Imagine if offices were run like airports. Armed security officials watching X-rays. Metal detectors at every entrance. No metal knives, forks and scissors, and maybe even that letter opener would be off limits.
It is a daunting and extreme scenario, but one that is not so far from the truth.Security has moved up the agenda, and it is not just about checking that security guards are awake or there is a tape in the CCTV.
Everything from building structure, laminated blast-resistant glass and where to put the postroom are now being revisited.This has been sparked by worries of a terrorist attack in the UK, and increased litigation in the US relating to a company’s responsibility towards its staff. But it is not just terrorism that occupiers are worried about. Reducing thefts, protecting against natural disasters, and cyber terrorism are also on their agendas.
Many thought that in the post-9/11 era, occupiers would shun tall, glass-fronted buildings and the bustling capitals they were located in. But instead, cities are competing to house the tallest buildings, and glass is still in vogue. The mass exodus scenario handed out by the scaremongers never materialised. So how much of this was fuelled by the paranoid?
This is one of the questions that the BCO will be considering at its security conference in November. Richard Kauntze, its chief executive, says: “After 11 September there was some fairly wild speculation. They said no-one would want to work in a tall building, and that is clearly nonsense.”
Terrorist bomb targets are not limited to tall buildings, says Kauntze, as attacks on the Pentagon and the later bombings in Madrid have proven. Pointing to construction work after the IRA attacks in Manchester, he says: “They have rebuilt using a lot of glass. I don’t think there is any appetite to build a fortress.”
Barclays Bank is a prime example. It announced it would move its London head office staff to Canary Wharf a few days before the 9/11 attacks. Rather than change its decision, the bank upgraded some of its security measures — but this was not just because of the terrorist attacks.
“9/11 did have an effect on our decisions,” says a Barclays’ spokesperson, “but security is more of an ongoing process. We would never claim our building was terror proof.”
Dedicated washing facilities
In its report Bombs: protecting people and property, the Home Office recommends a “deter and detect” approach, and advises measures, such as intruder alarms and anti-shatter film for glass. MI5 suggests erecting barriers to keep cars at a safe distance, and installing dedicated washing facilities for all postroom attendants. Most importantly, it advises occupiers to carry out risk assessments and produce business continuity plans.
How many occupiers are putting this advice into practice?
The answer is varied. Reed Business Information recently installed state-of-the-art turnstiles at its UK headquarters in Sutton. But this was not sparked by terrorism fears, says business facilities manager Peter Wilson. “Our focus on security has been more due to thefts,” he adds.
Others have taken more stringent steps. When building its landmark London HQ, Swiss Re installed an X-ray machine and a metal detector that all visitors must pass through. But this is not the most extreme measure. Trevor Silver at developer Akeler tells of an unnamed company that replaced all metal cutlery in its canteen with plastic knives and forks.
Even this was not anti-terrorist as such, but in case one of the staff was attacked. “It was to do with health and safety,” says Silver. “It is all part of the nanny state culture, and the fear of getting sued.”
The most extreme request that Silver has ever received was for electromagnetic protection for a building. This had to be placed behind the plasterwork and required special glass, explains Silver. “The company was worried about people sitting outside in a car and hacking into their systems.”
One factor that the attack on the World Trade Center did bring into focus was fire risk and evacuation. Peter Bressington, director at Ove Arup & Partners, explains that escape staircases and lifts for evacuation are now critical issues. “At the World Trade Center, there was an issue coming down the staircases. And firefighters were using the same staircases,” he says.
In the UK, firefighters are given two-hour protected lifts and dedicated staircases — measures that could have made a difference in New York. But UK researchers are also studying materials used to construct staircases. “Plasterboard is easy to damage, so we are now recommending that you make staircases out of concrete as it is more robust,” says Bressington.
But it is not a blanket approach. His colleague Barbara Lane, associate at Arup Fire, says that it is about putting the appropriate protection in the right places. For example, at Mincing Lane at Plantation Place in London, Arup based its models on a real fire at the building. As a result, it found it could leave secondary steel work unprotected.Arup undertook a study for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looking into how, and if, building regulations need to be reviewed in the light of 11 September. Lane says a programme of research has been developed that will be reviewed in time for the next refinement of the building regulations.
But Paul Schofield, chairman of Union Industries, which produces chemical, nuclear and biochemical attack equipment, thinks companies are completely unprepared, and should be taking far bigger steps to protect their staff. “There is a complete lack of reality,” he says.
UIs’ products include a protective bubble, called Noah’s Ark, that can shield up to 35 staff in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack. But if the thought of sharing one chemical toilet for up to four months with colleagues makes you shudder, UI also supplies expanding cabinets and safe rooms.
Neither space nor money should be an obstacle to security, says Schofield. A safe room complete with blast-proof windows, doors and non-return ventilation valves costs as little as £2,000. An expanding cabinet stands no more than half-a-metre proud.
Company’s recommendations
Schofield responds to criticism that his company’s recommendations are over the top, saying: “Firms need to ask themselves if they feel lucky. Do they ever get a puncture? Do they carry an umbrella?” He adds that such measures are commonplace in Scandinavia, Switzerland and Israel. But convincing UK businesses is another matter. “The reactions have ranged from absolute horror to complete disinterest,” says Schofield.
So are such measures a step too far? Eamon Nolan, an architect at HLW, thinks so. “You can’t have valued clients walking through turnstiles, having their baggage scanned or being bodily searched. It’s not conducive to making money,” he says.
He agrees, however, that security is moving up the agenda. “People are coming in on building design from other parts of expertise, such as anti-terrorism or bomb specialists.” This has led to separating postrooms from other business functions, and providing them with dedicated air circulation systems.But
could this lead to a reduction in insurance premiums? The experts believe this is unlikely. If anything, believes Chris Lewis, agent at Drivers Jonas, premiums could rise. “It would be scaremongering to say premiums are likely to rise, but if in the short term an incident occurred that caused a single claim, or if insurers are privy to information that we are on the verge of something nasty happening, then they may increase premiums accordingly.”
