On Sovereign Cities + Architecture
Glass House Conversations is a pretty cool idea. (It’d be better if they incorporated more multimedia in the discussion, a whiteboard, 60 second videos, etc.) There was one run by Geoff of BLDGBLOG on the impact quasi-independent cities will have on the future, I responded, but unfortunately forgot to subscribe and thus missed the whole conversation (mybad). Geoff made a great point though in response to my posting of The :
Shlok, the possibility of an architectural response to urban terrorism is quite interesting, if also politically risky. While reading Mike Davis’s recent “brief history of the car bomb,” for instance, about the incredible lethality of new urban weapons, it seems impossible not to wonder what design solutions might exist. Put another way: can you counterattack the car bomb, neutralizing its effectiveness, on the level of urban design? Could something as simple as increased pedestrianization—in this specific instance—help to assuage the threat of motorized attacks?
Whatever the specifics may be, architects and urban planners can clearly play a role in helping to secure the city, so to speak, but this is also very tricky terrain to explore; design in the name of urban policing can begin a rapid, and tragic, slide into the Orwellian if not productively questioned at virtually every step of the way.
That said, Geoff’s right, urban design response to threats is immensely interesting and important:
- First step is denying access to targeted infrastructure. The erection of barriers on Downing Street and near the White House. Biometric identification+++. Note that new airports are designed as funnels, whereas airports 20 years ago had to artificially implement limited access. (Bizarre for what’s supposed to be a free-access transportation hub, LOL.)
- That strategy is destined to fail, however. Walls are not infinite in time or space. The creation of ‘access funnels’ will also limit evacuation and exfil opportunities. Fear vectors. These are targets unto themselves. (Set a bomb here, shoot them when they run there, etc.)
- The above seeks to limit access and yields strategies such as ‘lockdowns’ – where everyone is trapped inside wherever they are during the course of a crisis, but can fail miserably – Mumbai, 9/11.
- In response, we’ll see two things. One, the increase in authoritarian architecture that Geoff mentions, but two, we’ll see a push to maximize opportunities for all involved during a security event. (Implicit is a loss of trust in police/government/authority to resolve a crisis quickly or effectively.) This means walls that can be penetrated by design, more walkways rather than limited roadways, multiple escape/emergency routes. In short, less rigidity, more flexibility. (And the accompanying social structures to drive/embrace that.)
-Shlok
Sign up for my newsletter.
One Comment