Home > Articles By Issue > Safety & Security > Article Sept. 2002

Environmentally Sensitive Security

By Roy Pachecano

Since 9/11, there has been much discussion about how existing buildings would change with respect to security. Many of these buildings are older, historic structures faced with the challenge of implementing security upgrades that may actually detract from the historic fabric of the building.

Despite this potentially damaging side effect, future security concerns will impact all aspects of facility architecture. Many owners of aging buildings are currently spending a great deal of effort addressing this issue. They are preparing vulnerability and feasibility studies that incorporate well thought out plans of action to prevent security breaches without compromising historic detail.

Historic Targets
For most facility executives whose responsibilities include overseeing historic commercial property in "target rich" locales, none are more aware of this issue than those whose real estate holdings are in New York City. These older buildings tend to lack the technological sophistication of newer, ground-up structures designed to be expandable and interoperable. In fact, such projects are more difficult than they appear, as integrating a complete security upgrade into an historic structure can cost a great deal of time and money.

To be effective at integrating security into the overall architecture of an historic facility, an owner should seek an experienced, independent security consultant who can work with the owner's design team and is knowledgeable about the client's business. Such a consultant can help the entire team achieve a fine building design while maintaining excellent security.

Security Integrated In Seven Stages
There are seven major stages of a facility or project development:
1. Definition of project goals and articulation of project financial and legal issues;
2. Development of a problem statement that reflects project definitions;
3. Development of the project scope of work;
4. Design: preliminary, schematic, design development, and construction documentation phases;
5. Construction administration;
6. Facility and system readiness, and;
7. Post-project evaluation/closeout.

Stage One. The first stage defines the project in terms of facility security and a building's superstructure weaknesses. This stage involves the complete overview and identification of the security merits/demerits of an existing facility. It also entails the preliminary evaluation of the legal and financial concerns imposed on real property. If the property is located in a dense, urban environment, it is more likely that a different set of variables for security upgrades will require a different solution than for property in a suburban or rural setting.

Stage Two. The second stage involves taking several key weaknesses and strengths identified in the previous step and developing a comprehensive problem statement. This phase marks the exploration of the client's and user's needs, whereby a list of client expectations leads to the development of functional requirements.

Stage Three. Establishing these requirements sets up the critical third phase, which involves the development of the scope of work. A scope of work encompasses quantifying the parameters set forth in the first two steps. If a facility department is seeking assistance and is in search of a vendor, the third stage should be written with such clarity that, as a proposal, it may form the basis of a formal agreement.

Stage Four. The fourth stage involves the design and documentation of the building and systems. It is during this stage that most architects go through schematic design, design development, and construction document phases. It is also a pivotal step when most design professionals realize they need the assistance of a security professional—if one has not already been retained.

In such cases, the late arrival of an expert often translates into delays in the design documentation phase. A security professional should be made a member of the owner's design team as early as the site selection phase and should continue to assist the team through design, construction, and occupancy.

Stage Five. Stage five involves the administration and supervision of construction. If all is planned well, the implementation process will be less problematic and will move along with less friction. Those who have worked in this industry will confirm that there is no such thing as a "normal" project. Planning for contingencies when things go wrong is a mainstay for any facility upgrade.

Stage Six. Stage six involves acceptance testing, training, setting up, and commissioning security systems along with other major utilities to ensure they are in conformance with the project specifications and owner expectations. With security systems increasingly being linked to management information systems (MIS), this task is crucial to a successful integration.

Stage Seven. The facilities department or property owner should oversee the design team to ensure basic security elements are in place and a proper close out of the project is performed. This step involves an evaluation of the performance of the systems over a specified period of time after the owner has moved into a facility. Sign-offs are expected from all consultant engineers and architects, as well as security specialists, to ensure their work has been completed in accordance with the design and specifications.

If the owner is retaining an architect, and the facility upgrade for security occurs simultaneously with historic architectural upgrades and/or restoration, the architect will likely play a key role in the shaping of the project's "open" or "closed" security system (since it will be integrated with the architecture). An open security design is a passive system—which may or may not be visible—and permits the public or user to have free access to most of the facility. Examples include shopping malls, cafeterias, large restaurants, and sporting event arenas. A closed security design visibly restricts use and is likely to be found in most banking establishments, commerce/exchange facilities, and commercial spaces considered target-rich.

Realistic Security Goals
Architects and designers can make significant contributions in achieving project security objectives if the owner's goals for the security of the facility are thoroughly understood. Because architects generally make basic decisions about circulation, access, building materials, fenestration, and many other features, they can support or thwart overall security aims. The owner's design team should overcome conflicts that stand between a building's openness and control of access on one hand, versus a closed environment with restricted access on the other.

Another obstacle facing owners of historic structures is providing protection and keeping operating expenses low while limiting the damage to existing, historic detail. Greater care is required as stone and wood work is often very difficult to replace if damaged or lost.

In contrast to these aesthetic implications, older structures were built with heavier materials unlike newer, lightweight buildings. This condition is particularly evident in many of today's modern buildings (aged from the 1950s), where modern design and materials resulted in facilities that are especially vulnerable, as they lack "hardened" cores and structural members.

Squaring Off Security: Old With New
In the case of the new "Instituto Cervantes," a midtown Manhattan cultural facility, the restoration has exposed some key elements of facility security and the constraints imposed on the historic landmark. The Institute will function primarily as a language school and a facility for art exhibits, conferences, movie showings, and other cultural events. The protection of people and property is a great concern in a public gathering place.

Instituto Cervantes has 38 centers around the world in such cities as London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, and now New York. When upgrading these facilities around the world, the philosophy of Instituto Cervantes has been to seek out buildings that have historical and architectural significance and adapt them for greater use.

In 1999, the Spanish government purchased Amster Yard—an historic outdoor courtyard—as the future site for its New York facility. The site was selected because of the unusual nature of the surrounding structures, courtyard, and landmark designation.

The Institute's restoration of Amster Yard has provided a very special opportunity to make an architectural and cultural contribution to the City of New York. The project is being characterized and featured as a Spanish government institution sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As such, it is the official, overseas, cultural representation of the Kingdom of Spain.

With respect to its New York facility, the issues involved enhancing the historic environment and also dealing with the new threat of terrorism in the city. While the Institute meticulously set out to preserve its most prized real estate possession, it was required to deal with the question of whether to provide an open or closed security environment.

In preparing the winning entry for the new Institute in midtown Manhattan, architect Carlos Jurado Fernandez (of ad hoc msl, Spain) sought to capitalize on the openness of this distinct site. Balancing art, architecture, and security without taking away from the quality of space was a challenge for the design team.

When the attacks of 9/11 took place (preparations for the project were already underway at the time), the Spanish government had the opportunity to terminate the project and yield to an uncertain building climate in the city. However, according to Thierry Noyelle, the owner's representative for the Institute, the Spanish government decided to press on with a greater sense of purpose.

Since 9/11, the Institute Cervantes set out to define its security status. The Institute's primary concerns remain:

• To protect students and teachers from random acts of aggression by someone who might have gained unauthorized access to the closed off portions of the building;

• To provide necessary protection to the art gallery area to secure art pieces that might be on display to the public; and

• To uphold basic protection of the building against intruders, vandalism, etc.—particularly in its garden courtyard, which will remain open to the public.

As the facility expanded to connect five separate buildings from various architectural periods, the issue of security was compounded. The approach to design and security was thought of as a whole block problem rather than a single building solution.

The architecture of the buildings will be retrofitted in a way that indirectly enhances security. Through a single entrance to the complex, security is controlled without compromising the quality of urban space found inside the "wall" of buildings that frame the courtyard. This is accomplished through a public corridor—similar to the entry of a mews—that's set off from the street and leads to the courtyard.

Main access to the building structure will be from the courtyard through a main door opening directly onto the courtyard. Access to the courtyard and main door will require passing in front of a staffed reception area.

Security to the gallery area will include typical electronic devices plus a full-time guard whenever a show is on display and open to the public. Electronic devices will play a part in providing additional security to the rest of the complex.

Since the Institute's main source of revenue is generated from its school and language instruction activities, the Institute's other security concern is for the welfare and safety of its teachers and students. The Institute believes that its long-term security strategy of unifying five structures into one complex compliments its goal to have a very visible cultural center and to carry out its cultural mission.

As facilities executives, property managers, and owners of aged and historic real estate sort out what is best, an exploration of how criminology impacts facility security is important to the overall plan. Understanding basic security needs and retaining an expert early in the process can help to resolve open and closed security questions, thereby overcoming aesthetic constraints imposed by necessary security measures.

Pachecano serves as in-house architect/design consultant to the construction law firm of LePatner & Associates LLP. The New York City firm acts as business and legal advisers to the real estate, design, and construction communities. He is currently on leave attending Columbia University's Real Estate Development program.