The Blast-Proof City

Federal buildings and monuments across the United States are now bomb-proof fortresses. But what's being lost in our relentless pursuit of total safety?

BY WITOLD RYBCZYNSKI | SEPTEMBER 2, 2011

It used to be that D.C. architecture consisted of graceful Georgetown mansions, neoclassical federal buildings -- and, of course, the monuments. When the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts was founded in 1910 to guide Washington's architectural development, it reviewed designs such as those of the Lincoln Memorial and the Federal Triangle. Over the seven years I've served on the commission, however, an increasing amount of time is spent discussing security-improvement projects: screening facilities, hardened gatehouses, Delta barriers, perimeter fences, and seemingly endless rows of bollards. We used to mock an earlier generation that peppered the U.S. capital with Civil War generals on horseback; now I wonder what future generations will make of our architectural legacy of crash-resistant walls and blast-proof glass.

Related

Barriers to Entry
Photos of Washington's treasured landmarks, in the post-9/11 era.

How did we become so insecure about our buildings? Although the 9/11 attacks loom large in the public's imagination, the event that changed the way federal buildings in the United States are designed and used -- perhaps forever -- was a presidential directive issued six years prior to the attacks. Historically, U.S. presidents have shown little interest in architecture. You can count the exceptions on one hand: Franklin D. Roosevelt, who designed his own presidential library; Theodore Roosevelt, who had many architect friends and added the West Wing to the White House; and of course America's two great architect-presidents, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Mostly, however, presidents have preferred to leave design to designers, whether of public buildings, war memorials, or double eagles. President Bill Clinton, whose most prominent addition to the White House was a hot tub, is not known as an architecture buff. But by issuing Executive Order 12977 in October 1995, he set in motion a process that thrust politics squarely in the center of the design process.

The executive order was the result of the Oklahoma City bombing. The day after the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building, which claimed 168 lives and injured more than 680 people, Clinton directed the Justice Department to assess the vulnerability of all federal facilities to acts of violence. The resulting report, prepared by a large team headed by the U.S. Marshals Service, is generally known as "The Marshals Report." To implement the report's recommendations, Executive Order 12977 established an interagency security committee charged with developing standards for all federal facilities as well as "long-term construction standards for those locations with threat levels or missions that require blast resistant structures."

The Marshals Report classified all federal buildings according to rising levels of risk. The Murrah Building, which had 550 employees and housed offices of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), would have been Level IV, a high-risk category that includes federal courthouses and all large federal office buildings, as well as ATF, DEA, and FBI offices. Level V is reserved for the highest-risk agencies such as the Defense Department, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security.

Because the authors of the Marshals Report were security experts, they focused on the immediate security problem -- that is, safeguarding the occupants of federal buildings against explosives and other domestic threats. It is hard to question the good intention of protecting federal employees. As bombings in Madrid and Oslo later showed, however, terrorism does not confine itself to official targets; hardening government buildings simply moves the threat elsewhere. It is like deciding to protect only flight crew, rather than safeguarding the plane and all its passengers.

The Marshals Report proposed no fewer than 52 specific criteria, which resulted in the deployment of a host of building security devices. Some, such as reinforced structure, blast-resistant glass, and hardened curtain walls, have a small impact on a building's appearance. That is not the case with perimeter security.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 

Witold Rybczynski is the Meyerson professor of urbanism at the University of Pennsylvania and Slate's architecture critic. His most recent book, The Biography of a Building, will be out in October.

HECTORBD

9:56 AM ET

September 3, 2011

Security getting serious

Because of the events of 9/11, this is what happened. Security is becoming the number 1 factor. If the security measures are effective in eliminating attacks and securing the lives of our people, then by all means, continue on with the security improvements of our federal buildings and monuments.

 

FERNADAO

9:37 PM ET

September 4, 2011

yea, I still don't understand...

yea, Detroit and the Jordanian bomber in Khost and his wife have told America’s Marines, soldiers, and CIA officers what they already surely sense, but what their political leaders deny. Both attackers cited motivations that pivot on U.S. support for Israel against the Palestinians; U.S. occupation of Muslim lands; and U.S. attacks on their fellow Muslims. ..Thanks !
acompanhantes
massagista

 

JOHN SAVARD

8:10 AM ET

September 10, 2011

A Cause of Terrorism

If people kill Americans and threaten to kill more, doing what they want encourages them. Those who dare to kill Americans must be fought and defeated, not yielded to in any way.

Yes, innocent Palestinians are suffering difficulties. This is not because Israel hates Muslims, but because it has to protect itself from Hamas. The United States has expressed disapproval of Israeli settlement policies, but as long as Israel is under threat, it cannot do much more than that.

 

PUNEET

7:33 AM ET

September 5, 2011

Marshall policy seems to be good

There are so many security measures taken to prevent the people from all kind of attacks - thanks for sharing this with all of us.

sony nex 7

 

XIRA666

1:53 PM ET

September 5, 2011

Our sanity. That's what we

Our sanity.
That's what we lost in those bombings,, our sanity.

McVeigh, 'Laden. They won. Reminder to your grand kids to thank you for everything you lost them.
At gunpoint.

 

LEIGHYOUNG1@MAC.COM

10:23 AM ET

September 6, 2011

Diffusion of benefits

Rybczynski's comment, 'hardening government buildings simply moves the threat elsewhere' oversimplifies a complex area of threat risk and security management.

Research (Painter and Farrington, 1999), in fact, suggests a diffusion of benefits rather than 'simple' crime displacement, in terms of situational crime prevention.

As Rybczynski say's, the authors of the Marshals report were 'security experts', and they did a pretty good job of securing Federal buildings post Oklahoma, and, to be fair, nobody even remotely considered the possibility of a commercial airliner being flown into one. No amount of, local, security measures will prevent that!

Admittedly, there are more innovative ways to control access to buildings, such as the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), which increasingly are being incorporated into new builds. However, retrofitting existing buildings, especially those of architectural and national significance is more challenging. The Founders, and L'Enfant, never expected people would want to blow them up...

 

WAHERN

1:41 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Founders

The idea that the Founders were unfamiliar with terrorism is one of the excuses which sustains our police state. Bombings of government buildings occurred then and it occurs now.

If there's any difference between then and now, it's that we have an army of specialists who do nothing more than think about all this stuff. The question of what to do in the face of terrorism isn't new. In fact, excluding nuclear weapons (biological weapons aren't particularly new), improvements in security have almost certainly outpaced private weapons technology.

Any security expert will tell you that a false sense of economy prevails in our society. Even the experts who engineer these new systems will admit that. But they get paid to engineer, not to opine on the political economy of doing so.

 

ROBBIEC

12:57 PM ET

September 7, 2011

We've Taken the Bait

I was teaching a freshman economics class in Atlanta when the planes hit the World Trade Towers. One of my students received an email that alerted us. I remember what I told them like it was yesterday: "this is a very big event and it will reverberate for a long time. But, please, let us return to our lecture. I know this seems trivial in comparison, but let's remember what terrorists seek to accomplish: disrupting our everyday routines and our economy by sowing distrust, confusion and fear. We should be strong, brave, and stoic."

Not long after I said this all University classes were canceled for "security concerns." I thought the administrators had capitulated to the terrorists. I knew then that our nation would react in exactly the way Al Queda hoped.

Our security plans are an example of our overreaction. What is lacking is (1) a probability assessment of a site being attacked and the percentage by which that probability would be reduced by enhancing security and (2) a cost-benefit analysis than includes inconvenience, aesthetic loss, etc. We should study, say, the effective probability reduction of 2' high bollards in comparison to 3' ones. Modern economic methods can approximate values for intangible benefits such as aesthetic loss.

Washington's thinking on security seems to mirror that of the police on my local interstates: In hopes of finding drugs and confiscating vehicles and money, they will sometimes send multiple pursuit cars to investigate a speeding motorist. Their flashing blue lights effectively shut down the highway, reduce traffic to a crawl, increase gasoline consumption and pollution, and inconvenience tens of thousands of citizens and businesses.

One of the unfortunate results of 9/11 is that anxious politicians, without careful analysis, make important decisions that are not conservative, brave nor stoic, that limit our freedom and demote our quality of life.

 

RESTONWASTE

3:20 PM ET

September 7, 2011

Danny

It seems a waste of money especially in such hard times. The new American embassy in London is expected to cost over a billion dollars! That's the price of buckingham palace, seems a little over kill to me.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

6:28 AM ET

September 12, 2011

Blast proof cities

Architectural environment is a reflection of the era and the preoccupations of citizens and their leaders; the glories of 5th Century BC Athens, the proud structures of imperial Rome, impregnable castles with moats and portcullis, the Gothic extravagance of the Christian Middle Ages, the town houses, mansions and gardens of the English 18th century, the soaring structures of the industrial revolution, and so many US monuments reflecting pride, confidence and security. Times change and the human environment changes with them. ‘Each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth’. Tears for past glories are a symptom of lost youth.

 

ALAN SMITHEE

7:58 PM ET

September 13, 2011

Blast Proofong the Man

1 of 2 posts.
These security measures are not there to protect us from froeigners. They do not attack DEA offices or Federal Court Houses or ATF depots. Only would be revolutionists do that. Personally I do not want a government thhat is too secure against the people.
I wonder who DOES want a government that is secure enough in its grip on power that we could not remove it were we to choose to?
Notice the threat list. If (thats if not when and certainly not now) a tyranny were to rise among us again (see KKK 1865-1964 for the 1st tyrany of evil here) it would be the DEA, ATF, IRS, and their infrastructure that would be the instruments of oppression.

LET US KEEP THE GOVERNMENTON IT'S TOES AND JUST A LITTLE WORRIED THAT WE MAY WITHDRAW OUR CONSCENT TO BE GOVERNED.- A recipe for liberty

 

ALAN SMITHEE

8:06 PM ET

September 13, 2011

Blast Proofing against foreigners

2 of 2
A plan to prevent future attacks by foreigners on US soil. We classify Terrorism as a weapon with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. These 4 classes of weapons are terrible things and should not be used lightly.
Of the 4 , NBCT (I'm adding the T here) the US maintains only 1. It should be our policy that if attacked with any of these special classes of weapons we will respond with the 1 kind we do keep.
If an NGO like Al-Qaeda dares such an attack, them we should go to who ever is sheltering them and demand that they be handed over within 12 hours or we will nuke all their probable hiding places. Imagine if in early October 2001 we told the Mullah Mohammed Omar - al-qaeda or the Nuke, which is it going to be? He would not have believed us. Then a strategic level warheaad goes off over Kandahar and we Tac Nuke 10-15 other targets. The CIC gets on teevee and announces that we are done here and that further attacks will get similar disproportional responses. Law enforcement will continue to hunt survivors but we expect that the Global Governing Class will not hesitate to hand over any Al-Qaeda member that come across lest we determine they too are sheltering our enemies.

Let them hate so long as they fear.

 

LOE

7:44 AM ET

September 14, 2011

Blast-proof the nation!

Federal buildings no longer inspire awe or architectural curiosity in the visitors; they don’t have to, as long as they serve their purpose protecting hundreds of lives in the process. The need for securing government havens has resulted in blast-proofing every wall, securing the each crevice of these buildings making them look like settlements in alien lands. Security always comes with a price and the price that has been incurred in making these buildings threat-proof is exponential. Like wobenzym n, this threat-proofing of buildings will not only enable the government to function in a secure environment but will also put the public’s security fears to rest.

 

STEPHEN KELLEY

2:54 PM ET

September 15, 2011

Stephen Kelley

I really appreciated this artice and thank Witold Rybczynski for writing it.

I have decided that I like bollards. I was just walking around 16th and Penn today photographing people navigating through the bollards. Nobody even notices them anymore - cyclers, runners, people on seques, couples pushing strollers, a lady walking her dog, and numeorus people on their cell phones. No one is any longer aware of the bollards. No one slows down or breaks stride.

In front of the World Bank it is the same. The only freedom that seem to be removed is the freedom for drivers to take their automobiles on to the sidewalks. I have visited the Gateway Arch in St Louis numerous times and read that 770 bollards were installed in 2006. I looked through my numerous photos and could not find them in any of my pics.

What's more bollards are reversible. They can always be removed in the future. Bollards are much better than "hardening" historic buildings which is really damaging.

 

ALEXWORK

4:37 AM ET

September 16, 2011

Too much fear

More people died in the year after 9/11 driving because everyone took to the road instead of wanting to fly. Our risk of dying at the hands of a terrorist attack is dwarfed by the odds of dying in a car accident or even falling off a ladder. For a "logical" civilization we are so deeply motivated by our emotions and fears it is insane. Just saying. Goal Setting

Alex

 

OPTICNORTH

2:49 PM ET

September 22, 2011

Blast or Plane Proof?

Among the unfortunate outcomes of 9/11 is the fact that anxious politicians, without cautious, make important decisions that aren't conservative, brave nor stoic, to limit our freedom and demote our standard of living. Any security expert will explain that the false feeling of economy prevails in today's world. The pros who engineer these new systems will admit that. However they receive money to engineer, to not opine about the political economy of doing this.

 

TAYFA34

1:42 AM ET

September 29, 2011

Profesional City

And Palestinian land will shrink, suicide bombers will respond, rockets will be launched and Israelis killed. Now Hezbollah and Sunnis have started up again in Lebanon. And Iran is powering up its nuclear capacity. Israel may feel impelled to react at some point if it calculates either Lebanon or Iran needs to be nipped in the bud. Add Syria to the toxic mix in Lebanon; and if things boil over there then Palestine will be left to sit and stew on the perennial international back burner. Hope, at this point, is not even a diamond in the rough. porno porno porno porno web tasarım