Although building security has returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels at many commercial properties, owners and managers of high-profile buildings such as the Prudential Tower in Boston say heightened vigilance will continue indefinitely.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a shock wave of increased security hit commercial and office properties. Eight months later, property owners and managers are looking at the security of their buildings with new eyes, trying to strike a balance between the need for sufficient security and the need for tenants and visitors to feel safe but not hassled.

Directly after the attacks, the lobbies of most buildings were packed with people and security guards painstakingly checking the IDs of everyone entering. Now, many have decided that it’s no longer necessary to continue that level of security. Issues ranging from tenant and guest inconvenience to the need for public and client access have eased security in all but the most high-profile buildings, according to David Begelfer, chief executive officer of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

“In reality, tenants have taken a lot of the security on themselves,” Begelfer said. For example, some law firms now have a reception area restricting open access to the actual offices. However, not all commercial tenants are willing to bear the cost of beefed-up security, whether in their own budgets or as part of increased building management expenses.

“Many tenants have really decided they don’t feel the expense is necessary. Some of that is shaking out right now,” he said.

Rather than providing a truly effective means of protection, guards checking IDs at a front security desk served more to provide a sense of comfort and protection for tenants, Begelfer said. In reality, no one is doing background checks on IDs, with the act merely serving as a threshold of deterrence, he said.

Also influencing tenants’ security decisions is the fact that this is the time of year when building operating expense increases are sent to tenants, and extra security is included in those costs.

“I think landlords are trying to strike a balance with concerns and expenses,” said Michael Quinn, senior vice president at Meredith and Grew Oncor and president of the Building Owners and Managers Association, a division of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

Most buildings outsource security, said Quinn, with the cost passed on in rent to cover operating expenses. The majority of tenants accept that expense as necessary. But other expenses, such as terrorism insurance, come into play.

For example, such insurance could be as much as $500,000 or $1 million a year for a $100 million building, said Quinn. A better security system may translate into lower premiums, although Quinn said it’s too early to tell if that will be the case. Meanwhile, many banks are requiring terrorism insurance for financing.

‘Additional Layers’

About half of the properties managed by Meredith and Grew have reverted to pre-Sept. 11 security levels, Quinn said. In downtown Boston, however, many buildings have more security going on behind the scenes than was the case before Sept. 11.

“There are still a lot of buildings with high profiles like 100 Federal St., the Pru [Prudential Tower], and the Hancock Tower that are still at heightened security,” said Quinn.

Boston Properties, which manages the Prudential Tower, the Shops at the Prudential Center and the new skyscraper at 111 Huntington Ave., has retained the same level of increased security that was implemented immediately following Sept. 11.

“Some measures are visible, like access cards, while others are not,” said Amy Daniels, marketing manager for Boston Properties. As proof of heightened security, Daniels refused to divulge any details of the company’s security programs.

“We’re doing more, and planning to continue at the same level,” she said. “We were pretty on top of security before. We’ve just had some additional layers added. The response from tenants and the general public has been very positive.”

Richard Primrose, president of Palladion Services, which performs security for many office buildings in downtown Boston such as the Boston Stock Exchange, noted that the level of security depends on the property.

“It’s really a function of who the tenants are … the profile of the building, profile of the tenants, the perspective of the property manager,” said Primrose.

Primrose did note that, while the response to the attacks seemingly has not fueled advances in security technology, it has sparked an increase in the use of technological security devices in many buildings.

“Technology is playing a factor,” Quinn concurred. While new security technology hasn’t necessarily developed at an advanced pace, high-end systems and products are becoming more affordable, he said.

The events of Sept. 11 also have had an impact on the architectural world and the way security is implemented in design. The American Institute of Architects offers several resources and workshops on the subject. And in an informal survey of members last November, the Boston Society of Architects found that more than half (54 percent) of the respondents believed that the tragedy may change the way they think about the basic principles of urban design, such as livability, density, sustainability and smart planning. Roughly one-third of those surveyed (33 percent) said they think that there are significant technological/structural changes in building design and construction that can or should be made immediately.

Suggestions included using more fire prevention materials such as concrete, as well as implementing multiple exits, wider stairwells and increased use of fire-resistant spray on steel structures. Another proposal called for the development of an internal airplane warning system, similar to external airplane warning lights.

New building codes are also being discussed among design professionals.

“I think there may still need to be some debriefing as to what physically happened to the World Trade Center. There have been a couple of scenarios – Did the fireproofing fail? Did the structure fail?” said Robert Brown, an architect and principal of CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares in Boston.

“Essentially, buildings were safe before,” Brown said, mentioning that the World Trade Center in New York was designed to withstand planes hitting it accidentally. Two planes have collided with the Empire State Building in the past, but it did not topple. “Terrorism is not something you can stop or plan for,” he said.

Despite discussions and questions, Brown, who is president of the Boston Society of Architects, said he has not seen or heard of people redesigning buildings around security, not even in trade publications or academic work.

“There’s not a project I know of that changed its plans … no bulletproof or blastproof glass or anything like that,” Brown said.

After the attacks, the developer of one project did consider changing the plans for a glassed-in lobby so a car would not be able to drive through, but ultimately decided that would be an overreaction and did not change the design, Brown said.

The building at 111 Huntington Ave., a CBT project, was nearly complete at the time of the attacks. Although an open lobby was originally intended, stanchions had to be put up so people would not be able to run past the front desk, Brown said. Also, guests are escorted to their destinations, as the elevators will only operate with employee access cards.

“The biggest thing to come out of this is that building security systems have been looked over, rethought, reconfigured and reviewed. There’s been a lot more updating on a lot more systems,” said Begelfer. “I don’t think there’s any major building [management team] out there that hasn’t rethought its security strategy.”