November 29, 2001
Are ‘fortresses’ necessary in wake of Sept. 11?
Since Sept. 11, Americans and people living throughout the world have been adjusting to new realities and new questions. For the rest of fall quarter, University Week will explore some of the issues of this new reality in a weekly question-and-answer column with faculty and staff. This week’s expert is Jeffrey Karl Ochsner, chairman of the department of architecture and the editor and co-author of “Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects.”
University Week: Do we need to make our buildings more secure from terrorism?
Jeffrey Ochsner: We really have to deal with the fact that we live in cities day by day, and that life in cities will go on day by day. We don’t want to give up the lessons we’ve learned about what makes cities that work for people every day, and start to build walled enclaves. What we believe in this department, and what we teach, is that the character of the public realm makes a difference. Some of the things that were built in some cities in the ’60s and ’70s – walled enclaves that are very much internalized – that could very easily be a kind of defensive posture. But what we’ve learned is that those kinds of things really do destroy the public life of the city, because they totally turn their backs on the space in which the public life takes place. If you look at Seattle, we have ordinances downtown and in the neighborhood commercial centers that require retail and restaurants and active uses at ground level. We require transparency, a relationship between the sidewalk and the adjacent private space. And it’s that that supports activity and safety in the public realm day-to-day.
UWeek: What about the landmark buildings that seem to be particular targets?
Ochsner: Well, let’s talk about buildings that historically have had the right, you might say, to be more stand-alone objects – whether we think of county courthouses, or state capitols, or public buildings in Washington, D.C. With those buildings, we have already accepted a much higher degree of security devices and barriers. We’ve come a long way since the 1830s, say, where if you were a visitor to Washington, D.C., you could just go right into the White House. As I recall, President William Henry Harrison caught his fatal pneumonia while he was out doing the grocery shopping – the president was right out there with the public! It shows you how times have changed.
UWeek: And since Sept. 11, they have changed even more?
Ochsner: We’d already accepted, though, a high degree of security in many public buildings. You go into federal courthouses today all over the country – even before Sept. 11 – and you passed through checkpoints with metal detectors. You go into the White House, you pass through checkpoints. These measures were already in place.
UWeek: What about private buildings that are landmarks?
Ochsner: The World Trade Center was built by the Port Authority of New York, a quasi-public entity, but essentially it operated like a private office building. Its height and its position on the Manhattan waterfront made it a unique landmark. But the thing to remember about tall buildings like the World Trade Center, Sears Tower, John Hancock Tower – all those were begun in the ’60s and finished in the ’70s. Since 1973, we haven’t built buildings that tall in this country. There was a lot of debate in the ’70s, once the energy crisis hit, about whether buildings of that height were economically viable and net energy wasters. While we’re still capable of building them from a structural point of view, we actually haven’t been building that high for more than 25 years. So there are very few targets like that.
UWeek: So are you saying buildings won’t change at all?
Ochsner: Maybe buildings are not the issue. The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a 707, and now we have 767s and 747s. How far can we go? Besides, the next target may not be a tall building. The next target may be a sporting event. Or maybe policy changes are the critical issue. If there had been in place a policy on Sept. 11 that said if there is some kind of attack in the plane, the pilot lands at the nearest airport and doesn’t leave the cockpit, probably none of this happens. So you could change the policy, and the buildings are fine. In addition, the anthrax scare suggests that there are other ways to do terrorism, there are other ways to attack individuals that have nothing to do with buildings. Recently, George Will, in a column, said the ultimate form of terrorism is going to be cyberterrorism because we have become so dependent on computers. We are so wired that cyberterrorism is the ultimate destruction. That has little to do with buildings at all.
UWeek: And yet there are people who see fortification as an answer?
Ochsner: Oh yes. I got an inquiry from a magazine that asked, are we going to now put more filters in air-conditioning systems? Are we going to toughen up building codes? There was a story in the media that suggested there’s been a lot more demand for concrete since Sept. 11, for barriers and stuff like that.
UWeek: What kind of responses to Sept. 11 have you noticed in the College of Architecture and Urban Planning?
Ochsner: I think like most of the University, there’s a kind of questioning and heightened awareness. Our college has an institute of hazard mitigation that was already looking at disaster readiness. One response among many students is a heightened interest in sustainability. They’re asking, “Can we become less dependent on imported oil? How can we accomplish that?” So the questions have to do with: what are ways to reduce energy consumption? What can a design or construction professional contribute? For example, what are sustainable materials? What are sustainable urban forms? It’s said that half the energy consumed in putting food on the average family table in American suburbia is in driving the SUV from the home to the grocery store and back. So it’s designing communities that are not as driving-dependent. That response may not seem as directly related to Sept. 11, but in a certain sense it is. That’s long term. And you could say it is a more positive response that a designer can make.
