Progress Starkey MAIN STORY

First, for anyone who does not know, I am doing the pull-together centerpiece for the package. I hope to write this not as an introduction to the package but as a real story; one that exposes out the problems that many of us will likely bring to the surface, uses personal anecdotes to do so, weaves in some history that will hopefully add context and hopefully give the project some kind of focus. I am going to do this largely with the information you gather. My job, as I see it, is to take what will probably be close to 20,000 words and turn them into a concise, revealing, interesting and personal 1,500 to 2,000 word story. I hope the others then will read like extensive sidebars, with the big stuff all touched on within the center story. Just to make the pitch, I think this will give the project focus, make the stories relate to one another under this common focus and add relevance to each that might not be so obvious without a centerpiece. This might mean taking some of the best stuff out of all of your stories. I don’t know where we would go from there. Would we repeat stuff in the “sidebars” or work directly off the centerpiece? I would choose the latter, which would give everyone the opportunity to go more into depth in their own stories without repeating the reporting in the main. Please let me know how you think I should handle this. I am going to take a look at the drafts that are turned in and write a draft of this centerpiece by Wednesday of next week and post it on the blog. It would be great if you could have some feedback for me next Friday about where I have it right and where I have it wrong. That will help me understand what we all want out of this centerpiece, which I think is necessary for the reasons listed above.
The one thing I want to be unique to this story is an interview with Patricia Lancaster. We are late in getting to this but I have requested an interview through her PR office. What I need are questions. E-mail me at jwstarkey@gmail.com with any questions you may have. I am going to try my best to sit down with Ms. Lancaster and get the response to whatever we are writing about the buildings department.
History will be a part of the main story to give it, as I wrote earlier, some context. I will use some primary documents along with a media report or two and interviews. I have interviewed Dan Lucht, the former director of the Center for Firesafety Studies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Many of you probably recognize his name from media reports after September 11, 2001. He is an expert on fire safety, knows a lot about code history and gave me some interesting stuff. Some paralleled what Schwartz said about the attacks. For example, he said, “If it weren’t for the building being impacted by an airplane, I can’t imagine a fire that would have taken it down. I can’t imagine anyone designing a building that would withstand against that. You’d have to stop building them that tall. I’m sure that’s another strategy.” I also have arranged to interview Corbett when he returns next week. He is going to be my main source, along with primary documents, for the history of New York City code changes. We all know he’s pretty well educated on the subject. Because of his work in the past seven years, I also think his is a good personal story that should be included in one way or another in the main. I may even do a brief Q&A for the package with him because of his seeming endless knowledge on the subject. Either way, I will definitely record the interview so we can use some of the audio.
So that’s what is going on with me. Working on Lancaster is my main priority. Please get me questions whenever you can. Also, suggestions are encouraged. I want to know what everyone else wants out of this main story. I think it has a lot of potential, not just on its own, but to amplify everything else in the package. My cell phone number is (302) 233-3033, e-mail is jwstarkey@gmail.com. See everybody on Friday.