www.slate.com: After terrorist attacks in Berlin, Barcelona, and Charlottesville, Virginia, local officials in three countries were confronted with the same question: Where were the bollards? Bollard is a fancy word for the sturdy posts deployed in and around cities, generally intended to nudge entitled drivers not to park on the sidewalk, drive in bike paths, or turn into pedestrian plazas. But in recent decades, the bollard has shouldered a new burden: It’s seen as the cheapest, simplest way to prevent terrorists from using vehicles as lethal weapons. City officials around the world are under pressure to install them anywhere a car could potentially plow into a crowd—which is to say, basically everywhere.
6 comments:
I think "sidewalk café" culture (wherein pedestrian walkways are pushed closer to the street by private businesses using parts of the sidewalk for commercial use, i.e. cafes, markets, etc.), definitely in Europe, if not also in Charlottesville has definitely contributed to the lack of bollards on pedestrian walkways. In those cases, to add decorative bollards would not only be expensive, but render the sidewalk unusable. For those reasons, old, narrow streets make it hard to retrofit some cities with barriers. I am in favor of minimizing the non-walkway use of the sidewalk in order to make room for both walking and safety precautions. It is easy to preach, but the second half of adding sidewalk barriers is the financial commitment. It is hard to convince national and local governments to make a large financial commitment to anything, even if studies show that that commitment would result I increased safety or save that governing body money. It has long been proven that an underground hyperloop system on the easy coast would ultimately be safer and have a lower maintenance cost than the traditional train system, yet construction on the hyperloop only got approved this summer.
I am from the Washington, DC metropolitan area, so I used to come across decorative street barriers on a near daily basis. Being a planned city with wide boulevards, DC's downtown area lends itself well to both decorative bollards (for example, the DOJ is surrounded by large concrete planters) and completely non-decorative ones (every federal building's car entrance has retractable barriers). The barriers create a nice people-space among the heavy traffic and unwieldy tour busses that seem to be everywhere, and in a way, define the aesthetic of downtown DC.
I am always in favor of discouraging cars from being on the road. I think cars are a huge waste of energy both figuratively and literally. The bollards do not only create a solution for this but also helps to protect people against vehicle attacks and accidents. I do not see why any metropolitan city would hesitate to install these, especially in they are as easy and cheap as the article suggests they are. Historically, streets belonged to the pedestrians. They were a public place for people to walk freely and safely. In fact, cars on streets were seen as ridiculous and bothersome. It was not until the auto industry funded large amounts of media that propogated the cars ownership of the streets that pedestrians needed to be aware of cars - this is where the term jaywalking stems from, it was not illegal until the auto industry started this idea. Because of this, I think returning the streets back to the people while simultaneously keeping the people safe should be the next project of all cities. I understand the need for roads that cars can manuveur but I don't see why this cannot coexist with bollards. The bollards should act as a barrier between sidewalks and roads to keep pedestrians safe. In the cases of narrow streets like those found in Europe, I think the inconvenience to cars is much less important than the safety of a human being.
There is an argument on the other side of the debate that discusses the aesthetic appeal of bollards. The article was very smart to include examples of bollards that have been used to enhance the architecture of a location rather than hinder it. Bollards can serve many functions; as an art piece or a bench or all of the above. It does not need to be a rigid, restricting structure. If, however, aesthetically pleasing bollards are more expensive to produce, then I think this is the time to question what is more important: fuctionality or art. As a designer, I fully acknowledge that art has an extremely important place in the world. However, I am also aware that it was only able to come to fruition and develop after humanity was able to settle and cultivate food and have leisure time to explore other interests. Because of this, I think it is ridiculous that a basic human need - survival - would be put aside just for the sake of aesthetic appeal.
I am cautiously in favor of using more bollards in publicly vulnerable areas, but as the article points out, I think their overuse or injudicious use could lead to a sense of isolation and anxiety. They are a large, literally concrete reminder of our fear. People walking down a bollard bound street may feel more protected, but they are also constantly reminded that there is something out there they must be protected from. Even if they make us safer, bollards are a psychological blow to our sense of personal freedom in public spaces. Having said that, it’s hard to argue against the careful deployment of a solution to a type of violence that seems to be on the upswing. I think it will be important for municipalities to find ways to mitigate this sense of isolation/anxiety by making bollards do double duty – they should serve the public in a way that isn’t just protection. Bollards that are clever and artistic or flower planters are great examples. But I think they could even go one further: perhaps bollards could be used as a comprehensive plan to support the green-ing of our cities (not just flowers, but drought resistant plants that can help combat urban heat islands?)
While bollards are typically kind of ugly installations to the side of a road, in light of the driving off the road terrorist attacks that have been happening shockingly often, these practical obstacles could be key in increasing public safety. The idea of beautiful Barcelona being ringed in this industrial strength fence to separate cars from people, is a little depressing, but I think this is a beautiful opportunity for cities to design beautiful bollards and commemorate the lives lost in these attacks, showing the unity of the cities against such terrorism. Design is everything and when you have bad design you have ugly, unsightly things, but with good design even the most practical object can take on beauty. Of course, as with any art, the more intricate it is the more costly, but I think the prospect of keeping people safe is important enough that these cities will be able to find the money and will be more willing to go through with it if they don’t make an unsightly mark on the city. Start a fundraiser. Bring the community together with the project.
I am simply depressed that we live in a society that mandates such strong safety structures to be built and imposed in public places. It is not even in the United States anymore, but countries all over the globe are now subject to terrorist attacks. It seems the global population is in constant fear, and governments are scrambling to quell these fears as well as protect their public. This article seems to present a more elegant solution with Bollards placed around cities as opposed to “walled embassy compounds set far away from center cities. “We are building some of the ugliest embassies I’ve ever seen … I cringe when I see what we’re doing,” Of course, aesthetic will have to be sacrificed in order to make buildings and compounds safe. But hopefully with the introduction of more often placed bollards cities can begin to reclaim more architecturally pleasing skylines again.
This article raises increasingly familiar questions of how we as a society can balance security and fear. Bollards are a specific example of this, but they are symbolic of a larger issue. Where is the line between ensuring the safety of our citizens and ceding the culture and beauty of our cities to terror? I think fusing artistic design with security could be key to solving this issue in a way that avoids the degradation of our cities while increasing the protection of citizens.
Post a Comment