daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old February 19th, 2012, 02:20 PM   #1
sean11111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1
Likes (Received): 0

Legislating for counter terrorism design



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.
sean11111 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 19th, 2012, 05:46 PM   #2
Kopacz
Registered User
 
Kopacz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Stalowa Wola
Posts: 1,999
Likes (Received): 1604

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
Kopacz no está en línea  
Old February 20th, 2012, 07:00 PM   #3
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,985
Likes (Received): 12204

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.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea  
Old February 21st, 2012, 09:54 AM   #4
Gherkin
actual gherkin
 
Gherkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 13,796
Likes (Received): 515

How is an architectural survey on an architecture forum spam?


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/saf...ert-konieczny/
Gherkin no está en línea  
Old February 21st, 2012, 06:31 PM   #5
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,985
Likes (Received): 12204

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gherkin View Post
How is an architectural survey on an architecture forum spam?
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.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2012, 12:37 PM   #6
redstone
Lurker
 
redstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 14,056
Likes (Received): 52

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 no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2012, 12:40 PM   #7
redstone
Lurker
 
redstone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 14,056
Likes (Received): 52

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_...-shelters.html
redstone no está en línea  
Old February 25th, 2012, 02:45 PM   #8
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,495
Likes (Received): 17805

Noting recent terrorist attacks on "soft" targets, the range of buildings that can be at risk just jumped considerably.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea  
Old February 29th, 2012, 11:03 PM   #9
Obelixx
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,890
Likes (Received): 83

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.
Obelixx no está en línea  
Old March 3rd, 2012, 06:58 PM   #10
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 70,985
Likes (Received): 12204

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.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu