By Jane C. Loeffler
In his inaugural address, President Obama called on Americans to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” With these refreshing words he has joined a conversation launched in the late 1990s by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan—but largely ignored ever since—on how our public buildings can better balance security with the openness that is the hallmark of our democracy.
This is important for government buildings at home but all the more important abroad where our embassies present our face to the world. Bastion-like buildings that advertise only fear adversely affect America’s image abroad. Such structures convey none of the optimism that can be associated with forward-looking and accessible architecture.
Of course it is fair to ask whether the president was thinking about these sorts of buildings when he made his statement? Evidence suggests that he was. On the campaign trail in Iowa, for instance, he specifically condemned the new fortress-like U.S. embassy in Baghdad for the negative image it conveys. “First of all, it sends out a signal as if you are going to be a permanent occupier,” he said. “Secondly, it starts looking like a permanent base.”
Indeed, it is wise to question how an unfettered security mandate can actually undermine the diplomatic mission that such buildings are meant to support.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton now heads the effort to strengthen America’s foreign representation and protect personnel serving abroad. This is a daunting challenge in a world where we have many enemies. But she is tackling this task head-on, already calling for “smart power” as the basis for foreign policy. As our embassies are the most visible symbols of U.S. presence in capitals worldwide, this seems to presage embassies that are not just “smart”—in the sense of buildings equipped with integrated technology—but truly intelligent buildings that express America’s commitment and goodwill through excellence in design.
To accomplish her agenda, Mrs. Clinton will have to convince Congress of the need to define security in new and broader terms—terms that enhance America’s long-term diplomatic objectives as well as immediate safety considerations. Over the past decade, we have dotted the global landscape with embassies that resemble big box stores—only bigger, more isolated, and far more forbidding than any store designed to attract consumers or sell a product. Unfortunately, it is easier to install bollards than to devise ways to make such barriers unnecessary. If diplomacy and development are to be the top priorities, as Mrs. Clinton announced in her opening remarks at the State Department, then our foreign buildings have to make a positive statement about U.S. intentions and should support greater outreach as a way of promoting a message of mutual respect. Outreach, according to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is going to be a key component of twenty-first century diplomacy.
Fortified and inaccessible structures may be necessary in some places, like Sanaa, Yemen, where a terrorist assault on the U.S. Embassy was recently thwarted by an impenetrable perimeter wall, but certainly not everywhere. That is why the State Department’s Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) is reassessing its “standard embassy design,” the prototype developed during the Bush years to deliver a record number of needed facilities in record time.
Since the abrupt departure of its director last year, OBO has begun a dramatic turnaround—expanding its commitment to sustainability, finding new ways to incorporate architectural expertise and user satisfaction into the design process, and embracing openness throughout the process. The recently announced competition to select a design for a new U.S. embassy in London is one example. Mrs. Clinton can keep that momentum moving by appointing talented and forward-thinking people to key posts.
People ask if architecture really matters when security is such an overriding concern. There is no better illustration that it does matter than President Lincoln’s decision during the Civil War not to stop construction of the great Capitol dome. “When the people see the dome rising,” he declared, “it will be a sign that we intend the union to go on.” Lincoln recognized the power of architecture to inspire hope. We might learn from his example when it comes to America’s presence abroad today.
****
****
Jane C. Loeffler teaches in the Honors Program at the University of Maryland and is the author of The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies.