Dialogue: New types of cities could rise from ashes of terror

The atrocities in the United States should not mean that a fortress mentality governs the reshaping of cities, writes JENNY DIXON*.

Cities and buildings are an expression of a civilisation. The horrific events in the United States last week pose a challenge both to civilisation and to taken-for-granted assumptions that underlie the way we develop our cities, construct our buildings and manage our air traffic.

Cities are shaped by culture, history and place. The built environment of a city is an expression of and, indeed, celebration of, particular values held by communities which have shaped its development - social, religious, environmental and political.

Buildings become powerful symbols of values reflective of the culture. Cathedrals and castles in medieval Europe were built as expressions of confident power and prestige. Only the biggest and best would be good enough for God, king and country.

Little has changed. As one thinks of various cities in the world, particular buildings and structures come to mind as representing that city's culture and identity: London's Parliament Buildings, the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Sydney's Opera House, even Auckland's Sky Tower, to name a few.

In the aftermath of the destruction in Manhattan, there have been calls to simply reconstruct what has been destroyed. A replica World Trade Center would show that New Yorkers would not be cowed by the forces of terrorism.

But should the destroyed buildings be simply reconstructed, as was the case with much of the reconstruction of European cities after the Second World War?

This time, a new dimension will underlie planning. How should city officials address the previously unthinkable - the new vulnerability of highly symbolic, toweringly tall buildings?

The Manhattan events raise a new set of implications for city planning across the globe, particularly in major capitals. Here, enormous power and wealth are both expressed by, and even consolidated within, readily identifiable buildings.

We know that aeroplanes can continue to be used as weapons of destruction on buildings that are prominent icons. Those buildings have been revealed to be painfully vulnerable as targets by those who are violently opposed to the values represented by the buildings and their activities.

Does this also have implications for airport location and flight paths close to central cities?

In one sense, cities and their buildings have always been vulnerable. Natural events such as earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions pose risks, and New Zealand cities are no exception. Hollywood has made millions by entertaining us with scenarios of such destruction.

The devastation in Manhattan and the Pentagon could have resulted from an earthquake in seismic-prone parts of the US. Strict building codes and thorough emergency management procedures may provide a sense of security, but they can easily fail in extreme events. There is always an element of risk inherent in city living.

But now a whole new dimension of risk has been introduced. It raises new questions about planning for risk management as a component of city life.

So what does the terrorism mean for the future form and use of buildings in densely populated cities such as New York? Until now, we have believed that there is little choice but to go upwards. Going outwards is often not an option. Do we now have to reconsider alternatives?

An option is to shift elsewhere or disperse - that is, completely reverse the process of centralisation and concentration of both economic power and the working populace in highly confined built spaces.

After all, sophisticated forms of communication mean that location of all employees in one centre is not essential. Indeed, some businesses pursue decentralisation and dispersal as a means, for example, of ameliorating commuting costs.

Businesses may now feel less inclined to be located in powerfully symbolic buildings, let alone in the upper levels of skyscrapers. It may well be that the notion of the biggest or highest building loses appeal as security issues assume much greater importance in decision-making about building form and location.

The vulnerability of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may well have changed forever the attractiveness of, and hence planning regimes concerning, such iconic buildings.

Furthermore, the impact of terrorism on urban planning will be felt in many other ways, such as the planning of city infrastructure, for example the planning and design of airports and the management of travel in relation to those.

The congregation of international financial activities in particular places comes under new scrutiny, raising questions about the wisdom of such centralisation. It may, for example, signal the development of smaller, dispersed clusters.

The events of last week signal that the city and icons representing power and prestige have been part of a new battleground in the early 21st century. But people like living in cities.

Cities are important places of exchange for ideas, commerce, entertainment, art and so on.

It would be unfortunate if the terrorist attacks, for example, resulted in an uniformity in the design and form of buildings and city centres, or in even unduly impeding access into public buildings.

Cities should be places of imagination. We need to be creative in our approach to planning and design.

We should also not forget that buildings such as the Pentagon and, possibly, Camp David were the focus of terrorist attention. These places are not skyscrapers, but they are symbols of power and authority.

It is critical that a fortress mentality does not develop about how we use buildings and public space in the inner city. We need to learn from the tragedy and be strategic in our responses.

Out of this sense of devastation may come something creative in the future development of our cities.

* Professor Jenny Dixon is head of the department of planning at the University of Auckland.