PerspectiveCrisis Architecture: Building to Defend against Active Aggressors
A study of mass shootings in the United States shows that a consistent feature of these attacks is that they are over quickly. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Tadd Lahnert write that “The average time between an attacker entering a structure and the end of the shooting was a mere 9 minutes and 48 seconds.” They call for the adoption of an architectural paradigm they call crisis architecture – “The focus of this paradigm is designing the built environment in a way that increases the likelihood that individuals will survive an active aggressor incident,” they write.
A study of mass shootings in the United States shows that a consistent feature of these attacks is that they are over quickly. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Tadd Lahnert write in War on the Rocks that at Sandy Hook a single shooter killed 26 children and adults in ten minutes. In the 2016 terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, a gunman killed 49 people in nine minutes. Not counting the 2017 Las Vegas shooting because it occurred outdoors, the U.S. remaining five deadliest active aggressor events (that is, incidents in which an individual is actively trying to kill people in a confined or populated area) left 154 people dead in a 49-minute span. “The average time between an attacker entering a structure and the end of the shooting was a mere 9 minutes and 48 seconds,” they write, adding:
When so much blood is spilled so quickly, every tool should be brought to bear. Communities should look beyond rapid police response or individual heroics to maximize survivability; their efforts should include the design of the structure where an attack may occur. This article introduces an architectural paradigm we call crisis architecture, which one of this article’s authors has been developing over the past four years. It incorporates integrated tactical, psychological, and technological security measures, while preserving the function and aesthetics of buildings to which these measures are applied. The focus of this paradigm is designing the built environment in a way that increases the likelihood that individuals will survive an active aggressor incident.
They conclude:
There is a long history of using design to address social problems, and today’s challenges require this practice to evolve yet again. The crisis architecture paradigm can mitigate the effects of active aggressor attacks that result in mass casualties…. While crisis architecture is not a panacea for casualties in active aggressor attacks, we believe that it is an unfortunately necessary measure at a time when a lack of comprehensive solutions ensure that these attacks will continue.
