“Physical security was always an afterthought, even as close as two years ago, when the design of new buildings was taking place,” says Paul Carson, national manager, security operations with Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls . “Now, it has been thrust into the forefront, not the least cause of which was 9/11.”

“I think there’s a lot more of it going on,” says David Ray,  senior practice leader, security and investigations for Grant, Thornton LLP. “Starting right from initial design stage, a lot of architects are looking at what they have to improve in building design. Before, we never had to be concerned about an airplane crashing into a building in the past but this is a concern out there that has been identified.

“A lot of (concern) is terrorism-based but there is also workplace violence issues, disgruntled former workers and ex-spouses,” he adds. “Society seems to be changing out there. We’re on notice of the increased risks and we have to make sure the counter-measures are in place.”

The design of any building starts from the ground up and that also includes the security.

“The first thing is to determine what the threat is,” says Barbara A. Nadel, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. “Threat and vulnerability assessment is the first step to determine what assets need to be protected. For example, in the case of a financial centre/high rise, they could be a potential target for groups that want to impact the financial security of Canada and the global markets.”

The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah building proved to be a tragic but valuable lesson in the design of critical asset structures in multiple areas, not just in the area of buffer space between the street and building but also in the materials used.

Carson says there are 16 key best practices or “specs” that all architects learn in the construction of any building but there is an effort in the profession to incorporate a 17th spec that deals with the security needs of a building. Not surprising, he says the first principal of any new construction starts with three words: setback, setback and setback.

Nadel says, in the U.S., the construction of any new federal building requires a minimum stand-off of no less than 50 feet. “Often in an urban centre, or in a city where there is a little more land available, they try to use things like public art, landscaping, trees and fountains, to make it a pleasant space between the street and building. I will add that, with street furniture, it has to be engineered for security. There is a way to engineer them either with materials or restraints or anchoring them below grade and the use of certain types of trees, there are very creative ways to enhance that standoff distance.”

She says, with that increase in space, the designer wants to make sure they don’t give a potential terrorist or other person intent on violence a direct path to drive a car from the street to the front door. “It’s important to make it difficult for someone to accelerate a vehicle there.”

The building itself needs to have multiple levels of security built into it.

“You have to look at a building like an onion skin,” says Ray. “Your first level of defence is the outer shell and the lobby itself. It may be something built into it so you’re vetting people before they come in. We have some clients who have gone to a lane system where people can use their cards but its not like a cattle turnstile thing. They can walk through but, if their identification card doesn’t work properly, it sets an alarm with the security people who are there and can call them back. That’s the first level and, as you work your way up the building, different tenants are going to want different levels of security.”

Different applications are going to necessitate the use of different materials. As Carson points out, a building façade of concrete is not going to face the same threats of frontal attack as a front made of wood frame and drywall or as problematic as a façade of glass. “If you want to build a building cheap, use a lot of glass. That’s a rule in architecture. Unfortunately, glass becomes shrapnel in a blast event and it does some pretty ugly things to people so organizations are looking at things like the use of glazing.”

Front reception is an area that also needs close attention because they are the one’s at the front line, says Ray. While encasing one’s reception area in bullet proof glass may not be the chosen option — or aesthetically pleasing — there are other possibilities including panic buttons in the event of emergency.

The best security is invisible because that is the security that people have a harder time circumventing.  “If you can meet the requirements around aesthetics but have security chugging around in the background, that’s perfect,” says Carson.

Carson adds that crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is also increasingly becoming a part of the design process. “There is a move afoot”¦of trying to make users of the space owners of the space. In terms of surveillance, it means that, if you can see unencumbered through a space, people will tend to challenge what is there and that might include people who aren”˜t normally supposed to be there. More staff are being encouraged to either walk up and confront that person or to call security. Its no longer, ”˜okay, keep your head down and work.’ It’s an ownership issue at the building level which had previously been unheard of.”

He adds a note about underground parking. “The way to protect underground parking is not build it. The way many have been doing, with guards doing inspections with hand-held parabolic mirrors, is laughable. It’s security for the masses. ”˜In the absence of doing nothing, let’s appear to be doing something.’ What it  does is nothing but add to budget because you have someone out there. The best the guard will likely be able to do is tell you is that you have an oil leak.”

Nadel says owners, increasingly faced with higher demands by insurance companies for increased security, are calling for architects to integrate security principals into their buildings. It’s incumbent on architects to learn more about what methods and technology are available.

Security professionals also have to have more of a voice in the design process and that means learning to communicate the best options for security of the building that make the best budgetary sense up front and in the long term.

“Security managers have to have a voice,” says Carson. “If they are being bullied all the time into making bad decisions, they are being ineffective in their job.”