The recent terror attacks on Europe, in cities including Manchester, London, Paris, Nice, Stockholm and Berlin, have amplified the need for debate on how we defend urban centres and the public realm.  With a shift change having taken place in the past decade major financial and political centres are seemingly no longer the sole focus of terrorism, with terror groups and individuals now more and more targeting ‘soft spaces’ (our social and cultural areas, defined by human activity).

The parallel upward trajectories of our food and drink culture and the threat of terrorism sit uneasily beside one another. Our UK cities increasingly identify as places of inclusivity and openness, themes which have rightly been reflected in urban redevelopment and public realm improvements which emphasise the pedestrian’s accessibility and liveability (following decades of the prioritisation of the automobile). There is now an ongoing conversation as to how we retain our metropolitan ideals without compromising security.

We have become normalised to the steel barriers, armed police and imposing bollards that encircle Parliament and, to a lesser extent, the ‘ring of steel’ which surrounds the City of London – this is territory which necessitates the need for strong and visible defences, its very presence designed to make its workers and visitors feel at ease on a daily basis. Likewise it was the correct reaction to, following this month’s London Bridge attack, install security partitions on Thames crossings at Waterloo, Lambeth and Westminster – quelling fears in the immediate aftermath should always take precedence over attractiveness and accessibility of place.

However, as well as the short-term response, long-term thought is to be given as to how we protect our social and cultural spaces without destroying a city’s lifeblood. In 2016, Sadiq Khan appointed Lord Toby Harris of Haringey to undertake an independent, London-wide (although its findings are pertinent to all of the UK’s major cities) strategic review of the capital’s resources and readiness to respond to a major terrorist incident. Included within his recommendations Lord Harris argued that security should be a part of London’s fabric, he also suggested that the Government should consider a statutory obligation for resilience to be designed into new buildings.

Lord Harris’ advice comes following years (the start of which can be pinpointed back to September 2001) of urban planners and architects balancing pedestrian priority, aesthetics and public safety. Anti-terror architecture in soft spaces has already permeated our western society more deeply than many of us likely realise – the Cabot Circus shopping centre in Bristol uses strategically placed street furniture as barriers and its side streets have been realigned to prevent direct lines of entry to central public space.

It is inevitable (and correct) that the negotiation between pedestrian enjoyment and security in public realm city spaces will continue well into the future. However, live and planned examples of architecture demonstrate that a place, space or building can simultaneously be accessible, attractive and pursue safety – see the newly announced proposals for the Imax roundabout at Waterloo. Let long-term thinking and architectural practices safeguard our democratic, urban environments without conveying the message that we are dictated to by security measures.