Lessons from NYC: Counterterrorism Protective Security

Benjamin D. Frasco

29 November 2023

In December 2022, Greg Barton authored an article called "Is the Terrorism Threat Over?" following Australia's decision to downgrade the national terrorism threat level from "probable" to "possible". Barton concluded that "For the time being... police counterterrorism intelligence has constrained the capacity of both al-Qaeda and ISIS to project a threat into Australia." It's a moment of relief for Australians who, over the last two decades, have been spectators to a series of low-sophistication, high-impact terrorist attacks across the Western world.

Yet, even as the immediacy of the terrorist threat seems to diminish, its impact has significantly shaped the roles and responsibilities of those entrusted with designing and securing our urban landscapes. Urban planners, traditionally focused on infrastructure planning, placemaking, and transportation, now find themselves securing public spaces from terror attacks, also known as counterterrorism protective security (CTPS).

The necessity of CTPS measures in Australia becomes evident when one revisits recent attacks such as the Lindt Cafe siege and the Flinders Street attack, which serve as grim reminders of the vulnerabilities of public spaces. Accordingly, Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism underscores the importance of protecting crowded spaces. However, Dr. Pernille Christensen notes in a 2022 study that existing counterterrorism policy documents in Australia provide limited guidance for built environment practitioners in the design of public places.

Leaning on the wisdom of John Donne, "no man is an island unto himself, every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." A bit of geographic humour aside, considering Australia's unique position as both an island and a continent, Donne's sentiment rings true. The battle to secure the public domain against terrorism is a global challenge. To improve our domestic CTPS strategy, especially in the absence of suitable guidance, it is prudent to draw from the experiences of other countries.

Take, for example, New York City. The aftermath of the 9/11 attacks marked a pivotal point in its approach to public space safety. An immediate, almost reflexive response was to fortify. The city’s landscapes soon became littered with the imposing 'Jersey barriers', reflecting a pervasive visual reminder of the terroristic threat; Trevor Boddy describes these overt fortifications as an 'architecture of dis-assurance'.

Two civilian contractors lay concrete barriers at Fort Dix several days after the 9-11 terrorist attacks (Source: Bensburg, Werner, & Steiner)

However, by 2007, recognising the negative implications of these measures on public spaces, a guidance document titled FEMA 430 was introduced. It provided guidance in relation to the protection of open spaces, plazas, and streetscapes with an explicit consideration of urban design and aesthetics principles. One of the key projects that served as an exemplar of best practice in FEMA 430 was the public domain improvements to the New York City Financial District.

The securitisation of the Financial District relied primarily on CTPS measures that blended in with the urban environment. One innovative solution was a vehicle turntable containing sculptural bronze bollards to selectively admit vehicles, such as emergency services, into the pedestrian space.

NOGO Bronze Barriers and Vehicle Turntable on Wall Street (Source: Roger Marvel Architects)

The CTPS measures were widely praised for their sympathy to the surrounding urban context and its prioritisation of pedestrian permeability. In 2006, Blair Kamin, a renowned journalist for the Chicago Tribune said:

"[The barriers’] bronze surfaces actually echo the grand doorways of Wall Street's temples of commerce. Pedestrians easily slip through groups of them as they make their way onto Wall Street from the area around historic Trinity Church. Cars, however, cannot pass."

Google Street View of Wall Street dated April 2021

Although the vehicle turntable initially resulted in better placemaking outcomes for pedestrians, ongoing maintenance issues required the abandonment of the original design. By 2013, the vehicle turntables were replaced with more traditional overt security measures including a Sally Port (a vehicle control system generally used for correctional institutions) and a portable NYPD gatehouse. The bronze barriers atop the vehicle turntable remain permanently 'open' among several other concrete barriers behind the Sally Port. The streetscape now appears cluttered and disjointed as a result, and presents barriers to access for those with physical and visual disabilities. Moreover, the Sally Port enhances a sense of militarisation of the public domain. The end result is a section of the public domain that bears an unfortunate resemblance to Checkpoint Charlie, albeit with an added sense of clutter and disarray.

Checkpoint Charlie in the early 1960's (Source: Alliance/Getty Images)

The Financial District saga underscores the need for CTPS to not only consider aesthetic integration into the public realm but also to prioritise functionality, long-term adaptability, and practical maintenance. For Australian urban planners, the key takeaway is the need to consider the envisaged lifespan and versatility of CTPS measures implemented in the public realm. Unless absolutely necessary, complex mechanical solutions should be avoided.

While this article showcases the specific case of New York City's Financial District, it underscores a broader truth: interventions to the built environment profoundly influence the function and spirit of space. The delicate task of securitising urban spaces in response to terrorism demands a balance of safety, aesthetics, and enduring functionality. As such, urban planners and decision-makers in Australia must remain astutely aware of the lasting impressions their choices leave on the urban environment. They may last longer than we are around to see.

Google Sites

Report abuse