Designing out terrorism in New York City How counterterrorism measures influence people’s perceptions of safety and space in New York City Name: Daphne Hobelman Student number: 951215341050 Thesis supervisor: Bram J. Jansen Date: April 2019 MSc International Development Studies Sociology of Development and Change Disaster Studies Counterterrorism measures in New York City 1 Daphne Hobelman Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis supervisor dr. Bram J. Jansen for his scientific supervision and all the comments throughout the duration of this thesis. I would also like to thank my family, for their mental and emotional support throughout my stay in the United States of America – and for their positivity regarding this thesis. Especially Chris and Patrick, who made my fieldwork easier by flying over for one week. Finally, I would like to thank Jonathan for the wonderful walks and talks in New York City, and his emotional support throughout my stay. He pushed me to be very pro-active and positive, and urged me to “oil my own wheel”. This thesis would not have been possible without them. Daphne Hobelman All photos used in this thesis are made by the author unless stated otherwise. 2 Counterterrorism measures in New York City 3 Daphne Hobelman Executive summary This thesis research looks into the influence of counterterrorism measures on people’s perceptions of space and safety. Since the 9/11 attacks, all kinds of counterterrorism measures have been implemented in urban spaces. As European cities are implementing counterterrorism measures as well, it is interesting and useful to look at experiences of people in New York City with the counterterrorism measures implemented there, as they have been around for a while. As such, it is possible to ask people about their experiences with these measures and how these experiences and their perceptions have changed over time. To understand their influence on people’s daily lives, this research looks at counterterrorism measures in three different locations in New York City: the World Trade Centre, Times Square and the Staten Island Ferry. This research will use theories of securitisation and Lefebvre’s spatial triad to understand these influences better. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with New Yorkers who have been living in the city for their whole lives, and mini-interviews were conducted in the three different research locations with passers-by, whether tourists or locals. In these interviews, material structures, texts and documents were analysed as well. Next to interviews, (participant) observation was used to understand the processes in urban spaces better, and to see how people interact with the counterterrorism measures. The most important finding of this research is that counterterrorism measures do impact space and people’s perceptions of safety, and this influence can be both positive or negative. While it was expected that people felt more afraid and nervous due to the counterterrorism measures installed in the research locations, most respondents claimed to feel safer. Their explanations included their perception of counterterrorism measures being able to stop attacks, and to prevent them as they are deterrents for possible terrorists. However, not all research participants felt safer. Some respondents expressed concerns regarding obtrusive counterterrorism measures, such as bollards and heavily-armed police officers, and they preferred less obtrusive measures. Urban planners and security experts should understand the relationships between counterterrorism measures and space and safety better before implementing them. It is their task to find a midway between overt and covert counterterrorism measures, while keeping aesthetics and the openness of urban space in mind. 4 Counterterrorism measures in New York City Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 Research questions ......................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Research locations .......................................................................................................... 12 1.2.1 The World Trade Centre .......................................................................................... 12 1.2.2 The Staten Island Ferry ............................................................................................ 13 1.2.3 Times square ............................................................................................................ 13 1.3 Theoretical framework ................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Societal relevance of this research ................................................................................. 15 1.5 Outline of the thesis ........................................................................................................ 16 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 18 2.1 Data collection methods ................................................................................................. 18 2.2 Research participants ...................................................................................................... 19 2.3 Access ............................................................................................................................. 21 3. Counterterrorism measures and people’s responses ............................................................. 22 3.1 Securitisation .................................................................................................................. 22 3.2 The rise of counterterrorism measures in New York City ............................................. 24 3.2.1 The securitisation of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks ............................................... 24 3.2.2 The securitisation of space ....................................................................................... 27 3.3 Acceptance of the counterterrorism measures in New York City .................................. 33 3.3.1 Context ..................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.2 Visualisations and hashtags: the role of the (social) media ..................................... 37 3.3.3 Politicians ................................................................................................................. 41 3.4 The ‘new normal’: normalisation of counterterrorism measures ................................... 43 3.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 46 4. The impact of counterterrorism measures on urban space in New York City ..................... 48 4.1 The designing out of terrorism in urban space ............................................................... 49 4.1.1. Obtrusive counterterrorism measures ..................................................................... 49 4.1.2. Unobtrusive counterterrorism measures ................................................................. 53 4.2 Urban space in New York City and Lefebvre’s spatial triad ......................................... 56 4.2.1 Representations of space .......................................................................................... 57 4.2.2 Spatial practices ....................................................................................................... 60 4.2.3 Representational space ............................................................................................. 66 5 Daphne Hobelman 4.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 70 5. Counterterrorism measures’ influence on people’s feelings of safety ................................. 72 5.1 Vulnerabilities in the research locations ........................................................................ 73 5.2 Feeling safer due to the counterterrorism measures ....................................................... 75 5.2.1 Feeling safer by believing counterterrorism measures can stop attacks .................. 76 5.2.2 Respondents believe counterterrorism measures prevent attacks ............................ 77 5.2.3 Counterterrorism measures reduce respondents’ anxiety ........................................ 79 5.3 Counterterrorism measures: causing anxiety ................................................................. 80 5.3.1 Counterterrorism measures are directly linked to terrorism .................................... 80 5.3.2 Feeling intimidated by counterterrorism measures .................................................. 82 5.3.3 Believing counterterrorism measures are not working ............................................ 83 5.4 Counterterrorism: the paradox ....................................................................................... 84 5.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 85 6. Conclusion and discussion ................................................................................................... 88 6.1 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................