The Goal Isn’t More Access. It’s Less Uncontrolled Access.

One of the most common objections to delivery access in apartment buildings is:

“Why would we give delivery drivers access to the building?”

It sounds like a straightforward security question.

But it assumes that without a formal access process, the door stays shut.

That isn’t necessarily what happens.

I’ve seen this first hand.

When I was working in delivery, members of my own team would sometimes buzz multiple apartments if the intended recipient didn’t answer.

The intention was usually innocent. They didn’t want to leave a parcel outside where it was more exposed to theft, so they might say:

“Hi, I’ve got a parcel for one of your neighbours. Would you mind letting me in?”

And sometimes the resident would.

The driver is trying to protect the parcel. The resident is trying to be helpful.

But the resident doesn’t know the driver. They aren’t expecting them. They may not know the neighbour being named. And once the door opens, they have no control over where that person goes.

The security decision is effectively being made because a stranger has given a plausible explanation.

When a resident makes the access decision, identity and purpose may rest on little more than a plausible story. Photo: Mike Jones / Pexels.

What happens next time if it isn’t a delivery driver?

What if it’s a former partner, a stalker or someone with entirely different intentions?

That’s the problem with uncontrolled access. It doesn’t always begin with malicious behaviour. Sometimes it emerges from perfectly reasonable people trying to solve a problem.

Access isn’t binary

The security conversation is often framed as:

Access or no access.

But in many apartment buildings, that isn’t the real choice.

Drivers can be buzzed in. They can follow residents through a door. Someone can hold the door open. A shared code can circulate. A cleaner, concierge, contractor or resident can decide to let them through.

So the more useful distinction is:

controlled access versus uncontrolled access.

Controlled access asks:

• Who is requesting access?
• Why are they there?
• When should access be available?
• Where are they permitted to go?
• How long does that permission last?
• What record exists afterwards?

Those are questions about limits and accountability.

Isn’t no access more secure?

Yes.

If nobody who isn’t a resident ever enters the secure part of the building, that is more secure than allowing controlled access.

But it has to mean no access in practice, not a policy saying delivery drivers aren’t allowed inside.

Residents can’t buzz them in. People can’t hold the door open. Tailgating has to be prevented. Informal workarounds have to disappear.

Think about what it takes to enforce that in a normal apartment building.

You can design one-person-at-a-time checkpoints, interlocked doors and similar controls. At some point, however, you’ve designed something that feels more like an airport or a prison than somebody’s home.

The other practical option is people: security or concierge coverage controlling entry around the clock.

That may be appropriate for some buildings. But it is a significant operating model for a problem that, by and large, is uneventful.

Residents live here. They come home with children, groceries, prams, pets, friends and family. Visitors, trades and deliveries are part of normal residential life.

Trying to eliminate every conceivable access risk can quickly become disproportionate to the risk itself.

Manage the risk that actually exists

The more realistic objective is to make legitimate access as controlled as practical.

Identify the person requesting it.

Limit the circumstances in which it can occur.

Restrict where appropriate.

Remove the permission when the legitimate reason for access ends.

And create an audit trail so that if something does happen, we have something more useful than:

“Someone must have let them in.”

That doesn’t eliminate risk. Nothing practical will.

It introduces accountability and evidence around something that is already happening.

So when an apartment building discusses delivery access, I think the opening question should change.

Instead of:

“Should we give delivery drivers access?”

Ask:

“How are they getting access today?”

Because if the answer includes residents buzzing strangers in, people holding doors open, tailgating or other informal workarounds, the choice isn’t really between access and no access.

It’s between controlled access and uncontrolled access.

And the goal shouldn’t be more access.

It should be less uncontrolled access.