This is an archive. The forum is not taking new registrations or allowing new discussion, despite what the buttons might suggest.

London: security architecture, end of the sustainable city?

London's security architecture: the end of the sustainable city?
Jan Willem Peterson
06 July 2006
The intensive anti-terror security measures implemented in London – both before and after 7/7 – are altering the relationship between the citizen and public space, says Jan Willem Petersen.

"I think the terrorists have already won to a certain extent …. Without planting an actual bomb, they have forced everyone to think the unthinkable." Planning officer, Westminster Council, London, January 2005

Nothing seemed to function properly. Police ribbons blocked off many of the streets I normally took to get to the Architectural Association (AA) to pursue my research. My mobile phone rattled with text messages from friends and relatives. London was under attack. In physical terms, I was safe, but I could not shake off a sense of the bizarre. A few days before, I had completed my AA thesis on the city in relation to security and anti-terrorism policy. At that moment it felt strange, even embarrassing, to have intellectualised a realm now devastating the lives of those directly caught up in the events. A thesis had been given its reality-check.

The bombing attacks of 7 July 2005 in London destroyed or damaged the lives of many thousands of people. All who live, work and study in the city were affected – some in ways far below the level of conscious awareness. But the imprint of 7/7 on the lives of people not directly touched by the attacks is more than just personal or psychological.

All Londoners – as citizens, commuters, and residents – share the public spaces of London itself. These public spaces, especially in the central areas of the city, are increasingly subject to significant architectural changes designed to avert or minimise the threat of terrorist attack. The purpose may be justified in terms of protecting citizens; but the effect of many of these innovations is to monitor, channel and control the free movement of Londoners.

What happens to a city when much of its architecture and planning becomes subject to a political, counter-terrorist imperative? What is the impact on citizens of the securitisation of public space? Are these processes compatible with the life of the city as a healthy, confident civic space – one of the foundations of a modern democracy?
(....)
continue reading: OpenDemocracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/security_architecture_3714.jsp

Comments

  • peter_j
    edited January 1970
    That's a fascinating article Beatriz. Interestingto hear of developments in Grosvenor Square, and people's view of these new in-your-face barriers.
    As significant, the barriers' very visibility is deemed by security agencies to have a strong deterrent effect. Thus, the embassy needs to broadcast its protective measures in order for them to be effective, radiating force and maximising visual presence.

    It reminds me of some of my concerns in another post earlier in the year, which was about the 'hardening' of Melbourne's parliament precinct ( http://www.butterpaper.com/talk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1233 ).

    There were articles in last Saturday's Age about the strengthening of the Australian Embassy in London's The Strand. Advisors on that job, Denton Corker Marshall architects, have noticed some changes in the idea of the embassy:
    John Denton: "We are currently designing a new type... We are doing the new British embassy in Manila and the security constraints are heavy duty. You effectively start with a three-metre concrete wall around the site. And then you set back 30 metres and then you start your building...It reflects the times. These are the new security-conscious embassies that have started to go up... There is a degree of what they euphemistically call hardening."
    THE AGE 12.08.06

    The new model for the embassy would seem to be a medieval castle with moat. Architect Riccardo Tossani thinks this new shift is sending out the wrong message, both to the host country and to Australian visitors to the embassies. "An embassy is a fortress of sorts... but on the other hand it is the face of a nation, it's a greeting card and the first impression that a country makes in a foreign place... As an Australian citizen I see the embassy as an island of refuge and a connection to my country and I think that Australian embassies should be positive, welcoming and warm."

    Do these shifts parallel changes in Australia's immigration policy for asylum seekers? This has switched from being "welcoming and warm" to something more similar to Mr Denton's three metre wall around the site. Will these new embassies be seen as defensive or agressive, and what affect will that have on the local population's perception of Australia?

    Maybe the idea of the embassy/consulate needs a bit of a rethink. The ones I've been into have been an awkward cobbling together of cultural and tourism missions, trades missions, libraries of old newspapers, travellers assistance, cocktail parties, and immigration bureaus. Most of these functions will be affected negatively by new intimidatory designs.
  • beatriz
    edited January 1970
    I also read the article on the embassies quoting Denton and I found quite despairing that not thought is given as to why we need these types of barricading structures, what is this saying about our approach to the citizens of other nations?

    If we assume that it is acceptable for fear to shape our buildings, the extension of this idea would be that universities, hospitals, schools and houses will follow suit.

    I wonder what does Denton (the government architect) think about architects challenging these nightmarish notions - does he believe that is not for architects to formulate these questions but just to adapt?

    As I read the article I was thinking of something that Shane Murray wrote regarding the state of architectural discourse, I thought it may be relevant to the issue:

      “It can still be observed that discourse, including new forms of analysis, act as authorising or legitimising agents rather than attempting to actually inquire into what we do as architects”.
    Murray, Shane. "Architectural Design and Discourse." Architectural Design Research 1, no. 1 (2005).
    That quote in my view sadly reflects the state of our architectural enquire, at least at top levels.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!