History

Major revisions of the New York City building code have come largely as the result of tragedy or economic concerns. In 1911, about 150 workers at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory died in a fire, prompting major changes that can be researched beyond the Cornell link below. The changes in 1937 and 1968 were mainly the result of builders complaining about the price to build here. We are in the fourth phase of code upheaval, obviously as the result of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
History shows that safety often competes with bottom-line concerns in reshaping New York City building codes. Media reports show arguments in 2004 between members of the building community hoping to save money and others worried more about the safety of the building. In 1968, the debates were similar. Here’s a quote from a 2002 New York Times story referencing the building code revisions in 1968.

''With the old buildings, you know the building's going to hold,'' said Neil P. Winberry, a retired New York fire captain. ''You've got time to work.'' After the city fire code was changed in 1968, allowing a widespread shift from masonry fireproofing to a light, spray-on product, Mr. Winberry said, ''we could not understand how this was going to work; we had no faith in it.'

The debates are normally very polarizing so I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that these builders are ignoring safety precautions. Many of the reports beyond the links below should give us some sources to contact, which I plan to begin doing next week. I am going to focus mostly on the history of code changes, why they come about and what the real changes have been.

Obviously not knowing much yet, here is a rough version of a potential budget line:
Changes in New York City building code meant to make life in high-rises here safer have followed disasters like a devastating 1911 fire that claimed about 150 lives and the Sept. 11 attacks. But economic concerns have had a similarly substantial impact on high-rise construction and maintenance. Often, the two concerns – economic and safety – clash. With the memories of Sept. 11 still fresh, the history of how building construction has evolved in the world’s tallest city can help explain how safe skyscrapers here are now, if many are still vulnerable, and why.

Below are links to many New York Times reports on the subject. The first two get into the history of the subject. The third seems to be written by an expert on a site I didn’t recognize but it’s amazingly interesting, expecially from the historical perspective and why things are the way they are; I’m going to look this guy up and give him a call. The fourth goes to Cornell’s very thorough project about the Triangle fire that includes numerous primary documents. .
Starkey
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E2D9143FF934A25756C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904EEDB123AF931A35757C0A9649C8B63&st=cse&sq=April+2+2002+Lipton&scp=5
http://www.todaysfacilitymanager.com/tfm_02_05_topstory.asp
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/trianglefire/
Some more Times articles at the time of historic building code revisions here:
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00F12FD3D54157493C5A9178AD95F4C8685F9
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F20C12F73C581B728DDDAF0A94D1405B818AF1D3
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F40A17F73E54107A93CBA9178CD85F4D8385F9
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F40716FB3C5D12738DDDAD0894DA415B878FF1D3