Urban Surveillance and the Struggle between Safe and Exciting Nightlife Districts

Abstract

Cities attract vast numbers of people at night (Roberts and Eldridge 2009). In recent decades the evening economy has started to play a significant role in city centre regeneration, with alcohol related establishments as the driving force (Hollands and Chatterton 2003). Concerns about personal safety and fear of crime have become central in determining the success of these leisure-based inner-city areas (Judd 2003, Bannister et al. 2006). This attitude is also reflected in academic work, where most studies explore the late night economy in terms of alcohol consumption, disorder and anti-social behaviour (Hobbs et al. 2003, Hadfield 2006, Monaghan 2002, Plant and Plant 2006, Winlow and Hall 2006). Nightlife districts are, however, favoured by visitors for their adventure and excitement (Hubbard 2005). The question raised in this paper is how surveillance measures in different nightlife districts are legitimized, taking into account the fact that these districts need not only to be safe but also stimulating. Based on an analysis of policy documents, nighttime observations and expert interviews with stakeholders in the Safe Nightlife Programmes of Rotterdam and Utrecht, different local safety measures, their legitimizations and their outcomes in different local urban settings will be analysed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 38 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.