In the wake of the most recent tragic attacks in Belgium and Lahore, we are confronted, once again with the ugly reality of terrorism becoming a regular occurrence of modern life. While these were the two main attacks that made headlines in the western world, there have been many, many more. For some, acts of terrorism are, sadly, as common as bad weather. As of April 10, there have been 293 acts of violent terrorism globally this year – that averages over an attack a day.
Acts of terrorism have altered our politics, our national values and priorities, and have even forced us to alter our interpretation of what is and isn’t constitutional. Politics aside, more unexpected fields that have started to change in response to terrorist threats are urban planning, urban design, and architecture.
Providing protection from enemy attacks is not a new concept in the architectural field; it was actually one of the original applications. Medieval cities and castles were often planned around military defense. Walls, moats, towers, and streets were constructed to facilitate easy deployment of soldiers and were all central pillars of medieval urban design. However, as nation states were founded and periods of war became less frequent, designing cities for defense departed from mainstream planning practice, and instead was limited to vulnerable structures, such as palaces, banks, military bases, and government buildings of high importance.
Plan of Palmanova, Italy
In an age where terrorist targets have become civilian-based, it is of utmost importance that cities around the world embrace defensive city planning. Most define resiliency in respect to natural disasters (floods, hurricanes, earthquakes). The planning community must now alter that definition of resiliency to include man-made disasters — specifically, violent acts of terrorism.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in collaboration with the National Capital Planning Commission (the department of urban planning in Washington, D.C.) took the lead on this and in 2007 published a lengthy report to outline threats and a series of design-based recommendations to thwart these threats.
They point out the constant tension that municipalities face when trying to implement defensive designs. For a space to be completely safe and defensible, access and mobility must be completely controlled, surveillance must be intensive, and building materials must be reinforced to withstand attacks. These characteristics unfortunately often directly contradict the methodology planners use to make a space publicly accessible, inviting, and thriving. This inherent tension makes the jobs of defense planners even more complicated. The best defense planning must incorporate elements that keep city dwellers safe but can go unnoticed.
Protective sidewalk pillars in Downtown, Philadelphia
One successfully camouflaged tool defense planners have deployed throughout many American cities since 9/11 is the 3 foot steel pillars on sidewalks to restrict car access and prevent the direct impact of car bombs on buildings. They are subtle, attractive, and easily blend into the normal urban environment.
Unfortunately, efforts like these do not go far enough. As terrorism becomes more frequent and targets become harder to predict, other mechanisms must be employed in cities around the world to keep cities safe.
Urban planning and design has been employed to solve the problems that cities have faced for hundreds of years – such as public health, housing, and environmental concerns. It should now be used to combat the imminent threat of terrorism. While the exact solutions are not clear, the planning community and policymakers must do some deep thinking and research to come up with innovation designs that both appeal to residents and also keep them safe.
