The Interplay Between Visibility and Isolation: People vs Walls – Lessons from Jane Jacobs

In the bustling core of every city lies an unspoken question: Who gets to be seen, and who gets shut out? This is the question Jane Jacobs asked—long before urban security cameras, gated communities, or car-dominated highways dominated our landscapes.

In her landmark book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), Jacobs argued that the safety and vitality of urban life stem not from policing or walls, but from people. From presence.

From “eyes on the street.” In her words, “A well-used city street is apt to be a safe street. A deserted city street is apt to be unsafe.”

She wasn’t romanticizing chaos or ignoring real security threats. She was calling for something deeper: cities built for human connection — where people felt safe because they were seen, not because they were locked away.

People vs Walls

Fast-forward to the present, and we find ourselves in an urban paradox. As our cities grow, so too does our obsession with walls — literal and metaphorical. Gated communities promise “security.” Office towers turn their backs on the street. Malls are surrounded by fences and patrolled parking. Even public institutions build high barriers, creating an atmosphere of separation and mistrust.

And so, we find ourselves invisible to each other. Our children are driven everywhere. Sidewalks crumble from neglect. Fear thrives in the absence of familiarity. The very act of walking becomes dangerous or unusual in some neighborhoods.

Walls do serve a purpose — especially in cities facing high crime, inequality, or conflict. But when they become the dominant design language, we begin to normalize exclusion. We build not for presence, but for escape.

As the scholar Setha Low notes, walls and gated communities “produce fear rather than reduce it” and “create fragmented, unequal, and unsustainable urban environments” (Low, 2003).

Visibility Is Safety

The irony is that what many cities need is not more security technology or higher walls, but more people in public space. Streets where children walk. Markets with vendors. Parks with benches, not fences.

Cities can test this — and many already are — through temporary interventions:

• Car-free days

• Open streets initiatives

• Play streets for children

• Pop-up plazas

These simple acts return the city to its people, if only briefly. And what happens is always the same: strangers talk, parents relax, children play. And the street begins to watch itself again.

As Gehl (2010) famously wrote, “First life, then spaces, then buildings—the other way around never works.”

Who Gets to Be Seen?

This conversation also demands that we ask: Whose visibility are we prioritizing?

In many African cities, women, children, and low-income groups are often hypervisible in surveillance but invisible in planning. Their needs — safe sidewalks, crossings, lighting, resting spots — are left out of design conversations.

A child’s fear of crossing the road is not a trivial matter. A woman choosing a longer route to avoid harassment is not a personal inconvenience. These are design failures. And their emotional cost is incalculable.

Designing for Trust, Not Fear

It’s time we returned to Jacobs’ wisdom — and updated it. We need to design for presence, not absence. For trust, not surveillance. For visibility, not isolation.

This means:

• Prioritizing mixed-use streets that are alive at all hours

• Ensuring active frontages — homes and shops that face the street

• Limiting dead zones like blank walls, oversized driveways, or fenced-in parking lots

• And yes, it means reimagining walls — making them transparent, artistic, or unnecessary altogether

As cities navigate insecurity, inequality, and climate pressure, public space becomes not a luxury but a necessity. And our streets must be designed to reflect that.

Because in the end, a safe city is one where people feel seen — not watched. And where presence, not fear, defines the urban experience.

Planning Shot

If you're an urban planner, ask yourself:

• Does your design invite people into public space — or keep them out?

• Are your streets alive with people, or patrolled by walls?

• Who feels safe to walk, and who has been erased from visibility?

Because visibility isn't just a design choice. It's a political one.

Suggested References

• Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.

• Low, S. (2003). Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. Routledge.

• Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press.

• UN-Habitat. (2018). Streets for Walking and Cycling: Designing for Safety, Accessibility, and Comfort in African Cities.

• GDCI (2020). Designing Streets for Kids. Global Designing Cities Initiative.