The Visibility of (In)security: The Aesthetics of Planning Urban Defences Against Terrorism

Urban defences against terrorism have traditionally been based on territorial interventions that sought to seal off and surveil certain public and private spaces considered targets. Lately, though, a much wider range of crowded and public spaces have been viewed as potential targets and thus have been identified as requiring additional security. This has immense implications for the experience of the ‘everyday’ urban landscape. Drawing on contemporary notions that incorporate the study of aesthetics and emotions within critical security and terrorism studies, this article discusses the visual impact of counter-terrorism security measures. It analyses the ‘transmission’ of symbolic messages, as well as the variety of ways in which security might be ‘received’ by various stakeholders. The analysis takes place against the backdrop of concern that obtrusive security measures have the capacity to radically alter public experiences of space and in some cases lead to (intended and unintended) exclusionary practices or a range of negative emotional responses. The article concludes by outlining a ‘spectrum of visible security’ ranging between traditional obtrusive fortified approaches and approaches that embed security features seamlessly or even ‘invisibly’ into the urban fabric

Cities and the 'War on terror'.

Programmes of organized, political violence have always been legitimized and sustained through complex imaginative geographies. These tend to be characterized by stark binaries of place attachment. This article argues that the discursive construction of the Bush administration's 'war on terror' since September 11th 2001 has been deeply marked by attempts to rework imaginative geographies separating the urban places of the US 'homeland' and those Arab cities purported to be the sources of 'terrorist' threats against US national interests. On the one hand, imaginative geographies of US cities have been reworked to construct them as 'homeland' spaces which must be re-engineered to address supposed imperatives of 'national security'. On the other, Arab cities have been imaginatively constructed as little more than 'terrorist nest' targets to soak up US military firepower. Meanwhile, the article shows how both 'homeland' and 'target' cities are increasingly being treated together as a single, integrated 'battlespace' within post 9/11 US military doctrine and techno-science. The article concludes with a discussion of the central roles of urban imaginative geographies, overlaid by transnational architectures of US military technology, in sustaining the colonial territorial configurations of a hyper-militarized US Empire