Making buildings resistant and performative is a core obligation, largely technical. But making occupants feel safe adds the emotional, the unforeseen, the experiential, and even the political to that mix. What could happen? What settings convey security while still assuring comfort and community? Much tougher. Technical design incorporates codes and criteria, but the perception of safety is evaluative, subjective, and often intangible. Design is looking to prove a negative: “Nothing went wrong.”

As our firm designs for “safe,” we draw on five years of work for US State Department facilities abroad, upgrading them to be more secure, effective, and also welcoming; after all, these are our diplomatic buildings. In Athens, the upgrade and expansion of the Gropius chancery and embassy compound, which we were awarded in 2014, emphasizes security, safety, and resilience. Careful oversight of all aspects of the design is embedded throughout the process. Outside experts advise and review so that all aspects of the structure and systems will perform at their highest potential for resistance. Many existing conditions require meaningful change.

Walter Gropius envisioned his design set on an open, sweeping lawn, with a large open courtyard in the center of the chancery. These conditions have practical and security shortcomings and must be reconsidered. As we look forward to more work for the State Department, on more embassies and buildings abroad, we can imagine similar issues will remain a top priority. But even the most sophisticated of teams can only future plan, not future proof, for the unknown.

Well beyond government buildings, security concerns and design obligations have widened. Civic and institutional owners require that facilities address internal and external threat and worry about the past and the inconceivable. This framework of concerns has unsteadied design assumptions. We take for granted that we will provide a building both stable and resistant, mindful of intrusion or impact. Less certain is that occupants, relying on building performance, employee training, and protective systems, can find in their daily settings the calm and support to deal with unforeseen events or fears, perceived or actual.

So, we make fences that try to be good neighbors but set us apart. For Athens, fencing is open to the street, and the embassy visible and majestic. Landscape is seen and used safely, with buffers. New windows shield, and space plans provide strategic sightlines. Corridors are wider, interior views more open, hardware more secure, systems redundant. There are more places to gather and collaborate and a sense, through this, of the workplace as community.

Throughout the design process, experts have considered the “what ifs,” which could be answered with fewer entries, more interior observation points, smaller and less visible openings, protective glass, and an aesthetic that conveys resistance, even discouragement. Design a deterrent, while still a common ground: These goals become a tension-ridden mandate.

Design can’t predict. The future of conflict and adversity is not known. Our current times have sensitized designers to ask probing questions and design to a new level of awareness and performance. We help buildings resist and stabilize. We help occupants prepare, exit, shelter in place, and monitor their surroundings. But the real “safe” belongs to policies and politics. Removing threat, returning buildings to common ground and community, is the ultimate goal. A healthier, more reconciled world is our best and only true defense. It goes way, way beyond architecture.

So, we make fences that try to be good neighbors but set us apart. For Athens, fencing is open to the street, and the embassy visible and majestic. Landscape is seen and used safely, with buffers. New windows shield, and space plans provide strategic sightlines. Corridors are wider, interior views more open, hardware more secure, systems redundant. There are more places to gather and collaborate and a sense, through this, of the workplace as community.

Throughout the design process, experts have considered the “what ifs,” which could be answered with fewer entries, more interior observation points, smaller and less visible openings, protective glass, and an aesthetic that conveys resistance, even discouragement. Design a deterrent, while still a common ground: These goals become a tension-ridden mandate.

Design can’t predict. The future of conflict and adversity is not known. Our current times have sensitized designers to ask probing questions and design to a new level of awareness and performance. We help buildings resist and stabilize. We help occupants prepare, exit, shelter in place, and monitor their surroundings. But the real “safe” belongs to policies and politics. Removing threat, returning buildings to common ground and community, is the ultimate goal. A healthier, more reconciled world is our best and only true defense. It goes way, way beyond architecture.