Have we made security measures less ugly in some places over the last decade? Probably. Is my city more beautiful? I say no.
I almost always agree with Roger Lewis, the Washington Post's long-time columnist and urban savant. His Shaping the City columns, which have run twice monthly since the 1980s, served as an early model for this blog.
But, this time, I'm not so sure. On Saturday, Lewis wrote that the beauty of the nation's capital has been largely restored since the days of high paranoia and ugly security measures following the 2011 attacks, the bunker mentality that pervaded the city now largely a thing of the past. The print edition of Lewis's column went so far as to suggest that D.C. was "safer and more beautiful" than before the attacks, but I note that those suggestions have been dropped from the online edition. Hmmmm.
Lewis is right to a point, of course. The government hastily erected very crude Jersey barriers and other obstacles all over D.C.'s streets, sidewalks, and plazas in the days following the September 11 tragedy, around anything that could conceivably be a target. These defaced the city's streetscape and denigrated our public spaces. Some of those have, indeed, been replaced by more attractive obstacles that are better integrated into street and plaza design, as he writes:
Well anchored, appropriately spaced elements -- bollards, trees, planters, benches, trash receptacles, low retaining walls -- occupy spaces between street curbs, sidewalks, and buildings. A network of curving walkways edged by low retaining walls incised into the landscape makes it tough for vehicles to reach the Washington Monument....
At the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office complex in Alexandria, the General Services Administration and PTO ruled out basement parking garages required by the city, citing the potential risk of a bomb-laden vehicle exploding below one of the buildings. Instead, above-ground parking garages were erected. But a multi-story, 25-foot-deep liner of offices, designed to look like rowhouses, wraps and hides the garages from public view along surrounding streets.
There's more, of a less structural sort: As I wrote in a post about cities and security measures two years ago, military helicopters now fly over my house with regularity, no doubt in part because of the proximity of DHS. That's a little creepy, too, and a lot noisy. Elsewhere in the city, large government buildings, which used to have multiple public entrances, creating at least a somewhat porous and welcoming pedestrian environment, no longer do; typically all but one or two heavily guarded entrances are now permanently closed, leaving a lifeless streetscape along sidewalks. As I noted in my previous post, if I go to visit EPA's sustainable communities office, as I do with some regularity, I have to walk all the way around their huge building to get to an entrance that visitors can use, identify myself, go through a metal detector, and wait for an escort to come down to the entrance and take me up to the office.
Private corporations have been affected, too (the World Trade Center was privately owned): Next to NRDC's building on 15th Street in downtown D.C. are the offices of the Washington Post. Shortly after we moved in, I started walking down the alley between their building and ours, mainly out of curiosity, to see what was underneath my office window, on the back of our building. I was stopped immediately by a guard and basically told to stay the hell away, and not very nicely.
Now, it stands to reason that residents of Washington, D.C., would experience the effects of this Brave New World more acutely than residents of many other U.S. cities. For their sake, I hope so. I would be interested in hearing from readers whether there have been lasting impacts in other cities. Here, it really began before 2001, in the wake of the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; but 2001 sealed the deal, so to speak.
It is clearly not just Washington. (See the Wall Street area of New York, below.) In researching my post two years ago, I found a website called Security Zones and Shrinking Public Space. I just took another look, and here is part of what it says:
This website summarizes a project outlining the impact of anti-terrorism security on urban public space since September 11, 2001.
Even before these terror attacks, owners and managers of high-profile public and private buildings had begun to militarize space by outfitting surrounding streets and sidewalks with rotating surveillance cameras, metal fences and concrete bollards. In emergency situations, such features may be reasonable impositions, but as threat levels fall these larger security zones fail to incorporate a diversity of uses and users.
Utilizing an innovative method developed by our interdisciplinary team, our year-long study of Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco finds that security zones cover between 3.4% and 35.7% of the public realm in the six districts studied. The ubiquity of these security zones encourages us to consider them a new land use type.