New Fort York: the besieged landscapes of world summits
When security arrangements for the June 2010 G20 summit were made public, one thing was clear: downtown Toronto would become a fortress. Perimeter fences and blanket video surveillance around the conference centre brought to mind nothing less than a modern-day counterpart for nearby Fort York, both conceived as bulwarks against the natives.
Assuming that these gatherings of world leaders are productive and necessary (and many have convincingly argued that they aren't), why not institutionalize the meetings in a permanent, secure location? Instead of a bloated road show that results in enormous bills and massive disruptions whenever it comes to town, the G20 summit and others of its kind could choose the settled life in a landscape uniquely suited to these spectacles.
Such a location would require commodious infrastructure with international flair and complete isolation from existing urban centres and their troublesome citizens. Conveniently, such a place actually exists, and with year-round sun to boot: why not hold the next G20 meeting at Epcot? With an existing secure perimeter, thousands of hotel rooms, and ready-made national pavilions to house delegations, the match seems ideal. A cruise on the nearby It's a Small World ride would set the right tone for negotiations.
Early proposals for the United Nations headquarters anticipated this need for a secure, neutral location; plans were submitted to locate the UN "World Peace Capital" on an uninhabited island near Niagara Falls. While this scenario may bring to mind the secret lairs of movie villains, it suggests a tendency in modern architecture toward sequstration, not openness.
In terms of world summits like the G20, is architecture capable of facilitating access and accountability rather than suppressing it? The underlying question is whether architectural accessibility is even useful; experience has shown that massive public protests have little short-term effect on policy.
In the meantime, the implicit message of the rising security fences is that we are the security threat. Or do the fences exist to protect us from the politicians? When world leaders lock themselves in, perhaps the public should take the opportunity to demonstrate its ability to solve global problems without them.