visitation Park 38.9% 1.909 5.571 p < .05 -1.190 Jeff Vanderlou 6.2% 1.292 2.346 p < .05 -0.429 West End 25.3% 2.043 3.915 p < .05 -0.474 Penrose 4.5% 1.897 1.000 p < .05 0.258 Skinker DaBaliviere 36.4% 1.773 3.070 p < .05 -0.456

Slide 32

Slide 32 text

These slides are available via SpeakerDeck:  https://speakerdeck.com/chrisprener/lc-ed-2018 LEARN MORE THANKS FOR COMING! Caution Text You can ﬁnd out more about our project and download our data on the locations of all known barriers at:  https://chris-prener.github.io/barriers/ [email protected]  https://chris-prener.github.io  , :