Public placesSecuring Public Places in the Wake of Capitol Violence
In the wake of last week’s assault on the Capitol, experts are considering ways to secure such public spaces now and in the future; how added protective measures will affect public access to America’s most sacred shrines of democracy.
Sadly, it’s happened before. Throughout history many of the nation’s landmark sites have been targets of attack, from the British razing of Washington during the War of 1812 to the Sept. 11, 2001, assault on the Pentagon. Political violence, at least in contemporary times, has left these places more locked down and less accessible.
In the wake of last week’s assault on the Capitol, experts across Harvard are again considering ways to secure such public spaces now and in the future; how added protective measures will affect public access to America’s most sacred shrines of democracy; and how to address potential social and racial inequities arising from increased policing and tightened security around buildings such as the Capitol, often referred to as “the people’s house.”
Designing Spaces with an Eye to Inclusion
Lily Song, a senior lecturer in urban planning and design at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, sees the built environment through a more inclusive, social justice lens.
Inviting local members of the community into the conversation about how to rethink security around the U.S. Capitol could yield surprising and important results, Song said.
“For D.C. residents the Capitol is their urban space, and yet they’ve had this strange, marginalizing relationship with it,” she said. “I think there’s such an opportunity there for them to be included on the forefront and to really drive how the Capitol might be redesigned to serve the public.”
As an example of how such a process could shed fresh light on potential solutions, Song cited her work with the Alliance for Community Transit to develop more community-centered safety measures for the Los Angeles Metro Rail system. The regional coalition of transit advocates, environmentalists, community-development groups, and riders used collaborative workshops and research to re-envision the metro as a “sanctuary” and safe space for riders, said Song.
“Their set of proposals and safety interventions were less about policing, and more about centering the health and safety of transit riders and transit workers — for example, comfortable and ample seating, well-functioning elevators, regularly serviced bathrooms, natural lighting … less police presence and more social infrastructure and public gathering space,” said Song. “I don’t think the conveners entirely knew what transit riders would imagine as safe and secure beyond the police until they asked them directly.”
