Sense of Safety

Abstract

Safety, as it pertains to the built environment, is often achieved through physical security implementation. The implementation of security is often seen as collaboration between the designer and a security professional. It is believed that the architect lacks the necessary training or background to adequately provide the extent of service that a trained security professional would. The client has decided that something or someone must be kept out and for a specific reason. As a result, the design is often compromised or ruined because of this collaboration. Sacrifices must be made on the part of the designer, either in planning or aesthetics, in order to accommodate for these physical means. However, is the collaboration really necessary and is it true that an architect lacks the ability or training to design a safe environment? Through the analysis of existing security measures and methods, this thesis will seek to explore how safety can be achieved through non-traditional means, as well as redefining the role of the designer in this process. Today, outside of life safety codes, one other standard approach to the creation of a safe environment exists. This approach is known as CPTED, or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. CPTED addresses ways to make an environment feel safer or more protected. However, at the same time, it can be said that this system destroys the experience of the environment it wishes to help. The options seen in this approach can almost be seen as “second thoughts” or add-ons. Cameras, fences, and guard posts rarely enhance the aesthetic appeal of an environment. Although CPTED is an architectural method, it has strong ties to modern security, thus not allowing the architecture to become what it can. In the current post-9/11 world, our desire to feel safe has become a driving force behind our interactions in the social world. Sporting events, airports, and even shopping centers have become cluttered with devices that are meant to make the users feel safe. However, as the general public, we are constantly reminded of how much fear we should have at any given moment by means of a five color system. No corner can be turned without a reminder. It also becomes important to determine what an appropriate response is. Given the current global situation, many people plan for a threat that they have not even defined nor determined how long the threat will exist. As a result, the environment is not considered and the appropriate measures are not implemented. Bruce Schneier mentions one such instance in his article “The Architecture of Security”, noting Montreal hotels in the 1970’s, whose entrances were elevated in order to protect from Quebecois separatists. Now, these entrances are not only unnecessary but create difficulties for those that wish to enter the building. This example is just one of many that beg the question, given a defined user group, can a designer create a safe environment that addresses their needs without utilizing traditional responses?