NYPD: High-profile Buildings Need Tighter Security
Managers and developers of high-profile skyscrapers and other buildings in the city need to take more steps to guard against terrorist attacks, according to a new report by the New York Police Department.
“The same qualities that make the city’s buildings recognized icons of design, culture and commerce also make them continuous targets of terrorism,” Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in a foreword for the report.
The report is available in pdf format here.
The report — which was to be distributed Wednesday at a meeting with private security officials — doesn’t name the buildings the NYPD believes are at highest risk for bombings or other types of attacks. But the Empire State Building, New York Stock Exchange and Freedom Tower planned for ground zero have been cited in the past as potential targets.
The report offers a formula for measuring the vulnerability of buildings to attacks based on design, prominence and proximity to landmarks and other more likely targets. As an example, it cites the destruction of a smaller World Trade Center building caused by the collapse of one of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.
High-risk buildings should use securely fixed “anti-ram” columns to harden their perimeters, the report says. Large explosions, it says, cause ordinary concrete barriers or planters to shatter and create a shrapnel-like hazard. It also says builders should reduce the risk of broken glass by positioning glass facades away from nearby landmarks.
After reading the report, I have found that it cites many other sources and is well written. That being said, it would seem that the NYPD want developers to consult counterterrorism officers in the department prior to building and throughout the entire construction phase for high and medium tier structures. I only fear that with the mass amounts of development in New York City, that perhaps this will take officers away from current investigations and make them more like private security firms. That may or may not be justified, and I do not wish to insinuate that they are taking business from the private sector, rather it is a gray area. Still, the question has to be asked: Will this set of guidelines prevent New York City from being competitive in its metropolitan development? I’m a very liberal person, and with that being said, apart from some privacy concerns (they want it NYC to be London), I am still inclined to believe that with careful planning and management that this plan will make New Yorkers safer.