You get the idea
The United States has announced plans to leave its landmark embassy in central London’s tony Mayfair district and build a safer facility in a far less fashionable suburb south of the River Thames…
Over the last decade, U.S. diplomatic outposts have been transformed from showcases for American openness to heavily defended fortresses. Around the world from Athens to Abidjan, embassies built in a spirit of with colonial elegance or postwar openness have been transformed with fences, blast walls and other barriers against attack.
“This has been a long and careful process,” Tuttle said. “We looked at all our options, including renovation of our current building on Grosvenor Square. In the end, we realized that the goal of a modern, secure and environmentally sustainable embassy could best be met by constructing a new facility…”
The move will bring a stark change in surroundings for the embassy’s 800 staff. The current building is a stone’s throw from designer boutiques and expensive restaurants. The future site sits near railway lines, public housing projects, a fruit-and-vegetable market and derelict Battersea Power station — although on the up side, Tuttle said the embassy would have a river view.
They’re going to allow windows?
And he reassured Britain — “our best friend and ally in the world” — that the new embassy would be just as close to Parliament and other government buildings as the old site…
Of course. You wouldn’t want to make it too difficult for the governors of the 51st state to report to headquarters.
I bet that diplomats love working in super max prisons.
These new US embassies look like Nazi architecture.
Picking better Ambassadors may be a step in the right direction. Paul Cellucci, the US Ambassador to Canada for 5 years, single handedly destroyed 30 years of pretty close ties between the two countries. David Wilkins (his successor) has been a breath of fresh air, but he’s got a lot of damage to undo.
Well maybe Cellucci had help from Cheney…
“This has been a long and careful process,” Tuttle said. How about “Our international policies have put us in the unenviable position where we need a super safe massive structure to be safe”.
Isn’t some risk worth a better image? Besides what’s ever happened to US embassy personal in Britain? Other than discovering that their native land’s beer is crap of course.
#2 – QB – These new US embassies look like Nazi architecture.
Nah…
Jager, the efficient Teutonic garden in the front gives it that “homey” feel.
Isn’t it nice to know we are liked and respected?
Soon they’ll need bunker-like buildings to protect the officials inside our own country. Oh! that’s right, there already are some.
#6 – QB
Yep, a warm a cozy feeling. Here’s some more inspiration for the embassy architects. Perhaps for a new embassy in Pakistan?
Why can’t they hire the same firm that designed the new Federal Court Building in Las Vegas?
It is a very handsome building. It designed to withstand terrorist attacks without looking like a war bunker.
http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1245&type=500
“U.S. to build new castle/fortress/embassy in London”
Well, London IS the new Tehran.
Too bad the army troops don’t get the same sort of consideration. Their vehicles first arrived, without needed armor plating.
But diplomats are getting entire new buildings for them to feel a bit safer inside. Well it’s not like they’re under fire every minute, is it?
I have to wonder if they’re being protected from possible terrorist attacks? Or future angry mobs of citizens, after their economy collapses? A lot of these protection measures seem to be for the long term, than short term.
Are we supposed to win this war on terrorism, fairly soon? Why the need for fortifications, years down the road?
Ironically in the 70s and 80s when we had real IRA terrorist attacks in London the US embassy was the only building in London completely undefended.
#12 – m – Ironically in the 70s and 80s when we had real IRA terrorist attacks in London the US embassy was the only building in London completely undefended.
Mainly because the IRA targeted the British, but also because the IRA received a lot of money from Irish people living in the US (pissing of the US would have cut that money stream).
They may need to move to reduce the threat to the neighbors but then the English are already targets.
If you could just back it up from the road and put a moat with gold fish in it around the place you could stop just about anything but a swimmer with climbing gear using only a low wall on the inside like the Japanese imperial palace.
Modestly thick walls that sloop in to deflect a blast and windows on the second story even if they are fake. Being scared is one thing. Looking scared is another.
Build it with an open couryard in the middle and parking space around back. That way no bombs in the parking garage and people including guests have a nice place to relax and a nice view.
You can landscape with thorn covered shrubs like hawthorn up against the building. Much more attractive than barbwire and just about as nasty. Get something that blooms and people will drop by to take pictures.
If you stop and think about what I’m saying I’m suggesting creating a lovely little park type location that people can walk by and enjoy with more than adaquate security.
With a low wall next to the street to keep people out of the moat and another on the other side for the same reason then modestly thick walls at least a dozen feet back from that which slope inward and no blast on the street is going to do much to the building.
If you do the rubble filled double wall trick you can cut building costs and no missile fired at the building is going to have much effect either. You might need to repair the outer wall but that is about it unless they have a couple of tons of HE in the thing. I’d think something that large would be noticed before it got used.
Yeah, I know they’ll spend a fortune on something that looks gruesome.