Urban Functionality and Corporate Location Decisions After September 11, 2001-- Benefiting from the New York City Experience

Abstract

The September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks in New York were a shocking act of terrorism on U.S. soil adding security as one, among many, influencing factor of urban functionality and future corporate location decision-making. This paper initially examines the relocation preferences of former World Trade Center complex tenants with more than 20,000 square feet, using New York's attacks as the only major case of terrorism towards non-government U.S. office buildings. The paper further identifies the specific areas of the urban fabric impacted by terrorism along with the preparedness and prevention measures taken. In addition, the rising concerns of businesses in determining the safest, but highly profitable location, is outlined as well as some of the measures taken to fortify the selected locations. In an effort to highlight the possible threats towards office properties and the issues owners and tenants should be concerned, a table of threats is generated with their outcomes and occurrences around the world. Finally, the experience gained from this study allows the development of a theoretical cost benefit analysis for a site selection within Central Business District versus the suburbs, when security is viewed as the key factor of location.

Residential Preferences: What's Terrorism Got to Do with It?

“…Risk and fear can degrade property values (Dermisi 2007; Hipp, Tita, and Greenbaum 2009; McClelland, Schulze, and Hurd 1990; Runge et al. 2000), prompt homeowners to seek suburban refuge (Bayoh, Irwin, and Haab 2006; Cullen and Levitt 1999), and scatter employers while prodding working families to relocate or lose their jobs (Blomberg and Sheppard 2007; Dermisi and Baen 2005; Johnson and Kasarda 2003; Stehr 2006). More abstractly, accumulating risk and disamenities may heighten “topophobia,” or fear of place (Janz 2008), and stoke the yearnings of city dwellers burdened with “stage fright” (Janz 2008) for the security they associate with lower‐profile, lower‐density places (Low 2003; Newman and Hogan 1981).…”