# Legislating for counter terrorism design



## sean11111 (Feb 18, 2012)

Hi everybody

I am currently undertaking a study for a University project which discusses the counter terrorism design in the built environment.

The focus of this study is the British government drive for increased involvement of architects and clients in designing in counter terrorism measures at conceptual and inception stages of projects. The RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) has also drafted some design guidance in this area to aid greater security concious design.

I am very interested in professional opinion on the subject. 

Will such drives be adopted on a larger scale without regulation? 
Do you agree with architects contributing towards counter terrorism initiatives? Do clients and architects have enough knowledge and support? Do clients have incentive? Is it up to the design teams to empower the client in this area? Will legislation be feasible and practical bearing in mind the different levels of risk between projects? 

People opinions on the subjects above are most welcome and I would be very grateful. Even the smallest contribution will be valued. Even more welcome would be if you could spare a few minutes to answer the questions in a survey which would greatly aid the study. The questions are mainly multiple choice and will only take a few seconds of your time. 

Once again thankyou in advance for any contributions. I look forward to a good debate.

Sean

edited by Taller, Better
links to surveys removed.


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

Well it depends on what kind of a building we are taking into consideration and where it is located. 
Personally I don't think we should make compromises such as giving up a nice glass cladding for a bunker-like building just because it is "easy target". The most important aspect for me is ensuring that the construction is reinforced and in case of an attack it will be able to protect people inside it. 
However, there is the problem of determining which building should have those additions. I think that the most important or iconic objects (tallest buildings, embassies, government buildings, hospitals) should get the extra care. 
In the end though, if making a building "safe" means making it ugly or bulky and looking like a fortress, then it shouldn't be done. Terrorism is bad but it should be prevented before it can act. 
If you want to be safe while draving, get a seatbelt and brakes - don't jump into a tank


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Sean, I am hopeful you did not make this profile just to provide links to your survey, as that would be spam. I'll remove the links, and let your inquiry stand
as it is a valid issue.


----------



## Gherkin (May 30, 2005)

How is an architectural survey on an architecture forum spam? :dunno:


Anyway.

Designing for counter terrorism is extremely expensive. Unless its an embassy, architects must think 'will this building be a terrorism target?' and design appropriately. 

Have a look at this fortress! http://www.dezeen.com/2011/06/08/safe-house-by-robert-konieczny/


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Gherkin said:


> How is an architectural survey on an architecture forum spam? :dunno:


Making new profiles for the purpose of boosting visitor numbers to our personal "surveys" on another website is indeed spam. If a well established member of many years introduces such a link it is understandable, but to make a profile for the purpose of getting higher visitor numbers elsewhere isn't. You will note I did not ban the new member, or close the thread because the discussion itself is a good one and should be the sole basis of this thread.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Well, personally I think if the design is for an embassy or say a government office, army installation, etc yes high security or 'terrorism-safe' designs are a must. But it is illogical and unrealistic to make every single building 'terrorism-safe'. Might as well build bunkers everywhere. We do not exist in a state of perpetual war. This is not needed. 

I think the only buildings that need to be 'terrorism-safe' safe are embassies and important government offices and that is it. Perhaps such a potential legislation might call for stronger than required engineering, a stronger facade, limited glass usage on lower floors, a greater setback from driveway / road, structural elements set back from facade and stronger cladding. More necessary than designing to ensure greater survivability in case of terrorism is a need to increase security for that building. Employ more guards, CCTVs, etc. 

IMHO designing to ensure lesser material and financial loss sustained from natural disasters is more important than survivability in a terrorist attack since the former is more likely.

But most important is to evaluate how probable the property is to a terrorist attack before making plans to design it to maximise terrorism survivability.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

In Singapore we have a legislation for provision of a 'household shelter' which is a highrise bomb shelter. 

http://www.scdf.gov.sg/content/scdf...fessionals/cd-shelter/household-shelters.html


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Noting recent terrorist attacks on "soft" targets, the range of buildings that can be at risk just jumped considerably.


----------



## Obelixx (Apr 14, 2005)

Not using large window fronts is the best counter terrorism design. A building with small windows will not be damaged by an explosion as a building with large windows and the danger that people are hurt by pieces of brooken glass is less.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Considering that the thread starter has not logged in since opening this thread, and considering I am having to delete spambot entries, I'd say it is a good guess that this thread was created just for advertising.


----------

