A new fire code law has been proposed at the request of Mayor Bloomberg. It would be the first revision to the Code in almost a century and, if passed, will go into effect on July 1, 2008. The FDNY official press release is as follows:
A local law to enact a new Fire Code for New York City was introduced in the City Council on March 12, 2008, by Fire and Criminal Justice Services Committee Chair Miguel Martinez, at the request of the Mayor. The proposed local law, Intro 732, would complete the first comprehensive revision of the City’s Fire Code in almost a century, and conclude a four-year Fire Code revision project. The new Fire Code would take effect on July 1, 2008, to coincide with the effective date of the new Building Code and related construction codes. For additional information about the proposed Fire Code, see the Fire Department's December 5, 2007 press release.
I stopped by Battalion 10 on the Upper East Side for general comment. The firefighters there had no comment, as they hadn't heard anything about a new fire code law. Also, authorization to talk with me on the record needed to come from "downtown." One firefighter told me the City and Morgenthau's office were trying to pin blame on the Fire Department for the Deutsche Bank incident, which occurred last August. He said the FDNY was under tremendous pressure to comply with the 15-day inspection. The Firehouse conducts spontaneous inspections (at the numerous new high-rise construction sites in the neighborhood) three times a week. I requested to accompany them on a site inspection and was told that "authorization would need to come from the Chief or downtown."
On Monday, I stopped back and spoke with Chief Richard Tarello. He indicated the request would have to be approved from "downtown." He said they don't receive many requests from the public, but would be accommodating, if approved.
The proposed text of the new Fire Code Law is over 600 pages long. I have not been able to indicate whether the "failed" 15-day inspection cycle will be addressed by this law. Admittedly, timing is a curious thing. The Mayor and FDNY are pushing through a huge revamp of the Fire Code law while they are both under investigation for what went wrong at the Deutsche Bank. Everyone seems to be pointing fingers, clamming up and looking for an alibi.
People to contact:
* Miguel Martinez, Fire and Criminal Justice Services Committee Chair
* Mayor Bloomberg's PR person
* Ask John Jay Fire Safety Expert (in class)
* Contact NYT reporter on the Deutsche Bank Beat
*
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Guelda Pitch
There is an inextricable link between unions and corruption, sadly. What effect do the unions have on the safety of construction? Is there a better way to approach construction regulation enforcement without taking on the insurmountable task of cleaning up unions? I will address these and other questions in my investigation into construction regulation enforcement post 9/11 and post- building boom. I expect that there are ancient bonds between city officials /regulatory bodies and unions that help them almost collude to maintain the scant level of enforcement that has been reported. But, I also expect that with the amount of building happening in Manhattan it is nearly impossible to enforce all the construction regulations, the importance of which are underscored constantly by things and people falling from buildings and tragedies like the deutsche bank fire.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Gariiiiiiiib pitch
When Raymond Jara, 25, fell to his death at a construction site near Union Square, the Department of Buildings reacted immediately, forming the Scaffold Worker Safety Taskforce which produced and implemented a series of recommendations on worker safety. The unions, primarily the Laborers' Union, and the Builders' Association, were heavily consulted and agreed to the changes. A few voices, like Councilor Rosie Mendez of District 2, felt it wasn't enough. But no one felt that the changes went too far.
That is because the truth is somewhere in the middle. The unions and the Builders' Association have close professional relations with the Department of Buildings, and don't seek large-scale regulations that would put undue burden on them. But they do accept piecemeal changes whose costs they can absorb in this ongoing boom market, but which can be detrimental to non-union labor working at much lower margins - the source of most of New York City's construction accidents and deaths. After all, non-union labor is the competition.
"We already train our workers regularly at our facility in Queens," said Kieran O'Sullivan of the Laborers' local 18A in Manhattan. "We spend millions of dollars on safety training. [Most] construction accidents happen at non-union sites," he said.
While their strategies may change as market conditions in New York worsen, today the relationship between the Department of Buildings and the Builders and Labourers
is the deciding factor in how safety regulations are used to squeeze out non-union work for the benefit of union workers and a handful of large developers.
That is because the truth is somewhere in the middle. The unions and the Builders' Association have close professional relations with the Department of Buildings, and don't seek large-scale regulations that would put undue burden on them. But they do accept piecemeal changes whose costs they can absorb in this ongoing boom market, but which can be detrimental to non-union labor working at much lower margins - the source of most of New York City's construction accidents and deaths. After all, non-union labor is the competition.
"We already train our workers regularly at our facility in Queens," said Kieran O'Sullivan of the Laborers' local 18A in Manhattan. "We spend millions of dollars on safety training. [Most] construction accidents happen at non-union sites," he said.
While their strategies may change as market conditions in New York worsen, today the relationship between the Department of Buildings and the Builders and Labourers
is the deciding factor in how safety regulations are used to squeeze out non-union work for the benefit of union workers and a handful of large developers.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Molly Pitch
There have been many technical advances in safety equipment for high-rise buildings since the tragic events of 9/11. From ramps and whistles to parachutes and jet packs, these devices range from the practical to the borderline ridiculous, which can help prevent future tragedies. I've talked to bankers and innovators alike to see what is the future of high-rise safety inventions.
Chad's pitch
Countless tall buildings in this city. Things are bound to fall from them. The question is, are New Yorkers safe from the construction, crumbling facades, falling tools, etc.? What are the standards of the sidewalk sheds (you know, those structures that separate the falling stuff from your head)? How does the city prosecute violaters of rules dealing with falling debris.? Also, which building in this city has been cited most for falling debris violations and what will it do — or has it done — to remedy the problem?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Sarah's Pitch
In the wake of 9/11, it would seem prudent that every high-rise buiding in New York City would be well-equipped for emergencies of a catastrophic scale ... but this is not exactly the case. And when it comes to high-rise residence buildings, it can't be farther from the truth. In actuality, high-rise residences - where many New Yorkers conceivably spend a great majority of their time - are not required by the city to have an evacuation procedure on hand. The regulations for fire safety and evacuations are greatly relaxed for residences versus commercial buildings.
The Cooperator, a co-op and condo monthly newsletter for New York City residents, states, "At the very least, simple building layouts should mark floor plans so residents know how to get to the nearest exit. Exit signs—with a battery back-up that should last at least 90 minutes past a power outageEmergency-Kits-for-Business-Traveler , according to city code—should mark stairwells and doorways. And all residential buildings should have fire alarms. Beyond those things, however, the city of New York doesn’t require that residential buildings formulate or maintain an emergency management or evacuation plan."
I intend to find out why high-rise residential buildings are not required to meet the same standards of commercial buildings by going through New York City's buiding codes department. I also intend to find out if some of New York's highest high-rise residences (like the newly constructed Time Warner Building) have created evacuation procedures for its residents in spite of the city's lack of requirement to do so. I will interview property owners and managers on their plan (or lack thereof) for safe evacuations in case of emergency. I will interview residents on their expectations for such an occurence. And I will get in touch with a member of the building codes department to see if more stringent requirements are on the horizon. I also intend to interview Charles Jennings, Ph.D., a city and regional planning expert who wrote a dissertation on residential fires and gave a presentation on the need to protect the residences in high-rise buildings the year before 9/11 occurred.
The Cooperator, a co-op and condo monthly newsletter for New York City residents, states, "At the very least, simple building layouts should mark floor plans so residents know how to get to the nearest exit. Exit signs—with a battery back-up that should last at least 90 minutes past a power outageEmergency-Kits-for-Business-Traveler , according to city code—should mark stairwells and doorways. And all residential buildings should have fire alarms. Beyond those things, however, the city of New York doesn’t require that residential buildings formulate or maintain an emergency management or evacuation plan."
I intend to find out why high-rise residential buildings are not required to meet the same standards of commercial buildings by going through New York City's buiding codes department. I also intend to find out if some of New York's highest high-rise residences (like the newly constructed Time Warner Building) have created evacuation procedures for its residents in spite of the city's lack of requirement to do so. I will interview property owners and managers on their plan (or lack thereof) for safe evacuations in case of emergency. I will interview residents on their expectations for such an occurence. And I will get in touch with a member of the building codes department to see if more stringent requirements are on the horizon. I also intend to interview Charles Jennings, Ph.D., a city and regional planning expert who wrote a dissertation on residential fires and gave a presentation on the need to protect the residences in high-rise buildings the year before 9/11 occurred.
Kim Pitch
Sooyeon's story pitch.
U.N. BUILDING (Kim)The story is mainly about a profile of the UN renovation process, a $1.88 billion rehabilitation project, called "Capital Master plan."Also, along with the profile, I want to find whether there were any security changes after 9/11 and what would be the main focus or advancement from the new renovation plan (Are there any lessons from the 9/11 )According to UN report, they will focus the aspects on security, environmental and safety issues. They plan to achieve a LEED Silver rating.But there were not many known changes after 9/11. Even, the U.N. headquarter building has been known for not having any fire alarms and having a very old security system. (The U.N. had been flagged for 866 violations, and it was estimated that fewer than 20 percent had been taken care of so far, according to a report in The Washington Times.)Last November, The New York City Fire Department gave the U.N. until January to comply with standards, and until March to finish. But it has been checked yet. So, I want to discover how much the process has been done as contacting the U.N, or the Fire Department.I have tried to contact Mr Werner Schmidt, Public Information Officer and hopefully, I can have an interview him and ask him the questions I prepared.
(What would be the main advancement from the renovation? What do you think about the current safety situation in the U.N. headquarter building? Were there any security changes after 9/11?)Also, to give some other perspective or objective opinions, I will interview someone, not working for U.N. but an expert of building safety or system that can give some opinions about the U.N. building.
Posted by Sooyeon at 8:54 PM
0 comments:
Giambusso Pitch
Giambusso Gowanus Pitch.
City officials and developers have been encouraging new housing development along a stretch of Gowanus basin, one of the most polluted ecosystems in the country, if not the planet."Public Place" is the Orwellian title given to the central project, and is currently being vetted for construction over a former gas manufacturing plant. A high-rise apartment building with affordable housing, commercial/office space, and outdoor landscapes is being proposed over a festering toxic mass, in the belief that two centuries of sewage and all manner of toxic dumping can be covered up with a slab of concrete and a fresh coat of paint.The central question of my investigation will be, what guarantee can the developers and policy makers give that this site is safe to live on? Professors of architecture and engineering at Columbia recently published a survey of the site that suggests the financial and political investment necesarry to seriously remediate the Gowanus basin isn't feasible.One of the major safety issues after 9/11 has been airborne toxins from building demolition and construction. To what extent have we heeded these lessons and to what extent has the rabid development market run afoul?Photo survey of proposed site:http://www.flickr.com/photos/giambusso/sets/72157604111664762/
Posted by Giambusso at 9:13 PM
City officials and developers have been encouraging new housing development along a stretch of Gowanus basin, one of the most polluted ecosystems in the country, if not the planet."Public Place" is the Orwellian title given to the central project, and is currently being vetted for construction over a former gas manufacturing plant. A high-rise apartment building with affordable housing, commercial/office space, and outdoor landscapes is being proposed over a festering toxic mass, in the belief that two centuries of sewage and all manner of toxic dumping can be covered up with a slab of concrete and a fresh coat of paint.The central question of my investigation will be, what guarantee can the developers and policy makers give that this site is safe to live on? Professors of architecture and engineering at Columbia recently published a survey of the site that suggests the financial and political investment necesarry to seriously remediate the Gowanus basin isn't feasible.One of the major safety issues after 9/11 has been airborne toxins from building demolition and construction. To what extent have we heeded these lessons and to what extent has the rabid development market run afoul?Photo survey of proposed site:http://www.flickr.com/photos/giambusso/sets/72157604111664762/
Posted by Giambusso at 9:13 PM
Parkins Pitch
Design for Safety (Parkins)
In the decades leading up to September 11, 2001, architects and structural engineers had been influential innovators in skyscraper design and construction, experimenting with ways to make them not only visually appealing but safe. Fire, earthquakes and hurricanes are a couple of the areas where design has been able to alleviate risk.I would like to find out:
In the years following September 11, 2001, the ways in which the design community has been considering terrorist attacks and safety from it in their work, if at all.
How architectural innovation could be used to help keep people, buildings and communities safer in the event of another attack.The article will also cover how architects and engineers view safety; how well or poorly, innovative ideas have been received and; the costs associated with developing and implementing new design features.
Posted by Erika at 5:56 AM
In the decades leading up to September 11, 2001, architects and structural engineers had been influential innovators in skyscraper design and construction, experimenting with ways to make them not only visually appealing but safe. Fire, earthquakes and hurricanes are a couple of the areas where design has been able to alleviate risk.I would like to find out:
In the years following September 11, 2001, the ways in which the design community has been considering terrorist attacks and safety from it in their work, if at all.
How architectural innovation could be used to help keep people, buildings and communities safer in the event of another attack.The article will also cover how architects and engineers view safety; how well or poorly, innovative ideas have been received and; the costs associated with developing and implementing new design features.
Posted by Erika at 5:56 AM
Galyean Pitch
Galyean - pitch
Galyean PITCHFIRE SAFETY: WORDS VS. ACTIONS:Nothing spurs a call to action like a catastrophe. Tragedy on a grand scale is almost immediately followed by promises to learn from the losses and to prevent "something like this from ever happening again." But does anything really change?The 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center demonstrated several fatal flaws in fire safety and evacuation procedures in the buildings. Many of these flaws had already been identified in a 1995 report on the 1993 WTC bombing. However, of the nineteen recommendations made in the 1995 report, only a handful were implemented by 2001.This is consistent with the history of the Port Authority, which owns and manages the WTC but is exempt from city and state building requirements. The agency began circumventing building safety standards even before the towers were built. Despite the agency's professed desire to meet or exceed applicable NYC building safety standards, the Port Authority has only sporadically attempted to do so. A 1970 Fire Commission demand for sprinklers in the WTC stairwells was ignored until a fire spread through several floors of the North Tower in 1975.The Port Authority's resistance, though, is reflected by that of the local real estate lobby, which has opposed most of the fire safety revisions due to both immediate costs and the potential of lost rental revenue (if floor space was dedicated to escape routes, additional stairwells, etc.).I'd like to write a 1,500 word investigative article that assesses the cooperation of the Port Authority and other NYC building developers in implementing fire safety recommendations resulting from the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2001 attacks. For technical information, I will rely primarily on the 1995 report by the U.S. Fire Administration, the 2005 report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the 2001 and 2008 New York City Building Codes. I will interview staff from the New York City Department of Buildings and the Port Authority regarding the integration of previous fire safety recommendations into the WTC prior to 2001 and the integration of the 2005 recommendations into the new NYC Building Code and the construction of the new buildings at the WTC site. Additional interviews with fire safety specialists, FDNY staff, and real estate leaders will help to fill out the story.
Posted by Andrea at 3:55 PM
0 comments:
Carlson Pitch
GOING GREEN (Carlson): Pitch
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism? Can sustainable principles be effectively coupled with existing fire and building codes? Do green buildings actually provide a higher level of safety than non-green buildings?The rise in importance of environmental issues has brought into question how to accommodate current fire and building code regulations within the broader context of sustainability. Building permitting agencies struggle to reconcile environmentally responsible practices with the patchwork of existing prescriptive regulations -- likely including those established through Local Law 86 and other post-9/11 requirements.The most well-known organization to have developed standards to address sustainable development is the United States Green Building Council. The council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1998. However, while developers and builders seek to go green, it has become clear to some that sustainability standards do not mesh well with established regulations in certain instances. For example, there are often maximum densities, allowable heights of structures, and parking/road requirements that cause difficulties in ensuring that LEED design principles are being met. Also, some green designers have contemplated installing under-floor ventilation or using straw bale construction as a way to gain LEED points; however, these practices have yet to be approved for safety.Specifically, I would like to investigate the construction of the Freedom Tower which is set to meet Gold level LEED standards. In fact, the tower project has achieved this certification by creating the World Trade Center Sustainable Design Guidelines. Furthermore, I would like to ascertain or at least bring up the question as to whether green buildings can actually provide a greater level of protection from air or fire emergencies.
Posted by Kathryn Carlson at 5:50 PM
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism? Can sustainable principles be effectively coupled with existing fire and building codes? Do green buildings actually provide a higher level of safety than non-green buildings?The rise in importance of environmental issues has brought into question how to accommodate current fire and building code regulations within the broader context of sustainability. Building permitting agencies struggle to reconcile environmentally responsible practices with the patchwork of existing prescriptive regulations -- likely including those established through Local Law 86 and other post-9/11 requirements.The most well-known organization to have developed standards to address sustainable development is the United States Green Building Council. The council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1998. However, while developers and builders seek to go green, it has become clear to some that sustainability standards do not mesh well with established regulations in certain instances. For example, there are often maximum densities, allowable heights of structures, and parking/road requirements that cause difficulties in ensuring that LEED design principles are being met. Also, some green designers have contemplated installing under-floor ventilation or using straw bale construction as a way to gain LEED points; however, these practices have yet to be approved for safety.Specifically, I would like to investigate the construction of the Freedom Tower which is set to meet Gold level LEED standards. In fact, the tower project has achieved this certification by creating the World Trade Center Sustainable Design Guidelines. Furthermore, I would like to ascertain or at least bring up the question as to whether green buildings can actually provide a greater level of protection from air or fire emergencies.
Posted by Kathryn Carlson at 5:50 PM
Wiltermuth Pitch
Deutsche Bank and 15-Day Fire Inspection Cycle (Wiltermuth) Pitch
The towers came down on September 11, 2001, and promises were made. The nearby Deutsche Bank building stands as a marker from that day. Six and a half years later, in the midst of a massive construction boom, has high-rise safety been improved? What has stayed the same? A fire at the building in August killed two firefighters, exposing unsafe work conditions and a failed 15-day fire inspection cycle. The District Attorney launched an ongoing criminal investigation against the city, as well as against the subcontractor in charge of deconstruction. This story will focus on the 15-day fire inspection cycle. When was it first implemented? Did they know at the time that it was unfeasible?
Posted by J. Wiltermuth at 7:26 PM
Labels: Building Codes, construction
The towers came down on September 11, 2001, and promises were made. The nearby Deutsche Bank building stands as a marker from that day. Six and a half years later, in the midst of a massive construction boom, has high-rise safety been improved? What has stayed the same? A fire at the building in August killed two firefighters, exposing unsafe work conditions and a failed 15-day fire inspection cycle. The District Attorney launched an ongoing criminal investigation against the city, as well as against the subcontractor in charge of deconstruction. This story will focus on the 15-day fire inspection cycle. When was it first implemented? Did they know at the time that it was unfeasible?
Posted by J. Wiltermuth at 7:26 PM
Labels: Building Codes, construction
Weiss Pitch
Air Quality: story pitch
(Mike Weiss)Dr. Paul Lioy works at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. A foremost expert on the airborne health hazards created by the terrorist action of 9/11, he has authored several papers on the health issues related to the disaster and has reached this conclusion: within three years of 9/11, the Federal government should have done three things:1. State unequivocably what happened on 9/11 in terms of the health hazards, specifying how and why the government failed to properly alert the public. Basically, why 8,000 people were unnecessarily injured by contaminated air.2. State what the Federal government is doing now to correct the mismanagement of 9/11 so that if a similar event occurs, it will be handled better.3. State what the Federal government needs the public to do so that we are better prepared for another terrorist attack.Since the government has not answered these questions, I will attempt to do so. As part of the class project to determine how high-rise building safety in NYC has improved since 9/11, I will determine how the air quality monitoring and alerting system, an aspect of high-rise safety, has developed since the WTC disaster.Primarily with the help of Dr. Lioy and David Newman, who was formerly part of EPA’s WTC Expert Review Panel and is now working for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, I will try to trace the way the government should have responded to the public health hazards of 9/11, explain why this did not happen, and why no meaningful steps are currently being taken to improve preparedness.
Posted by Mike Weiss at 8:15 PM
(Mike Weiss)Dr. Paul Lioy works at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. A foremost expert on the airborne health hazards created by the terrorist action of 9/11, he has authored several papers on the health issues related to the disaster and has reached this conclusion: within three years of 9/11, the Federal government should have done three things:1. State unequivocably what happened on 9/11 in terms of the health hazards, specifying how and why the government failed to properly alert the public. Basically, why 8,000 people were unnecessarily injured by contaminated air.2. State what the Federal government is doing now to correct the mismanagement of 9/11 so that if a similar event occurs, it will be handled better.3. State what the Federal government needs the public to do so that we are better prepared for another terrorist attack.Since the government has not answered these questions, I will attempt to do so. As part of the class project to determine how high-rise building safety in NYC has improved since 9/11, I will determine how the air quality monitoring and alerting system, an aspect of high-rise safety, has developed since the WTC disaster.Primarily with the help of Dr. Lioy and David Newman, who was formerly part of EPA’s WTC Expert Review Panel and is now working for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, I will try to trace the way the government should have responded to the public health hazards of 9/11, explain why this did not happen, and why no meaningful steps are currently being taken to improve preparedness.
Posted by Mike Weiss at 8:15 PM
Steagall Pitch
Scaffold Safety Pitch (Steagall)
There has been increased focus on worker's rights in recent months, owing to several fatal accidents from high rise construction sites. On Jan. 14 Yurley Vanchytsky fell 42 stories to his death from the Trump SoHo tower. Jose Palacios fell 12 stories from a Clinton Hill project. And the list goes on.These accidents have prompted a Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force, but the commitment to ensuring worker's rights is called into doubt by recent proposals to gut Section 240 of the Labor Law. New York is currently the only state to have such a law, which reserves for worker's the right to sue their employers should they fall and sustain debilitating, or mortal, injuries. Pro-business types blame it for rising insurance premiums, which they claim make their costs unnecessarily high, and Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for revising the law. Pro-worker types cite it as a vital tool in preserving worker's rights.At present the city cannot track contractor's performance across job sites, complicating (or, better said, negating) the possibility of holding contractor's accountable for the on-site protection of their workers. Also at issue is the use of non-union workers, who the unions claim make for a more accident-prone jobsite.The city provides training on scaffold safety, but they use vague terminology when explaining what, exactly, that training consists of, and how effectively it is enforced. They also have no mechanisms of enforcement. In response to the Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force finding that "speaking English as a second language, or speaking a language different than that spoken on the job site was often a factor in fatal construction accidents," they have started outreach events in all five boroughs, distributing safety information in multiple languages. But how effective, and comprehensive, is this program? How many workers actually receive the training?Through interviews with contractors, scaffold providers, workers, and acquaintance with the training materials provided to scaffold workers, I will explore the current situation in the city. In addition, I'll be looking at the unfolding debate on the Labor Law 240, contacting union leaders, contractors, and business organizations who are organizing with the aim of repealing, or heavily "reforming" the law.My project will also include a video component, which explains the laws regarding scaffold safety with visual examples of the proper, and improper, construction, and use, of scaffolding. I have already begun compiling footage of various job sites around the city, particularly those that have already witnessed worker accidents.
Posted by *lgs at 9:19 PM 0 comments
Older Posts
Starkey Pitch
History: Pitch
(Starkey: History Story Pitch)As I wrote in my budget line, building code changes in Manhattan have often pitted safety concerns against ones related to the cost of building in an undeniably expensive city. I’m interested in how these two arguments relate. The story will examine each major era of change in the city’s building code, starting with the period in the early 20th century after the Triangle fire. The landmark changes in 1937 and 1968 were written largely with builders’ economic concerns in mind. Fireproofing standards are weaker now than they were in the 30s, according to experts quoted in media reports. Structural columns in high-rises only must last two hours in a fire, not four as required before, a change made because building became too costly. After the 2001 attacks, it seems, these two sets of concerns have again been set against each other as the city continues to embark on its fourth major era of building code change. This is a story about the history of change, and how changes brought the city’s code to where it is today and where it will go in the future. I have already contacted people at Cornell, where professors and students embarked on arguably the most comprehensive Web-based project to study the Triangle Fire, which happened on this campus. I will interview people like Monica Gabrielle, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Committee, who called the structural column dilemma “the dumbest thing I have ever heard.” I will interview Steven Spinola, former president of the Real Estate Board of New York who told The New York Times, “We’re not ashamed to admit to say we are interested in the dollar.” And I will attempt to interview people in the middle, like Patricia Lancaster, the building commissioner. This passage from The New York Times in 2004 perfectly presents the point I hope to expand upon.“To test just what cost differences the new codes might make, city officials are studying building projects now in progress to compare prices under the old and model codes, said Ms. Lancaster, the buildings commissioner. If a certain part of the model code turns out to be significantly costlier, she said, the city will reconsider that provision. Despite the focus on the bottom line, she said, ''I am committed to ensuring that the new code is as safe or safer than the code today.’”
Posted by Starkey at 10:25 PM 0 comments
Scaffold Safety
Giegerich Pitch
Giegerich Pitch - Emergency Preparedness
If a plane flies into a building, a crane falls into a building, or a fire engulfs a building, lives will be saved by heroes who are the most well prepared to deal with the emergency. But a building that is also thoroughly prepared for emergency situations can help the people who need to work with, or against, that building to save lives as quickly as possible.Buildings in New York City are much safer if they have been thoroughly checked for safety hazards and evaluated with evacuation and emergency plans in mind. After 9/11, consulting firms and other companies realized the dire need for emergency evaluation teams and a new industry of emergency preparedness companies and evacuation planning firms was born.I will profile one, or several, of these companies and firms to evaluate how effective they are, or have been since their inception and how building emergency preparedness has changed from before 9/11. My story will address how buildings in New York have become better prepared for emergency situations since 9/11, if that is in fact the case. I will also investigate how buildings have complied, or failed to comply, with the 2004 Local Law 26, which states that all buildings over 20 stories in New York must be equipped with emergency evacuation plans, and how emergency preparedness firms help buildings to do so.
Posted by Elizabeth at 9:34 PM 0 comments
If a plane flies into a building, a crane falls into a building, or a fire engulfs a building, lives will be saved by heroes who are the most well prepared to deal with the emergency. But a building that is also thoroughly prepared for emergency situations can help the people who need to work with, or against, that building to save lives as quickly as possible.Buildings in New York City are much safer if they have been thoroughly checked for safety hazards and evaluated with evacuation and emergency plans in mind. After 9/11, consulting firms and other companies realized the dire need for emergency evaluation teams and a new industry of emergency preparedness companies and evacuation planning firms was born.I will profile one, or several, of these companies and firms to evaluate how effective they are, or have been since their inception and how building emergency preparedness has changed from before 9/11. My story will address how buildings in New York have become better prepared for emergency situations since 9/11, if that is in fact the case. I will also investigate how buildings have complied, or failed to comply, with the 2004 Local Law 26, which states that all buildings over 20 stories in New York must be equipped with emergency evacuation plans, and how emergency preparedness firms help buildings to do so.
Posted by Elizabeth at 9:34 PM 0 comments
Monday, March 17, 2008
Giegerich Pitch - Emergency Preparedness
If a plane flies into a building, a crane falls into a building, or a fire engulfs a building, lives will be saved by heroes who are the most well prepared to deal with the emergency. But a building that is also thoroughly prepared for emergency situations can help the people who need to work with, or against, that building to save lives as quickly as possible.
Buildings in New York City are much safer if they have been thoroughly checked for safety hazards and evaluated with evacuation and emergency plans in mind. After 9/11, consulting firms and other companies realized the dire need for emergency evaluation teams and a new industry of emergency preparedness companies and evacuation planning firms was born.
I will profile one, or several, of these companies and firms to evaluate how effective they are, or have been since their inception and how building emergency preparedness has changed from before 9/11. My story will address how buildings in New York have become better prepared for emergency situations since 9/11, if that is in fact the case. I will also investigate how buildings have complied, or failed to comply, with the 2004 Local Law 26, which states that all buildings over 20 stories in New York must be equipped with emergency evacuation plans, and how emergency preparedness firms help buildings to do so.
Buildings in New York City are much safer if they have been thoroughly checked for safety hazards and evaluated with evacuation and emergency plans in mind. After 9/11, consulting firms and other companies realized the dire need for emergency evaluation teams and a new industry of emergency preparedness companies and evacuation planning firms was born.
I will profile one, or several, of these companies and firms to evaluate how effective they are, or have been since their inception and how building emergency preparedness has changed from before 9/11. My story will address how buildings in New York have become better prepared for emergency situations since 9/11, if that is in fact the case. I will also investigate how buildings have complied, or failed to comply, with the 2004 Local Law 26, which states that all buildings over 20 stories in New York must be equipped with emergency evacuation plans, and how emergency preparedness firms help buildings to do so.
Toll From NYC Crane Collapse Hits 7
By KAREN MATTHEWS – 1 hour ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The last of seven bodies was pulled from the rubble Monday at the site of a crane collapse that obliterated a town house and severely damaged other buildings.
Six construction workers and a woman in town for St. Patrick's Day were killed Saturday when the crane broke away from an apartment tower under construction and toppled like a tree onto buildings as far as a block away. The last three bodies were found Monday.
A preliminary city investigation found that the crane toppled after a steel collar used to tie it to the side of the building fell as workers attempted to install it.
When the equipment fell it damaged a lower steel collar that was a major anchor securing the tower crane. Investigators say that with the elimination of the lower support the counter-weights at the top of the crane's tower caused it to fall.
The crane, which rose 19 stories, came crashing down on a Manhattan neighborhood a few blocks from the United Nations on the city's east side.
All the dead were construction workers except for a woman who was in the four-story town house that was demolished when the crane fell on it.
The woman had come from Miami to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and to visit a friend who lived in the town house, said John LaGreco, owner of Fubar, a saloon on the ground floor of the town house. The woman was in her friend's second-floor apartment at the time of the accident, he said. Her friend was rescued, he said.
Twenty-four others were injured, including 11 first responders, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. Eight people remained hospitalized Monday, officials said.
The accident occurred while workers were adding tower sections to extend the crane upwards, an operation known as "jumping" the crane, said Kate Lindquist, a spokeswoman for city buildings department.
While crews were jumping the crane to the 18th floor, a steel collar used to tie the crane to the side of the building fell as workers attempted to install it. That damaged a lower steel collar installed at the ninth floor that served as a major anchor securing the tower crane to the building under construction.
The blocks around the construction site consist mostly of low-rise residential buildings but in recent years developers have erected a number of big condo towers, sparking concerns among residents about the pace of development.
The city had answered 38 complaints and issued more than a dozen violations in the past 27 months to the construction site where a 43-story high-rise condominium was going up. None of the violations was related to the crane, Bloomberg said.
On Sunday, the Reliance Construction Group, the project's contractor, released a statement expressing sympathy to the families of the dead and injured and said it was cooperating with government investigators.
Four workers killed in the accident were identified as Wayne Bleidner, 51, of Pelham; Brad Cohen, 54, of Farmingdale; Anthony Mazza, 39; and Aaron Stephens, 45, of New York City, police said Sunday. The three people found Monday had not yet been identified.
About 250 cranes operate in the city on any given day, and the accident shouldn't alarm New Yorkers living near high-rise construction sites, the mayor said. "This is a very tragic but also a very rare occurrence," he said.
But neighborhood residents and a Manhattan borough official raised concerns about city inspections at the apartment tower.
The neighborhood was struggling to return to normal Monday. One lane of Second Avenue reopened to traffic, and many stores and bars were open for business.
The manager of an Irish bar noted how fortunate it was that the accident didn't happen Monday, when hundreds of thousands of people thronged nearby Fifth Avenue for the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. There are about a half dozen Irish bars in the neighborhood.
"If it happened today there would be carnage," said Jameson's Pub manager Michael Mullooly.
___
Associated Press writers Karen Matthews and Richard Pyle contributed to this report.
(This version corrects name of pub, Jameson's, not Jamison's.)
By KAREN MATTHEWS – 1 hour ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The last of seven bodies was pulled from the rubble Monday at the site of a crane collapse that obliterated a town house and severely damaged other buildings.
Six construction workers and a woman in town for St. Patrick's Day were killed Saturday when the crane broke away from an apartment tower under construction and toppled like a tree onto buildings as far as a block away. The last three bodies were found Monday.
A preliminary city investigation found that the crane toppled after a steel collar used to tie it to the side of the building fell as workers attempted to install it.
When the equipment fell it damaged a lower steel collar that was a major anchor securing the tower crane. Investigators say that with the elimination of the lower support the counter-weights at the top of the crane's tower caused it to fall.
The crane, which rose 19 stories, came crashing down on a Manhattan neighborhood a few blocks from the United Nations on the city's east side.
All the dead were construction workers except for a woman who was in the four-story town house that was demolished when the crane fell on it.
The woman had come from Miami to celebrate St. Patrick's Day and to visit a friend who lived in the town house, said John LaGreco, owner of Fubar, a saloon on the ground floor of the town house. The woman was in her friend's second-floor apartment at the time of the accident, he said. Her friend was rescued, he said.
Twenty-four others were injured, including 11 first responders, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. Eight people remained hospitalized Monday, officials said.
The accident occurred while workers were adding tower sections to extend the crane upwards, an operation known as "jumping" the crane, said Kate Lindquist, a spokeswoman for city buildings department.
While crews were jumping the crane to the 18th floor, a steel collar used to tie the crane to the side of the building fell as workers attempted to install it. That damaged a lower steel collar installed at the ninth floor that served as a major anchor securing the tower crane to the building under construction.
The blocks around the construction site consist mostly of low-rise residential buildings but in recent years developers have erected a number of big condo towers, sparking concerns among residents about the pace of development.
The city had answered 38 complaints and issued more than a dozen violations in the past 27 months to the construction site where a 43-story high-rise condominium was going up. None of the violations was related to the crane, Bloomberg said.
On Sunday, the Reliance Construction Group, the project's contractor, released a statement expressing sympathy to the families of the dead and injured and said it was cooperating with government investigators.
Four workers killed in the accident were identified as Wayne Bleidner, 51, of Pelham; Brad Cohen, 54, of Farmingdale; Anthony Mazza, 39; and Aaron Stephens, 45, of New York City, police said Sunday. The three people found Monday had not yet been identified.
About 250 cranes operate in the city on any given day, and the accident shouldn't alarm New Yorkers living near high-rise construction sites, the mayor said. "This is a very tragic but also a very rare occurrence," he said.
But neighborhood residents and a Manhattan borough official raised concerns about city inspections at the apartment tower.
The neighborhood was struggling to return to normal Monday. One lane of Second Avenue reopened to traffic, and many stores and bars were open for business.
The manager of an Irish bar noted how fortunate it was that the accident didn't happen Monday, when hundreds of thousands of people thronged nearby Fifth Avenue for the annual St. Patrick's Day parade. There are about a half dozen Irish bars in the neighborhood.
"If it happened today there would be carnage," said Jameson's Pub manager Michael Mullooly.
___
Associated Press writers Karen Matthews and Richard Pyle contributed to this report.
(This version corrects name of pub, Jameson's, not Jamison's.)
Thursday, March 13, 2008
History: Pitch
(Starkey: History Story Pitch)
As I wrote in my budget line, building code changes in Manhattan have often pitted safety concerns against ones related to the cost of building in an undeniably expensive city. I’m interested in how these two arguments relate. The story will examine each major era of change in the city’s building code, starting with the period in the early 20th century after the Triangle fire. The landmark changes in 1937 and 1968 were written largely with builders’ economic concerns in mind. Fireproofing standards are weaker now than they were in the 30s, according to experts quoted in media reports. Structural columns in high-rises only must last two hours in a fire, not four as required before, a change made because building became too costly. After the 2001 attacks, it seems, these two sets of concerns have again been set against each other as the city continues to embark on its fourth major era of building code change. This is a story about the history of change, and how changes brought the city’s code to where it is today and where it will go in the future. I have already contacted people at Cornell, where professors and students embarked on arguably the most comprehensive Web-based project to study the Triangle Fire, which happened on this campus. I will interview people like Monica Gabrielle, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Committee, who called the structural column dilemma “the dumbest thing I have ever heard.” I will interview Steven Spinola, former president of the Real Estate Board of New York who told The New York Times, “We’re not ashamed to admit to say we are interested in the dollar.” And I will attempt to interview people in the middle, like Patricia Lancaster, the building commissioner. This passage from The New York Times in 2004 perfectly presents the point I hope to expand upon.
“To test just what cost differences the new codes might make, city officials are studying building projects now in progress to compare prices under the old and model codes, said Ms. Lancaster, the buildings commissioner. If a certain part of the model code turns out to be significantly costlier, she said, the city will reconsider that provision. Despite the focus on the bottom line, she said, ''I am committed to ensuring that the new code is as safe or safer than the code today.’”
As I wrote in my budget line, building code changes in Manhattan have often pitted safety concerns against ones related to the cost of building in an undeniably expensive city. I’m interested in how these two arguments relate. The story will examine each major era of change in the city’s building code, starting with the period in the early 20th century after the Triangle fire. The landmark changes in 1937 and 1968 were written largely with builders’ economic concerns in mind. Fireproofing standards are weaker now than they were in the 30s, according to experts quoted in media reports. Structural columns in high-rises only must last two hours in a fire, not four as required before, a change made because building became too costly. After the 2001 attacks, it seems, these two sets of concerns have again been set against each other as the city continues to embark on its fourth major era of building code change. This is a story about the history of change, and how changes brought the city’s code to where it is today and where it will go in the future. I have already contacted people at Cornell, where professors and students embarked on arguably the most comprehensive Web-based project to study the Triangle Fire, which happened on this campus. I will interview people like Monica Gabrielle, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Committee, who called the structural column dilemma “the dumbest thing I have ever heard.” I will interview Steven Spinola, former president of the Real Estate Board of New York who told The New York Times, “We’re not ashamed to admit to say we are interested in the dollar.” And I will attempt to interview people in the middle, like Patricia Lancaster, the building commissioner. This passage from The New York Times in 2004 perfectly presents the point I hope to expand upon.
“To test just what cost differences the new codes might make, city officials are studying building projects now in progress to compare prices under the old and model codes, said Ms. Lancaster, the buildings commissioner. If a certain part of the model code turns out to be significantly costlier, she said, the city will reconsider that provision. Despite the focus on the bottom line, she said, ''I am committed to ensuring that the new code is as safe or safer than the code today.’”
Scaffold Safety Pitch (Steagall)
There has been increased focus on worker's rights in recent months, owing to several fatal accidents from high rise construction sites. On Jan. 14 Yurley Vanchytsky fell 42 stories to his death from the Trump SoHo tower. Jose Palacios fell 12 stories from a Clinton Hill project. And the list goes on.
These accidents have prompted a Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force, but the commitment to ensuring worker's rights is called into doubt by recent proposals to gut Section 240 of the Labor Law. New York is currently the only state to have such a law, which reserves for worker's the right to sue their employers should they fall and sustain debilitating, or mortal, injuries. Pro-business types blame it for rising insurance premiums, which they claim make their costs unnecessarily high, and Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for revising the law. Pro-worker types cite it as a vital tool in preserving worker's rights.
At present the city cannot track contractor's performance across job sites, complicating (or, better said, negating) the possibility of holding contractor's accountable for the on-site protection of their workers. Also at issue is the use of non-union workers, who the unions claim make for a more accident-prone jobsite.
The city provides training on scaffold safety, but they use vague terminology when explaining what, exactly, that training consists of, and how effectively it is enforced. They also have no mechanisms of enforcement. In response to the Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force finding that "speaking English as a second language, or speaking a language different than that spoken on the job site was often a factor in fatal construction accidents," they have started outreach events in all five boroughs, distributing safety information in multiple languages. But how effective, and comprehensive, is this program? How many workers actually receive the training?
Through interviews with contractors, scaffold providers, workers, and acquaintance with the training materials provided to scaffold workers, I will explore the current situation in the city. In addition, I'll be looking at the unfolding debate on the Labor Law 240, contacting union leaders, contractors, and business organizations who are organizing with the aim of repealing, or heavily "reforming" the law.
My project will also include a video component, which explains the laws regarding scaffold safety with visual examples of the proper, and improper, construction, and use, of scaffolding. I have already begun compiling footage of various job sites around the city, particularly those that have already witnessed worker accidents.
These accidents have prompted a Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force, but the commitment to ensuring worker's rights is called into doubt by recent proposals to gut Section 240 of the Labor Law. New York is currently the only state to have such a law, which reserves for worker's the right to sue their employers should they fall and sustain debilitating, or mortal, injuries. Pro-business types blame it for rising insurance premiums, which they claim make their costs unnecessarily high, and Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for revising the law. Pro-worker types cite it as a vital tool in preserving worker's rights.
At present the city cannot track contractor's performance across job sites, complicating (or, better said, negating) the possibility of holding contractor's accountable for the on-site protection of their workers. Also at issue is the use of non-union workers, who the unions claim make for a more accident-prone jobsite.
The city provides training on scaffold safety, but they use vague terminology when explaining what, exactly, that training consists of, and how effectively it is enforced. They also have no mechanisms of enforcement. In response to the Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force finding that "speaking English as a second language, or speaking a language different than that spoken on the job site was often a factor in fatal construction accidents," they have started outreach events in all five boroughs, distributing safety information in multiple languages. But how effective, and comprehensive, is this program? How many workers actually receive the training?
Through interviews with contractors, scaffold providers, workers, and acquaintance with the training materials provided to scaffold workers, I will explore the current situation in the city. In addition, I'll be looking at the unfolding debate on the Labor Law 240, contacting union leaders, contractors, and business organizations who are organizing with the aim of repealing, or heavily "reforming" the law.
My project will also include a video component, which explains the laws regarding scaffold safety with visual examples of the proper, and improper, construction, and use, of scaffolding. I have already begun compiling footage of various job sites around the city, particularly those that have already witnessed worker accidents.
Air Quality: story pitch
(Mike Weiss)
Dr. Paul Lioy works at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. A foremost expert on the airborne health hazards created by the terrorist action of 9/11, he has authored several papers on the health issues related to the disaster and has reached this conclusion: within three years of 9/11, the Federal government should have done three things:
1. State unequivocably what happened on 9/11 in terms of the health hazards, specifying how and why the government failed to properly alert the public. Basically, why 8,000 people were unnecessarily injured by contaminated air.
2. State what the Federal government is doing now to correct the mismanagement of 9/11 so that if a similar event occurs, it will be handled better.
3. State what the Federal government needs the public to do so that we are better prepared for another terrorist attack.
Since the government has not answered these questions, I will attempt to do so. As part of the class project to determine how high-rise building safety in NYC has improved since 9/11, I will determine how the air quality monitoring and alerting system, an aspect of high-rise safety, has developed since the WTC disaster.
Primarily with the help of Dr. Lioy and David Newman, who was formerly part of EPA’s WTC Expert Review Panel and is now working for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, I will try to trace the way the government should have responded to the public health hazards of 9/11, explain why this did not happen, and why no meaningful steps are currently being taken to improve preparedness.
Dr. Paul Lioy works at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. A foremost expert on the airborne health hazards created by the terrorist action of 9/11, he has authored several papers on the health issues related to the disaster and has reached this conclusion: within three years of 9/11, the Federal government should have done three things:
1. State unequivocably what happened on 9/11 in terms of the health hazards, specifying how and why the government failed to properly alert the public. Basically, why 8,000 people were unnecessarily injured by contaminated air.
2. State what the Federal government is doing now to correct the mismanagement of 9/11 so that if a similar event occurs, it will be handled better.
3. State what the Federal government needs the public to do so that we are better prepared for another terrorist attack.
Since the government has not answered these questions, I will attempt to do so. As part of the class project to determine how high-rise building safety in NYC has improved since 9/11, I will determine how the air quality monitoring and alerting system, an aspect of high-rise safety, has developed since the WTC disaster.
Primarily with the help of Dr. Lioy and David Newman, who was formerly part of EPA’s WTC Expert Review Panel and is now working for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, I will try to trace the way the government should have responded to the public health hazards of 9/11, explain why this did not happen, and why no meaningful steps are currently being taken to improve preparedness.
Deutsche Bank and 15-Day Fire Inspection Cycle (Wiltermuth) Pitch
The towers came down on September 11, 2001, and promises were made. The nearby Deutsche Bank building stands as a marker from that day. Six and a half years later, in the midst of a massive construction boom, has high-rise safety been improved? What has stayed the same? A fire at the building in August killed two firefighters, exposing unsafe work conditions and a failed 15-day fire inspection cycle. The District Attorney launched an ongoing criminal investigation against the city, as well as against the subcontractor in charge of deconstruction. This story will focus on the 15-day fire inspection cycle. When was it first implemented? Did they know at the time that it was unfeasible?
GOING GREEN (Carlson): Pitch
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism? Can sustainable principles be effectively coupled with existing fire and building codes? Do green buildings actually provide a higher level of safety than non-green buildings?
The rise in importance of environmental issues has brought into question how to accommodate current fire and building code regulations within the broader context of sustainability. Building permitting agencies struggle to reconcile environmentally responsible practices with the patchwork of existing prescriptive regulations -- likely including those established through Local Law 86 and other post-9/11 requirements.
The most well-known organization to have developed standards to address sustainable development is the United States Green Building Council. The council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1998. However, while developers and builders seek to go green, it has become clear to some that sustainability standards do not mesh well with established regulations in certain instances. For example, there are often maximum densities, allowable heights of structures, and parking/road requirements that cause difficulties in ensuring that LEED design principles are being met. Also, some green designers have contemplated installing under-floor ventilation or using straw bale construction as a way to gain LEED points; however, these practices have yet to be approved for safety.
Specifically, I would like to investigate the construction of the Freedom Tower which is set to meet Gold level LEED standards. In fact, the tower project has achieved this certification by creating the World Trade Center Sustainable Design Guidelines. Furthermore, I would like to ascertain or at least bring up the question as to whether green buildings can actually provide a greater level of protection from air or fire emergencies.
The rise in importance of environmental issues has brought into question how to accommodate current fire and building code regulations within the broader context of sustainability. Building permitting agencies struggle to reconcile environmentally responsible practices with the patchwork of existing prescriptive regulations -- likely including those established through Local Law 86 and other post-9/11 requirements.
The most well-known organization to have developed standards to address sustainable development is the United States Green Building Council. The council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1998. However, while developers and builders seek to go green, it has become clear to some that sustainability standards do not mesh well with established regulations in certain instances. For example, there are often maximum densities, allowable heights of structures, and parking/road requirements that cause difficulties in ensuring that LEED design principles are being met. Also, some green designers have contemplated installing under-floor ventilation or using straw bale construction as a way to gain LEED points; however, these practices have yet to be approved for safety.
Specifically, I would like to investigate the construction of the Freedom Tower which is set to meet Gold level LEED standards. In fact, the tower project has achieved this certification by creating the World Trade Center Sustainable Design Guidelines. Furthermore, I would like to ascertain or at least bring up the question as to whether green buildings can actually provide a greater level of protection from air or fire emergencies.
Galyean - pitch
Galyean PITCH
FIRE SAFETY: WORDS VS. ACTIONS:
Nothing spurs a call to action like a catastrophe. Tragedy on a grand scale is almost immediately followed by promises to learn from the losses and to prevent "something like this from ever happening again."
But does anything really change?
The 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center demonstrated several fatal flaws in fire safety and evacuation procedures in the buildings. Many of these flaws had already been identified in a 1995 report on the 1993 WTC bombing. However, of the nineteen recommendations made in the 1995 report, only a handful were implemented by 2001.
This is consistent with the history of the Port Authority, which owns and manages the WTC but is exempt from city and state building requirements. The agency began circumventing building safety standards even before the towers were built. Despite the agency's professed desire to meet or exceed applicable NYC building safety standards, the Port Authority has only sporadically attempted to do so. A 1970 Fire Commission demand for sprinklers in the WTC stairwells was ignored until a fire spread through several floors of the North Tower in 1975.
The Port Authority's resistance, though, is reflected by that of the local real estate lobby, which has opposed most of the fire safety revisions due to both immediate costs and the potential of lost rental revenue (if floor space was dedicated to escape routes, additional stairwells, etc.).
I'd like to write a 1,500 word investigative article that assesses the cooperation of the Port Authority and other NYC building developers in implementing fire safety recommendations resulting from the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2001 attacks. For technical information, I will rely primarily on the 1995 report by the U.S. Fire Administration, the 2005 report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the 2001 and 2008 New York City Building Codes.
I will interview staff from the New York City Department of Buildings and the Port Authority regarding the integration of previous fire safety recommendations into the WTC prior to 2001 and the integration of the 2005 recommendations into the new NYC Building Code and the construction of the new buildings at the WTC site. Additional interviews with fire safety specialists, FDNY staff, and real estate leaders will help to fill out the story.
FIRE SAFETY: WORDS VS. ACTIONS:
Nothing spurs a call to action like a catastrophe. Tragedy on a grand scale is almost immediately followed by promises to learn from the losses and to prevent "something like this from ever happening again."
But does anything really change?
The 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center demonstrated several fatal flaws in fire safety and evacuation procedures in the buildings. Many of these flaws had already been identified in a 1995 report on the 1993 WTC bombing. However, of the nineteen recommendations made in the 1995 report, only a handful were implemented by 2001.
This is consistent with the history of the Port Authority, which owns and manages the WTC but is exempt from city and state building requirements. The agency began circumventing building safety standards even before the towers were built. Despite the agency's professed desire to meet or exceed applicable NYC building safety standards, the Port Authority has only sporadically attempted to do so. A 1970 Fire Commission demand for sprinklers in the WTC stairwells was ignored until a fire spread through several floors of the North Tower in 1975.
The Port Authority's resistance, though, is reflected by that of the local real estate lobby, which has opposed most of the fire safety revisions due to both immediate costs and the potential of lost rental revenue (if floor space was dedicated to escape routes, additional stairwells, etc.).
I'd like to write a 1,500 word investigative article that assesses the cooperation of the Port Authority and other NYC building developers in implementing fire safety recommendations resulting from the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2001 attacks. For technical information, I will rely primarily on the 1995 report by the U.S. Fire Administration, the 2005 report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the 2001 and 2008 New York City Building Codes.
I will interview staff from the New York City Department of Buildings and the Port Authority regarding the integration of previous fire safety recommendations into the WTC prior to 2001 and the integration of the 2005 recommendations into the new NYC Building Code and the construction of the new buildings at the WTC site. Additional interviews with fire safety specialists, FDNY staff, and real estate leaders will help to fill out the story.
Giambusso Gowanus Questions
(To be asked of Professors Richard Plunz, Architecture and Patricia Culligan, Civil Engineering, of Columbia and authors of Eco Gowanus: Urban Remediation by Design).
1. How have designs for Public Place compared with your own ideas and findings for the needs of the area?
2. Who or what stands essentially in the way of implementing your recommendations? Political will? Money?
3. Discuss briefly your research methods? Did you examine tax records, old titles, designs?
4. What are some of the immediate risks of living above and amidst this particular site?
5. Where else in the U.S. have your ideas of green industrial infrastructure been implemented?
1. How have designs for Public Place compared with your own ideas and findings for the needs of the area?
2. Who or what stands essentially in the way of implementing your recommendations? Political will? Money?
3. Discuss briefly your research methods? Did you examine tax records, old titles, designs?
4. What are some of the immediate risks of living above and amidst this particular site?
5. Where else in the U.S. have your ideas of green industrial infrastructure been implemented?
Design for Safety (Parkins)
In the decades leading up to September 11, 2001, architects and structural engineers had been influential innovators in skyscraper design and construction, experimenting with ways to make them not only visually appealing but safe. Fire, earthquakes and hurricanes are a couple of the areas where design has been able to alleviate risk.
I would like to find out:
I would like to find out:
- In the years following September 11, 2001, the ways in which the design community has been considering terrorist attacks and safety from it in their work, if at all.
- How architectural innovation could be used to help keep people, buildings and communities safer in the event of another attack.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Updated Interview Questions
- Since 9-11, what (architectural/engineering) changes have been made in skyscraper design and construction?
- Where does the United States stand in the innovation of terrorism safety features in skyscraper design?
- As updated construction methods are used for newer buildings, what are some methods being used or considered to make existing skyscrapers safer?
- In what ways have (architects/structural engineers) worked together to improve safety in skyscraper design?
- The further we move from 9-11 has pressure to innovate increased or decreased? What areas of skyscraper design and safety remain important issues to explore?
I am not sure what order I will ask the questions yet, but I am certain I will start with the first question.
First interviews:
- AIA
- Structural Engineering Association of New York
- National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
Giambusso Gowanus Pitch.
City officials and developers have been encouraging new housing development along a stretch of Gowanus basin, one of the most polluted ecosystems in the country, if not the planet.
"Public Place" is the Orwellian title given to the central project, and is currently being vetted for construction over a former gas manufacturing plant. A high-rise apartment building with affordable housing, commercial/office space, and outdoor landscapes is being proposed over a festering toxic mass, in the belief that two centuries of sewage and all manner of toxic dumping can be covered up with a slab of concrete and a fresh coat of paint.
The central question of my investigation will be, what guarantee can the developers and policy makers give that this site is safe to live on? Professors of architecture and engineering at Columbia recently published a survey of the site that suggests the financial and political investment necesarry to seriously remediate the Gowanus basin isn't feasible.
One of the major safety issues after 9/11 has been airborne toxins from building demolition and construction. To what extent have we heeded these lessons and to what extent has the rabid development market run afoul?
Photo survey of proposed site:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giambusso/sets/72157604111664762/
"Public Place" is the Orwellian title given to the central project, and is currently being vetted for construction over a former gas manufacturing plant. A high-rise apartment building with affordable housing, commercial/office space, and outdoor landscapes is being proposed over a festering toxic mass, in the belief that two centuries of sewage and all manner of toxic dumping can be covered up with a slab of concrete and a fresh coat of paint.
The central question of my investigation will be, what guarantee can the developers and policy makers give that this site is safe to live on? Professors of architecture and engineering at Columbia recently published a survey of the site that suggests the financial and political investment necesarry to seriously remediate the Gowanus basin isn't feasible.
One of the major safety issues after 9/11 has been airborne toxins from building demolition and construction. To what extent have we heeded these lessons and to what extent has the rabid development market run afoul?
Photo survey of proposed site:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giambusso/sets/72157604111664762/
Sooyeon's story pitch.
U.N. BUILDING (Kim)
The story is mainly about a profile of the UN renovation process, a $1.88 billion rehabilitation project, called "Capital Master plan."
Also, along with the profile, I want to find whether there were any security changes after 9/11 and what would be the main focus or advancement from the new renovation plan (Are there any lessons from the 9/11 )
According to UN report, they will focus the aspects on security, environmental and safety issues. They plan to achieve a LEED Silver rating.
But there were not many known changes after 9/11. Even, the U.N. headquarter building has been known for not having any fire alarms and having a very old security system. (The U.N. had been flagged for 866 violations, and it was estimated that fewer than 20 percent had been taken care of so far, according to a report in The Washington Times.)
Last November, The New York City Fire Department gave the U.N. until January to comply with standards, and until March to finish. But it has been checked yet. So, I want to discover how much the process has been done as contacting the U.N, or the Fire Department.
I have tried to contact Mr Werner Schmidt, Public Information Officer and hopefully, I can have an interview him and ask him the questions I prepared.
The story is mainly about a profile of the UN renovation process, a $1.88 billion rehabilitation project, called "Capital Master plan."
Also, along with the profile, I want to find whether there were any security changes after 9/11 and what would be the main focus or advancement from the new renovation plan (Are there any lessons from the 9/11 )
According to UN report, they will focus the aspects on security, environmental and safety issues. They plan to achieve a LEED Silver rating.
But there were not many known changes after 9/11. Even, the U.N. headquarter building has been known for not having any fire alarms and having a very old security system. (The U.N. had been flagged for 866 violations, and it was estimated that fewer than 20 percent had been taken care of so far, according to a report in The Washington Times.)
Last November, The New York City Fire Department gave the U.N. until January to comply with standards, and until March to finish. But it has been checked yet. So, I want to discover how much the process has been done as contacting the U.N, or the Fire Department.
I have tried to contact Mr Werner Schmidt, Public Information Officer and hopefully, I can have an interview him and ask him the questions I prepared.
(What would be the main advancement from the renovation? What do you think about the current safety situation in the U.N. headquarter building? Were there any security changes after 9/11?)
Also, to give some other perspective or objective opinions, I will interview someone, not working for U.N. but an expert of building safety or system that can give some opinions about the U.N. building.
Also, to give some other perspective or objective opinions, I will interview someone, not working for U.N. but an expert of building safety or system that can give some opinions about the U.N. building.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Temporary Hold on Trump Soho After New Accident
Links below to two stories in today's (March 10) news regarding the Trump Soho, where work was ordered to stop again after a new accident.New Accident Stops Work at Trump Soho Tower As Wind Wreaks Havoc (Daily News)
Temporary Hold on Trump Soho After New Accident Doesn't Appease Foes (New York Magazine)
(Photo taken from the Daily News article)
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Scaffold Questions (Steagall)
Worker Safety / Scaffold
Are you aware / in favor of the proposed changes to the Section 201 of the Labor Law, known as the Scaffold Law?
Have you received training on scaffold safety? What did it consist of?
Have you provided training on scaffold safety? What did it consist of?
Has you taken extra precautions in light of the recent deaths of construction workers?
Do you feel that the use of illegal immigrant workers is a detriment to worker safety, both their's and their co-workers?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Questions.
U.N. renovation
What would be the main advancement from the renovation?
How do you think about the current safety situation in the U.N. headquarter building?
Was there any security changes after 9/11?
Do you use different regulations for the U.S. building, since it would be considered as an international building? What's the difference?
How do you think about the criticism on the high price of the renovations?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Green Buildings (Carlson): Questions
What are the specific challenges faced by green builders in terms of meeting post-9/11 building and fire code regulations?
Are there any examples of when a green building was inspected and found to violate these post-9/11 standards?
How can green buildings address new and previous security concerns for high-rise buildings?
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism?
Are there any examples of when a green building was inspected and found to violate these post-9/11 standards?
How can green buildings address new and previous security concerns for high-rise buildings?
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism?
re interview questions, part II
As I reread many of your questions, I sometimes lose track of what is the point of the interview.
Double check that your questions are clearly focused to find out what has changed since 9/11, or has not changed (or since 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center or 1911 with the Triangle shirtwaist fire, if doing a historical comparision).
Double check that your questions are clearly focused to find out what has changed since 9/11, or has not changed (or since 1993 with the first attack on the World Trade Center or 1911 with the Triangle shirtwaist fire, if doing a historical comparision).
re interview questions
Fellow bloggers,
There are a lot of good questions on your posts. Be careful, however, not to get too far down a tangent, if it doesn't illuminate the main safety issue. Also, don't overwhelm interviewees with what can seem like a barrage of questions. I'd start off with a few very focused questions and then see how the interview is going, and then ask a set of additional questions where pertinent. In some cases, you may be able to get replys by email, which is fine, if the responses are on point. Telephone interviews are perhaps easier to arrange than face to face interviews with many busy people. But aim to get at least one sit down or on the scene interview (and take photos and/or video of the person). I think 2-3 good interviews per piece may do it, given everything else on your plates. But weave in more, if it makes sense for the story.
Lastly, sometimes a previously published quote is right on point. If you can reach that person, tell them you'd like to include that quote in your story and ask if they have more they'd like to say on that topic. Often, they did say more, but the rest didn't make it into the original publication.
There are a lot of good questions on your posts. Be careful, however, not to get too far down a tangent, if it doesn't illuminate the main safety issue. Also, don't overwhelm interviewees with what can seem like a barrage of questions. I'd start off with a few very focused questions and then see how the interview is going, and then ask a set of additional questions where pertinent. In some cases, you may be able to get replys by email, which is fine, if the responses are on point. Telephone interviews are perhaps easier to arrange than face to face interviews with many busy people. But aim to get at least one sit down or on the scene interview (and take photos and/or video of the person). I think 2-3 good interviews per piece may do it, given everything else on your plates. But weave in more, if it makes sense for the story.
Lastly, sometimes a previously published quote is right on point. If you can reach that person, tell them you'd like to include that quote in your story and ask if they have more they'd like to say on that topic. Often, they did say more, but the rest didn't make it into the original publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)