This is the work blog for the Investigations in Depth class at NYU during the spring 2008 semester. It contains the exploratory notes, memos, budget lines, pitches, rough drafts and revised drafts with cited sources. The final work is posted at http://skyscraperproject.blogspot.com/
This is the story that 15 graduate school student journalists found in their investigations:
Skyscraper Safety in NYC Post-9/11
For weeks, a group of student-reporters at New York University set out to understand and describe skyscraper safety in New York in the post-September 11, 2001 era. The product became the stories you see posted here. Members of Prof. Jan Barry’s Investigations in Depth class looked into everything from the width of stairwells in commercial buildings to evacuation procedures, from problems in high-rise residential buildings to recent construction-related deaths in the city. New Yorkers, visitors to the city and workers want to be safe not just inside buildings, but also while walking by buildings and working on the buildings. The 15-part report was produced by a diverse group of student-reporters (see bios after each story) over the course of a semester. We hope these stories will add substance to the discussion about skyscraper safety in New York City.
Jan Barry
Adjunct professor of journalism
New York University
Staff writer, The Record (Bergen Co., NJ)
janbarry61@hotmail.com
Showing posts with label project notes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label project notes. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Parkins - Design for Safety
Designing for Safety
By Erika A. Parkins
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, LLP was the only architecture firm in New York to lose one of their employees in the World Trade Center attacks. They also won the bid to design Seven World Trade Center, the first building to be rebuilt on the site. But whether their model efforts will set the safety standard for the city remains to be seen.
“We've done all sorts of extremes to make this a building that is responsible in every possible way,” David Childs, an architect at SOM who worked on Seven World Trade Center, said on NPR shortly after it was built.
“It has all of the safety redundancy features that one can imagine, that is safe long enough for people to get out if there is a fire, or a hurricane that breaks glass, or whatever disasters could happen,” Childs said. “So I think we've made a tremendous leap forward for how we build skyscrapers in the United States.”
Architects have long been design innovators, exploring new ways to work with materials and structures to meet people’s basic needs for as long as the concept of shelter. From the use of masonry in the 12th century to steel in the 19th and 20th centuries, designers have helped to set the standard for the way we live and work.
The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were an opportunity for designers to innovate, once again, ideas about the way we work and live. The primary issues after the attacks were terrorism and safety. Yet, as the years increase between 2001 and now, it has become apparent that designers can consider safety but cannot work with fear.
“We, rank high in paranoia,” said Rick Bell, president of the Architectural Institute of America in New York. “Maybe not the highest in the world, but we are certainly up there. I see a diminishment of that over the past two years, though it intensified immediately after the attacks,” he said.
As far as continuing to innovate or design for safety: “I don’t see a competition. We’re nowhere on that.”
As many New Yorkers, the design community has effectively moved on from the issues of September 11, 2001 but, not without struggle and change.
The attacks on the World Trade Center helped push improved building codes through faster. The nexus of community activists in the public sphere, such as Sally Regenhard and the Skyscraper Safety Campaign; designer input such as the recommendations put forth by SOM and the AIA; and, government inquiry into the collapse of the World Trade Center, provided the impetus to seriously examine what could be done to improve safety standards in high-rise buildings. As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease: because of the confluence of concern from all corners, particularly the public sector, codes that had been in limbo for 10 years were reworked and passed into law in two years.
“If the public was more interested in the built environment and pressured and acted upon political leaders and the building industry to build better, buildings would be better,” said J.C. Calderon, an architect who was also an advisor to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign.
“But, the public does not consider themselves a part of the building process. It would be more beneficial if more people saw architecture as a public good.”
On July 1 of this year, New York City’s new building codes will go into effect. Unfortunately, all of the building code changes brought about by the World Trade Center attacks do not directly affect the buildings that will be rebuilt on the site.
The main reason the World Trade Center was not up to code was because it did not have to be. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey governs the World Trade Center site, and is not under New York City jurisdiction. The Department of City Planning, the Department of Buildings and the New York Police and Fire Departments could cite as many violations as they wanted, but it was always the Port Authority’s choice to comply.
“9-11 was not only a major failure on a federal level, a state level, a New York City level and certainly on the Port Authority level,” Regenhard said. “I’ve never known the Port Authority to be concerned about anyone’s safety, especially in connection to the World Trade Center. Those buildings were above the law.”
A system of checks and balances should exist among city agencies, developers, contractors, engineers and architects, so that no one arm in the process of making a building, has more control over critical aspects and functions than another. However, in New York, the system has been flouted through political connections, money and sheer oversight, as the recent resignation of New York City Department of Buildings commissioner, Patricia Lancaster, suggested.
“It’s about the money, that’s all it is,” said Frederic Schwartz, an architect who has worked with the city and other designers to think of ways to redevelop the World Trade Center site.
Money is very influential, and when it is time for a building to finally be erected, the developer calls many of the shots. They try to match the aesthetic mind of the architect to the desires of the public, in the most profitable way.
“It would always be beneficial if more people saw architecture as a public conversation it would inspire architects and developers to do better buildings,” Calderon said. “But since there is no critique, or very little critique, in the media or in the public as to the success of buildings the developers behind those buildings don’t get the impression that the public cares and won’t invest in their buildings to make them better.”
Calderon concluded, “Investors and developers won’t spend more money if they don’t have to and they won’t do it unless they think the public wants it.”
Developers in New York have been resistant since September 11, 2001, to including safety measures such as wider stairwells. According to the architects and engineers interviewed, the developers’ resistance is due to not wanting to lose square footage on rentable floor space. The image of developers and real estate investors could use a positive boost since they do not have the best public image; their concerns narrowly generalized to more profit and less on the bottom line on construction costs.
No developers were able to return comment in time for this publication.
In the end however, developers, outside of those on the former World Trade Center site, may no longer have a choice in whether or not to include some of the improved safety standards in the new building codes. New construction, at minimum, will be required to subscribe to minimum structural, accessibility, sustainability and fire protection standards such as requiring fire sprinklers and detectors in all buildings and improving escape routes. The code also allows more room for innovation with new materials and construction techniques as long as they meet the requirements of the building codes.
The draft outline of the new construction codes includes how a higher building standard can be achieved in a cost-effective manner. A number of agencies representing the real estate, design, construction, engineering and trade industries were a part of the process to update the codes and make them more tenable to the city’s needs. The dismissive claim of safety features being too expensive or extraneous should, in theory, no longer stand.
Older construction will also have to meet the new building code requirements in the next few years; no structure will be grandfathered in.
Structural engineers have been very instrumental in thinking about the design of buildings and creating safety measures for the structure and thinking about egress. Measures include, but are not limited to, the widening of stairwells, the introduction of sky lobbies, and elevators that firefighters can use in case of an emergency. However engineers are very cognizant of not working under the assumption of terror. First and foremost, the buildings have to function and they need to figure out the best ways that can happen.
In the seven years since the World Trade Center attacks, terrorism has taken a back seat within the design community, as other threats become more looming, such as global warming and the need for environmental preservation.
Designers and engineers have turned their attention to sustainable development- another tenet of the new building codes that also affects the way we all ultimately live. Though not mutually exclusive to the issue of safety, it is the more pressing, tangible threat the design community is thinking about and one in which the public can get behind and become involved.
“Global warming is another 9-11 because in a sense, global warming is the potential for many 9-11s and we need to prepare our buildings accordingly,” Calderon said. “What’s encouraging is that architecture is talking about these problems, now.”
“Safety is a basic requirement of a building,” said Calderon. “But building’s can’t just be safe, it has to be something more to have any value. Ideally it goes beyond and inspires us toward greater levels of happiness and grace.”
Sources consulted:
Frederic Schwartz, Architect
Rick Bell, President, AIA
JC Calderon, Architect and Advisor to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Carl Galioto, Architect, SOM
David Childs, Architect, SOM
Joe Tortorella, Structural Engineer
Sally Regenhard, Skyscraper Safety Campaign
New York Building Congress
Articles, documents and websites:
Nova transcript, “Building on Ground Zero,” PBS, September 5, 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3311_wtc.html
“Lessons of 9-11 Alter Skyscraper Design,” Boston Globe. September 6, 2006.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/06/lessons_of_911_alter_skyscraper_design/
Draft Outline of New Building Codes
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/mc_report.pdf
Safety Library – Fire Safety
http://www.thesafetylibrary.com/sites/firesbudes.php
“A Nation Challenged”, New York Times, March 28, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c06e6d7113bf93ba15750c0a9649c8b63#
“Sweeping Changes Pushed for Code on City High Rises”, New York Times, August 2, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E0D81E3BF931A3575BC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Proposed Legislation to Improve Building Safety
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-4032.html
By Erika A. Parkins
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, LLP was the only architecture firm in New York to lose one of their employees in the World Trade Center attacks. They also won the bid to design Seven World Trade Center, the first building to be rebuilt on the site. But whether their model efforts will set the safety standard for the city remains to be seen.
“We've done all sorts of extremes to make this a building that is responsible in every possible way,” David Childs, an architect at SOM who worked on Seven World Trade Center, said on NPR shortly after it was built.
“It has all of the safety redundancy features that one can imagine, that is safe long enough for people to get out if there is a fire, or a hurricane that breaks glass, or whatever disasters could happen,” Childs said. “So I think we've made a tremendous leap forward for how we build skyscrapers in the United States.”
Architects have long been design innovators, exploring new ways to work with materials and structures to meet people’s basic needs for as long as the concept of shelter. From the use of masonry in the 12th century to steel in the 19th and 20th centuries, designers have helped to set the standard for the way we live and work.
The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 were an opportunity for designers to innovate, once again, ideas about the way we work and live. The primary issues after the attacks were terrorism and safety. Yet, as the years increase between 2001 and now, it has become apparent that designers can consider safety but cannot work with fear.
“We, rank high in paranoia,” said Rick Bell, president of the Architectural Institute of America in New York. “Maybe not the highest in the world, but we are certainly up there. I see a diminishment of that over the past two years, though it intensified immediately after the attacks,” he said.
As far as continuing to innovate or design for safety: “I don’t see a competition. We’re nowhere on that.”
As many New Yorkers, the design community has effectively moved on from the issues of September 11, 2001 but, not without struggle and change.
The attacks on the World Trade Center helped push improved building codes through faster. The nexus of community activists in the public sphere, such as Sally Regenhard and the Skyscraper Safety Campaign; designer input such as the recommendations put forth by SOM and the AIA; and, government inquiry into the collapse of the World Trade Center, provided the impetus to seriously examine what could be done to improve safety standards in high-rise buildings. As the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease: because of the confluence of concern from all corners, particularly the public sector, codes that had been in limbo for 10 years were reworked and passed into law in two years.
“If the public was more interested in the built environment and pressured and acted upon political leaders and the building industry to build better, buildings would be better,” said J.C. Calderon, an architect who was also an advisor to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign.
“But, the public does not consider themselves a part of the building process. It would be more beneficial if more people saw architecture as a public good.”
On July 1 of this year, New York City’s new building codes will go into effect. Unfortunately, all of the building code changes brought about by the World Trade Center attacks do not directly affect the buildings that will be rebuilt on the site.
The main reason the World Trade Center was not up to code was because it did not have to be. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey governs the World Trade Center site, and is not under New York City jurisdiction. The Department of City Planning, the Department of Buildings and the New York Police and Fire Departments could cite as many violations as they wanted, but it was always the Port Authority’s choice to comply.
“9-11 was not only a major failure on a federal level, a state level, a New York City level and certainly on the Port Authority level,” Regenhard said. “I’ve never known the Port Authority to be concerned about anyone’s safety, especially in connection to the World Trade Center. Those buildings were above the law.”
A system of checks and balances should exist among city agencies, developers, contractors, engineers and architects, so that no one arm in the process of making a building, has more control over critical aspects and functions than another. However, in New York, the system has been flouted through political connections, money and sheer oversight, as the recent resignation of New York City Department of Buildings commissioner, Patricia Lancaster, suggested.
“It’s about the money, that’s all it is,” said Frederic Schwartz, an architect who has worked with the city and other designers to think of ways to redevelop the World Trade Center site.
Money is very influential, and when it is time for a building to finally be erected, the developer calls many of the shots. They try to match the aesthetic mind of the architect to the desires of the public, in the most profitable way.
“It would always be beneficial if more people saw architecture as a public conversation it would inspire architects and developers to do better buildings,” Calderon said. “But since there is no critique, or very little critique, in the media or in the public as to the success of buildings the developers behind those buildings don’t get the impression that the public cares and won’t invest in their buildings to make them better.”
Calderon concluded, “Investors and developers won’t spend more money if they don’t have to and they won’t do it unless they think the public wants it.”
Developers in New York have been resistant since September 11, 2001, to including safety measures such as wider stairwells. According to the architects and engineers interviewed, the developers’ resistance is due to not wanting to lose square footage on rentable floor space. The image of developers and real estate investors could use a positive boost since they do not have the best public image; their concerns narrowly generalized to more profit and less on the bottom line on construction costs.
No developers were able to return comment in time for this publication.
In the end however, developers, outside of those on the former World Trade Center site, may no longer have a choice in whether or not to include some of the improved safety standards in the new building codes. New construction, at minimum, will be required to subscribe to minimum structural, accessibility, sustainability and fire protection standards such as requiring fire sprinklers and detectors in all buildings and improving escape routes. The code also allows more room for innovation with new materials and construction techniques as long as they meet the requirements of the building codes.
The draft outline of the new construction codes includes how a higher building standard can be achieved in a cost-effective manner. A number of agencies representing the real estate, design, construction, engineering and trade industries were a part of the process to update the codes and make them more tenable to the city’s needs. The dismissive claim of safety features being too expensive or extraneous should, in theory, no longer stand.
Older construction will also have to meet the new building code requirements in the next few years; no structure will be grandfathered in.
Structural engineers have been very instrumental in thinking about the design of buildings and creating safety measures for the structure and thinking about egress. Measures include, but are not limited to, the widening of stairwells, the introduction of sky lobbies, and elevators that firefighters can use in case of an emergency. However engineers are very cognizant of not working under the assumption of terror. First and foremost, the buildings have to function and they need to figure out the best ways that can happen.
In the seven years since the World Trade Center attacks, terrorism has taken a back seat within the design community, as other threats become more looming, such as global warming and the need for environmental preservation.
Designers and engineers have turned their attention to sustainable development- another tenet of the new building codes that also affects the way we all ultimately live. Though not mutually exclusive to the issue of safety, it is the more pressing, tangible threat the design community is thinking about and one in which the public can get behind and become involved.
“Global warming is another 9-11 because in a sense, global warming is the potential for many 9-11s and we need to prepare our buildings accordingly,” Calderon said. “What’s encouraging is that architecture is talking about these problems, now.”
“Safety is a basic requirement of a building,” said Calderon. “But building’s can’t just be safe, it has to be something more to have any value. Ideally it goes beyond and inspires us toward greater levels of happiness and grace.”
Sources consulted:
Frederic Schwartz, Architect
Rick Bell, President, AIA
JC Calderon, Architect and Advisor to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign
Carl Galioto, Architect, SOM
David Childs, Architect, SOM
Joe Tortorella, Structural Engineer
Sally Regenhard, Skyscraper Safety Campaign
New York Building Congress
Articles, documents and websites:
Nova transcript, “Building on Ground Zero,” PBS, September 5, 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3311_wtc.html
“Lessons of 9-11 Alter Skyscraper Design,” Boston Globe. September 6, 2006.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/06/lessons_of_911_alter_skyscraper_design/
Draft Outline of New Building Codes
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/mc_report.pdf
Safety Library – Fire Safety
http://www.thesafetylibrary.com/sites/firesbudes.php
“A Nation Challenged”, New York Times, March 28, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c06e6d7113bf93ba15750c0a9649c8b63#
“Sweeping Changes Pushed for Code on City High Rises”, New York Times, August 2, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E0D81E3BF931A3575BC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Proposed Legislation to Improve Building Safety
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-4032.html
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Through the Haze: the Truth about 9/11 Air
by Mike Weiss
New York, April 24 - “I lived downtown in Battery Park City before 9/11, a couple of blocks south,” said Craig Hall. “On 9/11 I took my children to school that morning, one to nursery, one to PS 89. I came out of my son’s nursery the first plane had just gone in. I walked south back to Battery Park, I was standing and . . . then I saw the second plane go in. I watched it fly down West Street and then go into the second tower just above my head . . . I grabbed my children, one was in a stroller and I ran for my life. We were caught on the edge of the dust cloud. Luckily we ran north and the wind for some reason that day the wind blew south, and it saved us.”
Hall is president of the World Trade Center Residents Coalition, and on 9/11 as far as he knew, he and his family were safe. He knows better now. Because no government agency warned him about the dangers from 9/11 dust he went back to his apartment a few days after the tragedy and over the next five weeks tried cleaning the apartment himself.
“The place was covered, dust everywhere – the windows were open.”
Severe allergies, nosebleeds, 30 percent decreased lung capacity – as well as the thyroid surgery his wife has endured are all common signs of the effects of breathing in the toxins from 9/11. The approximately 3,000 direct deaths on that day can be blamed on the terrorists, but who is responsible for the approximately 10,000 people suffering physical health impairments because of the air they breathed in soon after?
Even if the causes of 9/11 air contamination are gone, there is now a new hazard in the air. The construction boom in lower Manhattan, such as the city has never seen before, has produced 35 new buildings since 9/11 and many more are under construction. Idling diesel concrete mixers, bulldozers, cranes, trash-haulers – all spew their toxins into residential areas. And all this dust from demolition and construction activity seems eerily like a reply of 9/11 where a seemingly unconcerned government is standing by as the populace takes the brunt of a new and unknown health hazard in its midst.
Christine Todd Whitman and the EPA
Soon after the events of 9/11, on September 18, 2001, Christine Todd Whitman in her role as Administrator of the federal EPA released a widely-known statement, often pointed to in later accusations of her actions. The statement, which is still supported by the EPA and runs on their web site (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm) is as follows: "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
However, what is not so clearly known but has only come to light through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project is an internal EPA memo dated the day before. On September 17, 2001 the EPA Region 2 World Trade Center Emergency Response Activities to Date update memo states, “The majority of sample results thus far indicate that asbestos levels are below levels of concern. The highest levels came from a monitor located one-half block from ground zero, demonstrating the need for rescuers to wear appropriate protective gear.”
Instead of making this memo public and alerting people to a hazardous waste danger, as is the clearly stated responsibility of the EPA by powers granted in the National Contingency Plan, Administrator Whitman did just the opposite. She reassured the public that the air was officially deemed safe, and because of this thousands of New Yorkers have since paid the price.
How do we know people got sick because of 9/11 dust?
There are three main centers for studying people who have sought medical care for conditions they believed were caused by 9/11. The Mount Sinai Medical Monitoring Program is the largest and screens all Ground Zero workers who have come in for help. As of December 2006, this was 9,442 “responders” - workers who were performing their jobs as part of the 9/11 rescue and recovery – but not firefighters. The FDNY runs their own medical monitoring unit near their headquarters in Brooklyn. The third center is for all non-responders such as residents, office workers, and students and is called the World Trade Center Environmental Health Center. This center, with its main clinic in Bellevue Hospital, currently sees about 2,400 patients.
In a report published in Environmental Health Perspectives in December 2006, the Mount Sinai experts reported numerous respiratory problems in the 9,442 people they studied. Most (69 percent) had new or worsened symptoms while performing WTC work. “Forced vital capacity” (FVC), a measurement of lung functioning, was five times worse than in the general U.S. population, and overall respiratory symptoms and abnormalities were, “significantly associated with early arrival at the site.”
At the WTC Environmental Health Center, director Joan Reibman admits, “how do we know these illnesses are WTC-related or not? There’s a lot we don’t know.”
However, she took part in a New York State Department of Health survey which began soon after 9/11 and was completed a year and half later. In it, residents around Ground Zero showed increased symptoms and shortness of breath, symptoms which were new to this population.
In her early work with the WTC Environmental Health Center, Dr. Reibman first saw patients with sinus inflammation, asthma, and usually pulmonary symptoms only. Recently, the medical conditions she sees have begun expanding to other organs of the body, and now more people come in with endocrine problems, cancers, and depression, post traumatic stress syndrome, and other anxiety conditions related specifically to 9/11.
“We see a whole spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed,” she said.
What was the government thinking?
“There was a lot of flag-waving,” said Joel Kupferman, director of the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project about the days after 9/11. “A lot of pressure from the top to admit that the country didn’t take a hit.”
Dave Newman from the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, and a former member of the EPA’s WTC Expert Technical Review Panel said, “look at the whole record of the Bush administration, on regulatory cut-backs and especially on environmental issues.”
Then there is the rush to construction. 35 new buildings have been constructed in lower Manhattan since 9/11 and more are planned. The speed is such as to have caused 18 construction deaths in 2006, 12 in 2007, and 12 so far in the less than four months of this year. Air quality regulations only seem to get in the way.
The lack of credibility from government inspectors was obvious. Lynda Caspe lives on the top floor of a building on Franklin Street, a few blocks south of Canal Street. Broken skylights in her apartment allowed 9/11 dust to accumulate in her apartment, and when she contacted the city’s Department of Environmental Protection for help, they sent over someone to take a look.
“I asked him where’s your equipment,” Caspe related. “What equipment, I’m just looking, he said. Then he said, it doesn’t look dusty to me!”
“I asked him if he wanted to see the roof, so we went up to the roof. There were piles of it all over the place so I asked him about it – doesn’t look dusty to me, he said!”
Caspe then hired a lawyer who knew an EPA inspector and this inspector was able to arrange for a proper inspection. Using high-quality air monitoring equipment, the EPA inspection revealed high levels of asbestos in the samples in Caspe’s apartment, and soon after agreed to clean her apartment.
When asked if she has trouble believing anything the government says now, Caspe laughed, “I believed George Bush when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so you know something’s wrong with my mind!”
The community responds
On Sunday April 13, 2008 in the auditorium of the Borough of Manhattan Community College near the WTC site, community groups came together to hear testimony from a panel of residents, professionals, and government officials involved in the 9/11 aftermath.
In Chinese, Spanish, and Polish translations, the audience of about 120 listened as panel members openly expressed their despair and anger at the government. The primary criticisms were for not alerting the public of dangers the government knew about and for not taking care of the medical expenses people have now, which can run to hundreds of dollars a month for themselves and their children.
Many felt betrayed.
“We helped this country get up when it was on its knees, now we have to beg for help. It shouldn’t have to be this way,” said Alex Sanchez.
Lea Geronimo, a pretty 37-year-old who looks in her twenties, was an office worker near the Stock Exchange on 9/11 and now has numerous health issues which include bronchitis, gynecological cysts, neurological deteriorations, and psoriasis patches of scabs on her face, stomach, and arms.
“It pisses me off,” said Geronimo. “The whole world economy was supposed to be in flux. Most of us had this feeling of camaraderie, ‘I need to get my office together’ – we could have left, the residents could have left, everybody, the students – but we all stayed and we did our part – and now we need the government to fund our health care and to do studies, real studies,” she said.
When asked if she still felt the government was even now honestly reporting and alerting the public to air quality hazards in lower Manhattan, she said, “it doesn’t matter any more, now we are the evidence.”
Air quality today
The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center is supposed to be monitoring air quality for the numerous construction sites in lower Manhattan. However, this ad hoc government agency is not accountable to any other and is not responsible for reporting their data to the public. Of the data they do post on their web site, it’s unclear how they collect it, at what times of the day, and since they do not respond to media requests for information, it’s impossible to clear these issues up.
In addition, the responsibility for monitoring general air quality has reverted back to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Since lower Manhattan is no longer officially under a state of emergency, the standards of the 1970s Clean Air Act come into play, which requires the NYS DEC to monitor the air quality from stations all over the state and report their data to the EPA.
Because they are accountable to this law, it’s clear to see how the state does this testing, even though it is limited. For example, the closest state air monitoring station to the 9/11 site is located near City Hall at one Pace Plaza, not a good thing for the residents who live across the street from the Ground Zero construction. Also, all the state air monitoring stations are located on rooftops, far away from the diesel engines on the ground. Also, the state reports its data as averaged over a 24-hour period. This means that the air quality on cool nights when construction stops is given the same statistical weight as the air quality during a hot summer day when all the machines are running.
Gretchen Ferenz, the director of the Cornell University Cooperative Extension has done a study comparing the ground air quality to data measured by state air monitors located above street level. The initial purpose of her study, as part of a training program for her students, was to see if vegetation effected the way particles behaved in the air. Specifically, if the presence of trees and other plants reduced or had any effect on the way particulate matter is suspended in the air.
By chance, her study required her to compare her own air monitor readings taken at ground level to data being reported by state air monitors, which are located on the rooftops of buildings. Even though she is quick to point out she is not an epidemiologist and her results should not be used to make any statement about public health, she said, “let’s just say our results are consistent (with the state’s), at a certain level they don’t change much. But we found that at intersections, when the light is red? Zooooooom - our readings are off the chart.”
Sources
Reporters
Penny Little,filmmaker, “9/11 Dust and Deceipt” www.911dust.org
Environmental/Health related groups
Tammy Kim, lawyer, Urban Justice Center
Interviewed in person April 13, 2008
Joel Kupferman, New York Environmental Law & Justice Project, 351 Broadway, 4th floor, New York, NY 10007 212-334-5551 envjoel@ix.netcom.com 917-414-1983
Interviewed in person April 8, April 11, April 13, 2008. Interviewed by phone April 18, 2008
Kimberly Flynn, 9/11 Environmental Action
Dave Newman, New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
Frederic Schwartz, Schwartz Architects, 212-741-3021 fschwartz@schwartzarch.com
Glenn Corbett, Fire Engineering Magazine, 201-993-2814 gcorbet1@ix.netcom.com
Interviewed in person April 21, 2008
Sally Regenhard, Skyscraper Safety Campaign 646-266-1987 sallyR@skyscrapersafety.org
Interviewed in person April 21, 2008
Doctors/Scientists
Kathy Burns, Ph.D., Director, Sciencecorps, Lexington, Massachusetts, 781-861-1108 kmb@sciencecorps.org http://www.sciencecorps.org
Dr. Eileen Cohen, WTC Environmental Health Center at Bellevue Hospital, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Dr. Barbara Reibman, NYU School of Medicine, Environmental Medicine, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08 212-263-6479 (asst: “lisette”) reibmj01@gcrc.med.nyu.edu
Dr. Paul Lioy, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Dr. Lyndon Rose, Queens Hospital WTC Medical Monitoring Program
Dr. Philip Landrigan, Mount Sinai Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine
Dr. George Thurston, NYU Environmental Sciences
Gretchen Ferenz, Director, Cornell University Cooperative Extension
Rodrick Wallace
Interviewed by phone April 21, 2008
Government
Elias Rodriguez, EPA Region 2
Mary Mears, EPA Region 2
LMCCC – Tom Kunkel, Deborah Wetzel
Paul Stein, NYS Dept. of Health
Thomas Panzon(e) NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Office of Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Erin Drinkwater, Manhattan Community Representative, 212-367-7350
Interviewed in person April 13, 2008 at the 9/11 Community Health Forum
Shin Inouye, Director of Communications
Interviewed by phone February 6, 2008
Residents
Lynda Caspe, resident living a few blocks away from the WTC, interviewed by phone 4/9/08
Craig Hall resident living near WTC, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Workers
Lea Geronimo office worker at 9/11, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Students
Amit Friedlander, Stuyvesant High School senior at 9/11 and cancer survivor
Reports
EPA Region 2 World Trade Center Emergency Response Activities to Date, EPA internal memo, dated September, 17, 2001, released in pdf format as part of FOIA request by New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
“The World Trade Center Disaster and the Health of Workers: Five-Year Assessment of a Unique Medical Screening Program.” http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9592/abstract.html
Paper written by prominent New York area environmental health doctors, primarily focusing on the Mount Sinai WTC Medical Monitoring Program and published in the magazine Environmental Health Perspectives in December 2006.
Office of Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
“White Paper on Lower Manhattan Air Quality” released April 12, 2002
New York, April 24 - “I lived downtown in Battery Park City before 9/11, a couple of blocks south,” said Craig Hall. “On 9/11 I took my children to school that morning, one to nursery, one to PS 89. I came out of my son’s nursery the first plane had just gone in. I walked south back to Battery Park, I was standing and . . . then I saw the second plane go in. I watched it fly down West Street and then go into the second tower just above my head . . . I grabbed my children, one was in a stroller and I ran for my life. We were caught on the edge of the dust cloud. Luckily we ran north and the wind for some reason that day the wind blew south, and it saved us.”
Hall is president of the World Trade Center Residents Coalition, and on 9/11 as far as he knew, he and his family were safe. He knows better now. Because no government agency warned him about the dangers from 9/11 dust he went back to his apartment a few days after the tragedy and over the next five weeks tried cleaning the apartment himself.
“The place was covered, dust everywhere – the windows were open.”
Severe allergies, nosebleeds, 30 percent decreased lung capacity – as well as the thyroid surgery his wife has endured are all common signs of the effects of breathing in the toxins from 9/11. The approximately 3,000 direct deaths on that day can be blamed on the terrorists, but who is responsible for the approximately 10,000 people suffering physical health impairments because of the air they breathed in soon after?
Even if the causes of 9/11 air contamination are gone, there is now a new hazard in the air. The construction boom in lower Manhattan, such as the city has never seen before, has produced 35 new buildings since 9/11 and many more are under construction. Idling diesel concrete mixers, bulldozers, cranes, trash-haulers – all spew their toxins into residential areas. And all this dust from demolition and construction activity seems eerily like a reply of 9/11 where a seemingly unconcerned government is standing by as the populace takes the brunt of a new and unknown health hazard in its midst.
Christine Todd Whitman and the EPA
Soon after the events of 9/11, on September 18, 2001, Christine Todd Whitman in her role as Administrator of the federal EPA released a widely-known statement, often pointed to in later accusations of her actions. The statement, which is still supported by the EPA and runs on their web site (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091801.htm) is as follows: "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink."
However, what is not so clearly known but has only come to light through a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project is an internal EPA memo dated the day before. On September 17, 2001 the EPA Region 2 World Trade Center Emergency Response Activities to Date update memo states, “The majority of sample results thus far indicate that asbestos levels are below levels of concern. The highest levels came from a monitor located one-half block from ground zero, demonstrating the need for rescuers to wear appropriate protective gear.”
Instead of making this memo public and alerting people to a hazardous waste danger, as is the clearly stated responsibility of the EPA by powers granted in the National Contingency Plan, Administrator Whitman did just the opposite. She reassured the public that the air was officially deemed safe, and because of this thousands of New Yorkers have since paid the price.
How do we know people got sick because of 9/11 dust?
There are three main centers for studying people who have sought medical care for conditions they believed were caused by 9/11. The Mount Sinai Medical Monitoring Program is the largest and screens all Ground Zero workers who have come in for help. As of December 2006, this was 9,442 “responders” - workers who were performing their jobs as part of the 9/11 rescue and recovery – but not firefighters. The FDNY runs their own medical monitoring unit near their headquarters in Brooklyn. The third center is for all non-responders such as residents, office workers, and students and is called the World Trade Center Environmental Health Center. This center, with its main clinic in Bellevue Hospital, currently sees about 2,400 patients.
In a report published in Environmental Health Perspectives in December 2006, the Mount Sinai experts reported numerous respiratory problems in the 9,442 people they studied. Most (69 percent) had new or worsened symptoms while performing WTC work. “Forced vital capacity” (FVC), a measurement of lung functioning, was five times worse than in the general U.S. population, and overall respiratory symptoms and abnormalities were, “significantly associated with early arrival at the site.”
At the WTC Environmental Health Center, director Joan Reibman admits, “how do we know these illnesses are WTC-related or not? There’s a lot we don’t know.”
However, she took part in a New York State Department of Health survey which began soon after 9/11 and was completed a year and half later. In it, residents around Ground Zero showed increased symptoms and shortness of breath, symptoms which were new to this population.
In her early work with the WTC Environmental Health Center, Dr. Reibman first saw patients with sinus inflammation, asthma, and usually pulmonary symptoms only. Recently, the medical conditions she sees have begun expanding to other organs of the body, and now more people come in with endocrine problems, cancers, and depression, post traumatic stress syndrome, and other anxiety conditions related specifically to 9/11.
“We see a whole spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed,” she said.
What was the government thinking?
“There was a lot of flag-waving,” said Joel Kupferman, director of the New York Environmental Law & Justice Project about the days after 9/11. “A lot of pressure from the top to admit that the country didn’t take a hit.”
Dave Newman from the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, and a former member of the EPA’s WTC Expert Technical Review Panel said, “look at the whole record of the Bush administration, on regulatory cut-backs and especially on environmental issues.”
Then there is the rush to construction. 35 new buildings have been constructed in lower Manhattan since 9/11 and more are planned. The speed is such as to have caused 18 construction deaths in 2006, 12 in 2007, and 12 so far in the less than four months of this year. Air quality regulations only seem to get in the way.
The lack of credibility from government inspectors was obvious. Lynda Caspe lives on the top floor of a building on Franklin Street, a few blocks south of Canal Street. Broken skylights in her apartment allowed 9/11 dust to accumulate in her apartment, and when she contacted the city’s Department of Environmental Protection for help, they sent over someone to take a look.
“I asked him where’s your equipment,” Caspe related. “What equipment, I’m just looking, he said. Then he said, it doesn’t look dusty to me!”
“I asked him if he wanted to see the roof, so we went up to the roof. There were piles of it all over the place so I asked him about it – doesn’t look dusty to me, he said!”
Caspe then hired a lawyer who knew an EPA inspector and this inspector was able to arrange for a proper inspection. Using high-quality air monitoring equipment, the EPA inspection revealed high levels of asbestos in the samples in Caspe’s apartment, and soon after agreed to clean her apartment.
When asked if she has trouble believing anything the government says now, Caspe laughed, “I believed George Bush when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction so you know something’s wrong with my mind!”
The community responds
On Sunday April 13, 2008 in the auditorium of the Borough of Manhattan Community College near the WTC site, community groups came together to hear testimony from a panel of residents, professionals, and government officials involved in the 9/11 aftermath.
In Chinese, Spanish, and Polish translations, the audience of about 120 listened as panel members openly expressed their despair and anger at the government. The primary criticisms were for not alerting the public of dangers the government knew about and for not taking care of the medical expenses people have now, which can run to hundreds of dollars a month for themselves and their children.
Many felt betrayed.
“We helped this country get up when it was on its knees, now we have to beg for help. It shouldn’t have to be this way,” said Alex Sanchez.
Lea Geronimo, a pretty 37-year-old who looks in her twenties, was an office worker near the Stock Exchange on 9/11 and now has numerous health issues which include bronchitis, gynecological cysts, neurological deteriorations, and psoriasis patches of scabs on her face, stomach, and arms.
“It pisses me off,” said Geronimo. “The whole world economy was supposed to be in flux. Most of us had this feeling of camaraderie, ‘I need to get my office together’ – we could have left, the residents could have left, everybody, the students – but we all stayed and we did our part – and now we need the government to fund our health care and to do studies, real studies,” she said.
When asked if she still felt the government was even now honestly reporting and alerting the public to air quality hazards in lower Manhattan, she said, “it doesn’t matter any more, now we are the evidence.”
Air quality today
The Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center is supposed to be monitoring air quality for the numerous construction sites in lower Manhattan. However, this ad hoc government agency is not accountable to any other and is not responsible for reporting their data to the public. Of the data they do post on their web site, it’s unclear how they collect it, at what times of the day, and since they do not respond to media requests for information, it’s impossible to clear these issues up.
In addition, the responsibility for monitoring general air quality has reverted back to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Since lower Manhattan is no longer officially under a state of emergency, the standards of the 1970s Clean Air Act come into play, which requires the NYS DEC to monitor the air quality from stations all over the state and report their data to the EPA.
Because they are accountable to this law, it’s clear to see how the state does this testing, even though it is limited. For example, the closest state air monitoring station to the 9/11 site is located near City Hall at one Pace Plaza, not a good thing for the residents who live across the street from the Ground Zero construction. Also, all the state air monitoring stations are located on rooftops, far away from the diesel engines on the ground. Also, the state reports its data as averaged over a 24-hour period. This means that the air quality on cool nights when construction stops is given the same statistical weight as the air quality during a hot summer day when all the machines are running.
Gretchen Ferenz, the director of the Cornell University Cooperative Extension has done a study comparing the ground air quality to data measured by state air monitors located above street level. The initial purpose of her study, as part of a training program for her students, was to see if vegetation effected the way particles behaved in the air. Specifically, if the presence of trees and other plants reduced or had any effect on the way particulate matter is suspended in the air.
By chance, her study required her to compare her own air monitor readings taken at ground level to data being reported by state air monitors, which are located on the rooftops of buildings. Even though she is quick to point out she is not an epidemiologist and her results should not be used to make any statement about public health, she said, “let’s just say our results are consistent (with the state’s), at a certain level they don’t change much. But we found that at intersections, when the light is red? Zooooooom - our readings are off the chart.”
Sources
Reporters
Penny Little,filmmaker, “9/11 Dust and Deceipt” www.911dust.org
Environmental/Health related groups
Tammy Kim, lawyer, Urban Justice Center
Interviewed in person April 13, 2008
Joel Kupferman, New York Environmental Law & Justice Project, 351 Broadway, 4th floor, New York, NY 10007 212-334-5551 envjoel@ix.netcom.com 917-414-1983
Interviewed in person April 8, April 11, April 13, 2008. Interviewed by phone April 18, 2008
Kimberly Flynn, 9/11 Environmental Action
Dave Newman, New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health
Frederic Schwartz, Schwartz Architects, 212-741-3021 fschwartz@schwartzarch.com
Glenn Corbett, Fire Engineering Magazine, 201-993-2814 gcorbet1@ix.netcom.com
Interviewed in person April 21, 2008
Sally Regenhard, Skyscraper Safety Campaign 646-266-1987 sallyR@skyscrapersafety.org
Interviewed in person April 21, 2008
Doctors/Scientists
Kathy Burns, Ph.D., Director, Sciencecorps, Lexington, Massachusetts, 781-861-1108 kmb@sciencecorps.org http://www.sciencecorps.org
Dr. Eileen Cohen, WTC Environmental Health Center at Bellevue Hospital, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Dr. Barbara Reibman, NYU School of Medicine, Environmental Medicine, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08 212-263-6479 (asst: “lisette”) reibmj01@gcrc.med.nyu.edu
Dr. Paul Lioy, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Dr. Lyndon Rose, Queens Hospital WTC Medical Monitoring Program
Dr. Philip Landrigan, Mount Sinai Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine
Dr. George Thurston, NYU Environmental Sciences
Gretchen Ferenz, Director, Cornell University Cooperative Extension
Rodrick Wallace
Interviewed by phone April 21, 2008
Government
Elias Rodriguez, EPA Region 2
Mary Mears, EPA Region 2
LMCCC – Tom Kunkel, Deborah Wetzel
Paul Stein, NYS Dept. of Health
Thomas Panzon(e) NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Office of Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Erin Drinkwater, Manhattan Community Representative, 212-367-7350
Interviewed in person April 13, 2008 at the 9/11 Community Health Forum
Shin Inouye, Director of Communications
Interviewed by phone February 6, 2008
Residents
Lynda Caspe, resident living a few blocks away from the WTC, interviewed by phone 4/9/08
Craig Hall resident living near WTC, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Workers
Lea Geronimo office worker at 9/11, inteviewed in person at the 9/11 Community Health Forum 4/13/08
Students
Amit Friedlander, Stuyvesant High School senior at 9/11 and cancer survivor
Reports
EPA Region 2 World Trade Center Emergency Response Activities to Date, EPA internal memo, dated September, 17, 2001, released in pdf format as part of FOIA request by New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
“The World Trade Center Disaster and the Health of Workers: Five-Year Assessment of a Unique Medical Screening Program.” http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2006/9592/abstract.html
Paper written by prominent New York area environmental health doctors, primarily focusing on the Mount Sinai WTC Medical Monitoring Program and published in the magazine Environmental Health Perspectives in December 2006.
Office of Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
“White Paper on Lower Manhattan Air Quality” released April 12, 2002
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Ten Innovations Side Bar
Top Ten Innovations that Have Helped Fire Fighters in High-Rise Buildings since
from recently retired FDNY Fire Chief Jim Riches
1. Thermal imaging cameras
2. Blankets to cover windows and prevent wind driving into fire apartment
3. Tower ladders to deliver water on fire up to 10 stories
4. Haligan tool to force open doors
5. Bunker gear to protect firefighter from burns
6.
7. Portable repeater to boost radio signals at high rise
8. Sprinklers in buildings to extinguish fires before they escalate
9. Portable radios for firefighters to communicate with each other
10. SCBA mask, which is the air tank on masks that helps firefighters breathe
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wiltermuth Draft Story-FDNY Fire Inspection Schedule
In a racketing up of the tensions, Stephen J. Cassady, President of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, said the Fire Department was guilty of improper practice and retaliation, following an incident whereby UFA Health and Safety Officer, William Romaka, was excluded from certain Fire Department meetings. Cassady said Romaka was excluded due to union activity.
The firefighter’s union and Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta have been engaged in a bitter dispute following the August 18, 2007, fire at the former Deutsche Bank building, which killed firefighters Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.
An investigation following the incident concluded that the two firefighters were left in the building for over an hour without water, due to dismantled fire connections and a broken standpipe in the basement.
In February, Beddia’s sister, Barbara Beddia Crocco, filed suit in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan against the LMDC and several private companies in charge to the Bank’s demolition. According to the New York Times, “the conditions created by the defendants were too much for Beddia to withstand, and he was killed by toxic smoke, unable to escape because of the stairwell barricades erected by the defendants.”
Five days following the fatal blaze, the UFA disclosed the lack of proper Fire Department inspections at the forlorn site, which had not been inspected since March 2006. Cassidy said Scoppetta was made aware of the dangerous Deutsche Bank conditions as far back as three years prior, when Chief William Siegel recommended a specific fire and inspection plan for the site.
Three months prior to the blaze, while the Bank was undergoing demolition, a 22-foot length of steel pipe fell from the building onto the roof of local Fire Engine 10/Ladder 10. While no one was injured at the time, the accident failed to produce requested safety measures at the site.
Mayor Bloomberg weighed in on Sept. 8 and three Chief firefighters were reassigned and the 15-day inspection schedule came under close scrutiny. In November, Cassady said the Commissioner knew the Deutsche Bank was a toxic mess and that the inspection cycle was unfeasible, but that month, Scoppetta’s added a third day to the firefighter’s building by-monthly inspections.
In January, Battalion Chief John J. McDonnell told the New York Times that it would be impossible to check every construction or demolition project under the 15-day schedule, even though the city had increased the time from six to nine hours each week, in which firefighters are given to perform inspections.
Cassady said, “In an obvious attempt to gloss over their failures, the Department leadership has decided to add a third day of building inspections to an already overburdened firefighter's workload.” “This fiasco is called ’Building Inspection Safety Program (BISP),’” he said.
The backdrop to this ongoing battle is a fight for high-rise safety and accountability in the shadows of the
September 11, 2001, when the lives of 341 firefighters were taken.
While New York City is experiencing its largest construction boom in decades, fire chiefs said the inspection rule has been one of the hardest to enforce for decades. One persistent issue is that fire commanders are not officially notified when the city issues permits for construction or demolition. Instead, local engine companies drive around to determine which buildings need to be inspected.
On December 12, the City Council’s Fire and Criminal Justice Services Committee requested an oversight hearing with respect to the Fire Department’s building inspection program. The Committee said they wanted to determine the staffing levels of these units, the training and qualifications of the inspectors, the equipment available to the inspectors, and the universe, scope and frequency of inspections being conducted.
The Committee inquired how the level of inspections had varied in recent years, the scope and frequency of the inspections being conducted, how and why the decision was made to increase the level of inspections and the impact that decision may have had on response times and safety. Scoppetta testified that fire response times had actually decreased since the new inspection plan was instituted, but provided no supporting data or statistics.
In December, Cassidy said the number of fire engines on building inspections increased by 50 percent. While the acknowledging the Fire Department’s responsibility to manage the City’s building inspection program, Cassidy said, “Every firefighter knows that his response times are negatively impacted.”
Glen Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the New York City fire department’s 15-day building inspection schedule has since become a hot-button issue. Days after the blaze, he said, “due to the scrutiny of this building, the lack of a pre-fire plan is unbelievable.”
Cassady said, “Rest assured, the Department’s actions will not stop the UFA from shining the light of truth on the Department when their policies endanger our members.”
UFA Ltr re Failure of FDNY Leadership: http://www.ufalocal94.org/pdf/db11_20.pdf
City Council Oversight Hearing re: FDNY Building Inspection Program: Dec. 12, 2007
http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/81351.htm?CFID=1569427&CFTOKEN=55706348
NYT: Feb, 14, 2008 Beddia lawsuit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/nyregion/14deutsche.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=deutsche+bank+fire&st=nyt&oref=slogin
The firefighter’s union and Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta have been engaged in a bitter dispute following the August 18, 2007, fire at the former Deutsche Bank building, which killed firefighters Robert Beddia and Joseph Graffagnino.
An investigation following the incident concluded that the two firefighters were left in the building for over an hour without water, due to dismantled fire connections and a broken standpipe in the basement.
In February, Beddia’s sister, Barbara Beddia Crocco, filed suit in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan against the LMDC and several private companies in charge to the Bank’s demolition. According to the New York Times, “the conditions created by the defendants were too much for Beddia to withstand, and he was killed by toxic smoke, unable to escape because of the stairwell barricades erected by the defendants.”
Five days following the fatal blaze, the UFA disclosed the lack of proper Fire Department inspections at the forlorn site, which had not been inspected since March 2006. Cassidy said Scoppetta was made aware of the dangerous Deutsche Bank conditions as far back as three years prior, when Chief William Siegel recommended a specific fire and inspection plan for the site.
Three months prior to the blaze, while the Bank was undergoing demolition, a 22-foot length of steel pipe fell from the building onto the roof of local Fire Engine 10/Ladder 10. While no one was injured at the time, the accident failed to produce requested safety measures at the site.
Mayor Bloomberg weighed in on Sept. 8 and three Chief firefighters were reassigned and the 15-day inspection schedule came under close scrutiny. In November, Cassady said the Commissioner knew the Deutsche Bank was a toxic mess and that the inspection cycle was unfeasible, but that month, Scoppetta’s added a third day to the firefighter’s building by-monthly inspections.
In January, Battalion Chief John J. McDonnell told the New York Times that it would be impossible to check every construction or demolition project under the 15-day schedule, even though the city had increased the time from six to nine hours each week, in which firefighters are given to perform inspections.
Cassady said, “In an obvious attempt to gloss over their failures, the Department leadership has decided to add a third day of building inspections to an already overburdened firefighter's workload.” “This fiasco is called ’Building Inspection Safety Program (BISP),’” he said.
The backdrop to this ongoing battle is a fight for high-rise safety and accountability in the shadows of the
September 11, 2001, when the lives of 341 firefighters were taken.
While New York City is experiencing its largest construction boom in decades, fire chiefs said the inspection rule has been one of the hardest to enforce for decades. One persistent issue is that fire commanders are not officially notified when the city issues permits for construction or demolition. Instead, local engine companies drive around to determine which buildings need to be inspected.
On December 12, the City Council’s Fire and Criminal Justice Services Committee requested an oversight hearing with respect to the Fire Department’s building inspection program. The Committee said they wanted to determine the staffing levels of these units, the training and qualifications of the inspectors, the equipment available to the inspectors, and the universe, scope and frequency of inspections being conducted.
The Committee inquired how the level of inspections had varied in recent years, the scope and frequency of the inspections being conducted, how and why the decision was made to increase the level of inspections and the impact that decision may have had on response times and safety. Scoppetta testified that fire response times had actually decreased since the new inspection plan was instituted, but provided no supporting data or statistics.
In December, Cassidy said the number of fire engines on building inspections increased by 50 percent. While the acknowledging the Fire Department’s responsibility to manage the City’s building inspection program, Cassidy said, “Every firefighter knows that his response times are negatively impacted.”
Glen Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the New York City fire department’s 15-day building inspection schedule has since become a hot-button issue. Days after the blaze, he said, “due to the scrutiny of this building, the lack of a pre-fire plan is unbelievable.”
Cassady said, “Rest assured, the Department’s actions will not stop the UFA from shining the light of truth on the Department when their policies endanger our members.”
UFA Ltr re Failure of FDNY Leadership: http://www.ufalocal94.org/pdf/db11_20.pdf
City Council Oversight Hearing re: FDNY Building Inspection Program: Dec. 12, 2007
http://webdocs.nyccouncil.info/attachments/81351.htm?CFID=1569427&CFTOKEN=55706348
NYT: Feb, 14, 2008 Beddia lawsuit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/nyregion/14deutsche.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=deutsche+bank+fire&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Draft copy format
Here's a good model for the draft copy format of your project story that I want to see in the revised version we'll work on Friday. Note that it includes a list of sources at the end. Put your byline in and a working title.
Andrea Galyean – Investigations in Depth
Professor Jan Barry
News Story – 4/13/08 - stairs
TALL BUILDINGS, SKINNY STAIRS?
How wide are you?
I just the measured the widest part of me (my shoulders) and I’m 16 inches across. Add a couple inches on each side for normal sway, and I need at least 20 inches of width to walk down an office hallway or stairwell. But I’m a good bit smaller than the average Manhattan office worker. In fact, a salesman at the Wall Street location of the popular Men’s Wearhouse stores reports that the shoulders on the most commonly sold suit size in his shop (a 48) are 23 inches across when filled out by an actual person.
So if this suit-wearing average guy and I wanted to walk down a stairwell at the same time – if there was a fire in a high-rise, for instance, and we were trying to get out – we’d need 47 stairwell inches. Two people closer to his size would need 54 inches. But what if, instead of people filing downstairs side-by-side, there were firefighters coming up at the same time? Firefighters wear big suits and carry a lot of gear, so they take up more room. How wide would that stairwell need to be?
The current New York City building code for office buildings – in place since 1968 - requires that most stairwells in commercial high-rises be 44 inches wide. That assumes two lanes of traffic using 22 inches each. But does it work that way in reality?
The largest building evacuation in New York City was when 15,400 people escaped from the World Trade Center (WTC) towers after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. That event demonstrated how the assumptions of the building codes translated into real-life.
John Labriola, a WTC survivor who used the stairs to escape from the 71st floor of the north tower, contributed his recollections of that day to the Smithsonian Museum’s 2002 exhibit, September 11: Bearing Witness to History. “We walked down two by two,” Labriola said in his statement. “Whenever necessary we would press ourselves into a single file line to let [injured] people get by… Around the 35th floor we started meeting a steady stream of firefighters walking up and had to press into single file again.”
Labriola also took photographs during the evacuation. One of the most famous, taken within the stairwell, shows civilians flattened against the wall as firefighters pass. The stairwells in the north tower were 44 inches wide.
Glenn Corbett, a fire sciences professor at Manhattan’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a consultant to the New York Department of Buildings Committee that proposed post-WTC changes to the city’s building code, thought the message was clear. "Out of all the issues, one of the no-brainers was the issue of stairway width," said Corbett. He refers to Labriola’s images as evidence; "If you look at those photos, with firefighters coming up and civilians coming down, the people have to turn sideways."
The 44-inch standard was developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in 1927 and was based on the width of the average U.S. World War I soldier’s shoulders – a bit under 22 inches – and the idea that building evacuations would be orderly events with everyone marching in neat rows. But Corbett and other fire safety experts say that the WTC evacuation proved that the measurement isn’t wide enough. “Even if the standards ever were adequate, people have changed since then,” said Corbett.
U.S. Department of Health reports back Corbett up. Over the past few decades, Americans have grown significantly heavier. Now the average man is over 5’9” and 190 pounds – and gaining. In addition to being wider, most people are also less physically fit, which means that they tire more quickly when walking down several dozen flights of stairs. If the stairwell isn’t wide enough to pass, said Corbett, “then you’re only as fast as the slowest person ahead of you.”
Concerned about larger, slower people and the congestion caused by incoming firefighters – called counterflow - Jake Pauls, an internationally recognized fire safety specialist from Silver Springs, Maryland, has been lobbying for wider stairs in high-rises. After years of research – including scrutiny of the WTC evacuations, Pauls concluded that the speed of building evacuation “varies directly—and linearly” with the width of a stairwell. In a 2005 report, Pauls said that “the traditional [44-in.] nominal minimum width for exit stairs was flawed, and known to be flawed a few decades ago.”
Based on his studies, Pauls proposed that the NFPA change its requirements for exit stairs in high-rise buildings to a minimum 56-inch width. As Corbett explained, "56 inches gives you the ability for counterflow, the ability for people to pass. It's an obvious solution. Any four-year-old can figure that out."
The NFPA incorporated Pauls’s recommendations into its 2006 Life Safety Code, but the code is only a guideline and does not have any legal mandate. Since the new measurements were announced, they have been opposed by major real estate development groups, such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the federal General Services Administration (GSA) due to concerns over construction costs and lost rental income.
During recent task force hearings on updating New York City building codes, the Real Estate Board of New York joined BOMA and the GSA to argue against adopting the new NFPA recommendations. Patricia Lancaster, the city’s Building Commissioner, explained the developers’ position in a Sept. 9, 2006 article in the New York Times: “If you increase a stairwell by one inch at the top of a 90-story building, you are giving up dozens and dozens of square feet of rentable space."
The 2008 New York City Building Codes will go into effect on July 1. The required minimum width for exit stairwells will be: 44 inches.
##
Sources named: - Glenn Corbett: c: 201-993-2814; gcorbett1@ix.network.com- Jake Pauls: w: 301-933-5275; bldguse@aol.com
- Ray (last name withheld), Men’s Wearhouse Wall Street: w: 212-233-0675
Articles cited:
- New York Times, “9/11 Has Spurred Only Modest Changes in New York City and National Building Codes,” by Sewell Chan, September 6, 2006
- “Minimum Stair Width for Evacuation, Overtaking Movement and Counterflow Technical Bases and Suggestions for the Past, Present and Future,” by Jake L. Pauls, John J. Fruin, and Jeffrey M. Zupan, June 2005
- 2008 New York City Building Codes, Chapter 10, “Means of Egress”
- “Statement from John Labriola, World Trade Center, September 11, 2001,” by John Labriola, courtesy of the Smithsonian Museum of American History, September 2002
Web sites consulted:
- http://www.boma.org
- http://www.nist.gov
- http://www.nfpa.org
- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs
- http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection
- http://www.iccsafe.org
- http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob
Andrea Galyean – Investigations in Depth
Professor Jan Barry
News Story – 4/13/08 - stairs
TALL BUILDINGS, SKINNY STAIRS?
How wide are you?
I just the measured the widest part of me (my shoulders) and I’m 16 inches across. Add a couple inches on each side for normal sway, and I need at least 20 inches of width to walk down an office hallway or stairwell. But I’m a good bit smaller than the average Manhattan office worker. In fact, a salesman at the Wall Street location of the popular Men’s Wearhouse stores reports that the shoulders on the most commonly sold suit size in his shop (a 48) are 23 inches across when filled out by an actual person.
So if this suit-wearing average guy and I wanted to walk down a stairwell at the same time – if there was a fire in a high-rise, for instance, and we were trying to get out – we’d need 47 stairwell inches. Two people closer to his size would need 54 inches. But what if, instead of people filing downstairs side-by-side, there were firefighters coming up at the same time? Firefighters wear big suits and carry a lot of gear, so they take up more room. How wide would that stairwell need to be?
The current New York City building code for office buildings – in place since 1968 - requires that most stairwells in commercial high-rises be 44 inches wide. That assumes two lanes of traffic using 22 inches each. But does it work that way in reality?
The largest building evacuation in New York City was when 15,400 people escaped from the World Trade Center (WTC) towers after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. That event demonstrated how the assumptions of the building codes translated into real-life.
John Labriola, a WTC survivor who used the stairs to escape from the 71st floor of the north tower, contributed his recollections of that day to the Smithsonian Museum’s 2002 exhibit, September 11: Bearing Witness to History. “We walked down two by two,” Labriola said in his statement. “Whenever necessary we would press ourselves into a single file line to let [injured] people get by… Around the 35th floor we started meeting a steady stream of firefighters walking up and had to press into single file again.”
Labriola also took photographs during the evacuation. One of the most famous, taken within the stairwell, shows civilians flattened against the wall as firefighters pass. The stairwells in the north tower were 44 inches wide.
Glenn Corbett, a fire sciences professor at Manhattan’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a consultant to the New York Department of Buildings Committee that proposed post-WTC changes to the city’s building code, thought the message was clear. "Out of all the issues, one of the no-brainers was the issue of stairway width," said Corbett. He refers to Labriola’s images as evidence; "If you look at those photos, with firefighters coming up and civilians coming down, the people have to turn sideways."
The 44-inch standard was developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in 1927 and was based on the width of the average U.S. World War I soldier’s shoulders – a bit under 22 inches – and the idea that building evacuations would be orderly events with everyone marching in neat rows. But Corbett and other fire safety experts say that the WTC evacuation proved that the measurement isn’t wide enough. “Even if the standards ever were adequate, people have changed since then,” said Corbett.
U.S. Department of Health reports back Corbett up. Over the past few decades, Americans have grown significantly heavier. Now the average man is over 5’9” and 190 pounds – and gaining. In addition to being wider, most people are also less physically fit, which means that they tire more quickly when walking down several dozen flights of stairs. If the stairwell isn’t wide enough to pass, said Corbett, “then you’re only as fast as the slowest person ahead of you.”
Concerned about larger, slower people and the congestion caused by incoming firefighters – called counterflow - Jake Pauls, an internationally recognized fire safety specialist from Silver Springs, Maryland, has been lobbying for wider stairs in high-rises. After years of research – including scrutiny of the WTC evacuations, Pauls concluded that the speed of building evacuation “varies directly—and linearly” with the width of a stairwell. In a 2005 report, Pauls said that “the traditional [44-in.] nominal minimum width for exit stairs was flawed, and known to be flawed a few decades ago.”
Based on his studies, Pauls proposed that the NFPA change its requirements for exit stairs in high-rise buildings to a minimum 56-inch width. As Corbett explained, "56 inches gives you the ability for counterflow, the ability for people to pass. It's an obvious solution. Any four-year-old can figure that out."
The NFPA incorporated Pauls’s recommendations into its 2006 Life Safety Code, but the code is only a guideline and does not have any legal mandate. Since the new measurements were announced, they have been opposed by major real estate development groups, such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the federal General Services Administration (GSA) due to concerns over construction costs and lost rental income.
During recent task force hearings on updating New York City building codes, the Real Estate Board of New York joined BOMA and the GSA to argue against adopting the new NFPA recommendations. Patricia Lancaster, the city’s Building Commissioner, explained the developers’ position in a Sept. 9, 2006 article in the New York Times: “If you increase a stairwell by one inch at the top of a 90-story building, you are giving up dozens and dozens of square feet of rentable space."
The 2008 New York City Building Codes will go into effect on July 1. The required minimum width for exit stairwells will be: 44 inches.
##
Sources named: - Glenn Corbett: c: 201-993-2814; gcorbett1@ix.network.com- Jake Pauls: w: 301-933-5275; bldguse@aol.com
- Ray (last name withheld), Men’s Wearhouse Wall Street: w: 212-233-0675
Articles cited:
- New York Times, “9/11 Has Spurred Only Modest Changes in New York City and National Building Codes,” by Sewell Chan, September 6, 2006
- “Minimum Stair Width for Evacuation, Overtaking Movement and Counterflow Technical Bases and Suggestions for the Past, Present and Future,” by Jake L. Pauls, John J. Fruin, and Jeffrey M. Zupan, June 2005
- 2008 New York City Building Codes, Chapter 10, “Means of Egress”
- “Statement from John Labriola, World Trade Center, September 11, 2001,” by John Labriola, courtesy of the Smithsonian Museum of American History, September 2002
Web sites consulted:
- http://www.boma.org
- http://www.nist.gov
- http://www.nfpa.org
- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs
- http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection
- http://www.iccsafe.org
- http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob
Parkins Progress Memo
I interviewed architect JC Calderon, who was a consultant to the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (though less propagandistic), and he elucidated the issues involved with changing skyscraper design and standards and, the systems involved in making it happen. The main issues are below:
1. Accountability – The World Trade Center site is governed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, ad not subject to the city’s building codes. It is a semi-private/semi-governmental organization over which no city agency has jurisdiction. The Department of City Planning, NYPD and NYFD could make suggestions and cite violations but it is the Port Authority’s choice to comply- part of the reason why the World Trade Center towers were able to be built so high in the first place.
2. All of the building code changes brought about by the World Trade Center attacks, do not affect the buildings that will be rebuilt on the site.
3. Structural engineers have been very instrumental in thinking bout design of buildings and creating safety measures for the structure and thinking about egress. Measures include, but are not limited to, the widening of stairwells, the introduction of sky lobbies, and elevators that firefighters can use in case of an emergency. However, engineers are very cognizant of not working under the assumption of terror. First and foremost, the buildings have to function and they need to figure out the best ways that can happen.
4. Architects worked on the building codes to include low-cost measures such as phosphorescent safety strips that can light the way to safety when the power shuts off and the requirement of sprinkler systems.
5. Everyone had to compromise on what they wanted or did not want to do- architects, engineers and yes, the almighty real estate community. They may not want to lose square footage, but there are other measures they can build in to their costs and the city is now requiring that new buildings include the new safety measures and that old buildings are brought up to code in the next five years. The new building codes go into effect on July 1, 2008. If developers have to do something, they know how to work it in to the budget or how to pass the costs off to someone else. It is about money, and they know how to manipulate it.
6. Other issues have quickly taken over that of terror and safety. Sustainable development is the hot-button issue that most designers and engineers are focusing. Though not mutually exclusive to the issue of safety, it is the pressing, tangible threat the community is thinking about.
7. Buildings are complex organisms that the general public does not understand or question. Rarely do they understand the role of the architect. Public pressure would have pushed changes in building codes and design faster (in this instance however, September 11 was a good catalyst).
Calderon showed me the (very large) summary of the new building codes and let me know I can get the slide show from the Department of Buildings, my next step.
Seven years later, it is interesting to see what is important when thinking about building design and safety. My last interviews and steps will be:
1. Speak to developers or the Real Estate Congress of New York
2. Ask the Port Authority what standards they will comply with in the rebuilding of the site
3. Speak with someone on the design team of 7 World Trade Center at SOM for their story behind the building
4. Ask people on the street what they think is the biggest safety concern with skyscrapers and if they knew changes would be cheap and better for them in the long run, would they care.
1. Accountability – The World Trade Center site is governed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, ad not subject to the city’s building codes. It is a semi-private/semi-governmental organization over which no city agency has jurisdiction. The Department of City Planning, NYPD and NYFD could make suggestions and cite violations but it is the Port Authority’s choice to comply- part of the reason why the World Trade Center towers were able to be built so high in the first place.
2. All of the building code changes brought about by the World Trade Center attacks, do not affect the buildings that will be rebuilt on the site.
3. Structural engineers have been very instrumental in thinking bout design of buildings and creating safety measures for the structure and thinking about egress. Measures include, but are not limited to, the widening of stairwells, the introduction of sky lobbies, and elevators that firefighters can use in case of an emergency. However, engineers are very cognizant of not working under the assumption of terror. First and foremost, the buildings have to function and they need to figure out the best ways that can happen.
4. Architects worked on the building codes to include low-cost measures such as phosphorescent safety strips that can light the way to safety when the power shuts off and the requirement of sprinkler systems.
5. Everyone had to compromise on what they wanted or did not want to do- architects, engineers and yes, the almighty real estate community. They may not want to lose square footage, but there are other measures they can build in to their costs and the city is now requiring that new buildings include the new safety measures and that old buildings are brought up to code in the next five years. The new building codes go into effect on July 1, 2008. If developers have to do something, they know how to work it in to the budget or how to pass the costs off to someone else. It is about money, and they know how to manipulate it.
6. Other issues have quickly taken over that of terror and safety. Sustainable development is the hot-button issue that most designers and engineers are focusing. Though not mutually exclusive to the issue of safety, it is the pressing, tangible threat the community is thinking about.
7. Buildings are complex organisms that the general public does not understand or question. Rarely do they understand the role of the architect. Public pressure would have pushed changes in building codes and design faster (in this instance however, September 11 was a good catalyst).
Calderon showed me the (very large) summary of the new building codes and let me know I can get the slide show from the Department of Buildings, my next step.
Seven years later, it is interesting to see what is important when thinking about building design and safety. My last interviews and steps will be:
1. Speak to developers or the Real Estate Congress of New York
2. Ask the Port Authority what standards they will comply with in the rebuilding of the site
3. Speak with someone on the design team of 7 World Trade Center at SOM for their story behind the building
4. Ask people on the street what they think is the biggest safety concern with skyscrapers and if they knew changes would be cheap and better for them in the long run, would they care.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Progress Memo #2-Quotes UFA Calls Deutsche Bank a "Toxic Mess" alleges top leadership negligence
...and and charges the Fire Commissioner and Chief with "shoddy performance."
STEPHEN J. CASSIDY
President of UFA said:
-"Chief Siegel's recommendations were totally ignored by the FDNY
"leadership" at 9 Metro Tech. Yet, no one had the
foresight to develop an alternate plan to protect our
firefighters should a serious fire take place in the
building."
-"public of a recommendation by former Chief of Department Peter Hayden made in March 2005
that the Department acquire a helicopter to help fight
hi-rise fires"
-"in an obvious attempt to gloss over their
failures, the Department leadership has decided to add a
third day of building inspections to an already
overburdened firefighter's workload. This fiasco is called
"Building Inspection Safety Program (BISP)".
-"It is clear that a separately trained and staffed Task Force is
necessary to effectively address the need for proper fire
inspections. Not only is this so-called "new" program an
inadequate response to the need for better and thorough
building inspections, it will also most certainly increase
response times to fires and other emergencies. "
The Deutsche Bank Fire: Failure of FDNY
Leadership - The UFA's Effort to Keep
the Public and Our Membership Informed
Nov 20, 2007 Ltr to Members and the Public:
http://www.ufalocal94.org/pdf/db11_20.pdf
STEPHEN J. CASSIDY
President of UFA said:
-"Chief Siegel's recommendations were totally ignored by the FDNY
"leadership" at 9 Metro Tech. Yet, no one had the
foresight to develop an alternate plan to protect our
firefighters should a serious fire take place in the
building."
-"public of a recommendation by former Chief of Department Peter Hayden made in March 2005
that the Department acquire a helicopter to help fight
hi-rise fires"
-"in an obvious attempt to gloss over their
failures, the Department leadership has decided to add a
third day of building inspections to an already
overburdened firefighter's workload. This fiasco is called
"Building Inspection Safety Program (BISP)".
-"It is clear that a separately trained and staffed Task Force is
necessary to effectively address the need for proper fire
inspections. Not only is this so-called "new" program an
inadequate response to the need for better and thorough
building inspections, it will also most certainly increase
response times to fires and other emergencies. "
The Deutsche Bank Fire: Failure of FDNY
Leadership - The UFA's Effort to Keep
the Public and Our Membership Informed
Nov 20, 2007 Ltr to Members and the Public:
http://www.ufalocal94.org/pdf/db11_20.pdf
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Project Memo - Erika
Our experience with many buildings, once we enter them, is as a user. We have no control over how well built or safe a skyscraper or an apartment building will be. Until September 11, 2001, it can be surmised that few people considered safety in high rises important.
The attacks on the World Trade Center highlighted how important design is to the safety of building occupants in the case of an emergency. In an interview with Rick Bell, president of the New York chapter of the Architecture Institute of America, I discovered that architecture firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, LLC was the only firm in the New York metropolitan area to lose an architect in the attacks. When SOM won the competition to rebuild on the site at 7 World Trade center, they were motivated to innovate “contemporary building enhancements that [create] a new model for life safety and sustainable design.” But, to further the importance of life safety in high-rise buildings, SOM, in conjunction with the New York chapter of the Architectural Institute of America, put forth a set of affordable design guidelines that could be used in both new construction and existing buildings to make them safer.
Architects are only one part of the solution to making buildings safer. Developers have to see the importance as well and their concerns are more about square footage and the bottom line, than appealing to social concerns. They do not want to increase the costs of construction nor, in the case of commercial buildings, lose rentable floor space to features such as wider stairwells “just in case”.
The next steps in my project are to find out:
-The exact costs to include the affordable design features that SOM put forth (the costs are low per square foot, somewhere below $30, which is very inexpensive considering how much more money goes into other materials).
-Why developers are not including these simple, cost-effective solutions for those “just in case” scenarios.
-The reaction of commercial and residential high-rise building users to the question, “if you knew that it would only cost X dollars per square foot to make your building safer, would you care more about building safety?”
To do the above, I have to:
-Price the materials and safety features
-Interview developers, among them I hope to talk to Larry Silverstein about the World Trade Center redevelopment
-Do some man-on-the-street interviews to see what people’s reactions would be to simple, inexpensive safety measures that could save their lives one day.
Also, in following up with my interview with Rick Bell, I have an appointment to meet with the New York chapter of the National Society of Structural Engineers, to see what improvements and innovations are being made on the structural side of things and if they are attractive to developers. I will also speak to the architects at SOM about the work they did on 7 World Trade Center.
The attacks on the World Trade Center highlighted how important design is to the safety of building occupants in the case of an emergency. In an interview with Rick Bell, president of the New York chapter of the Architecture Institute of America, I discovered that architecture firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, LLC was the only firm in the New York metropolitan area to lose an architect in the attacks. When SOM won the competition to rebuild on the site at 7 World Trade center, they were motivated to innovate “contemporary building enhancements that [create] a new model for life safety and sustainable design.” But, to further the importance of life safety in high-rise buildings, SOM, in conjunction with the New York chapter of the Architectural Institute of America, put forth a set of affordable design guidelines that could be used in both new construction and existing buildings to make them safer.
Architects are only one part of the solution to making buildings safer. Developers have to see the importance as well and their concerns are more about square footage and the bottom line, than appealing to social concerns. They do not want to increase the costs of construction nor, in the case of commercial buildings, lose rentable floor space to features such as wider stairwells “just in case”.
The next steps in my project are to find out:
-The exact costs to include the affordable design features that SOM put forth (the costs are low per square foot, somewhere below $30, which is very inexpensive considering how much more money goes into other materials).
-Why developers are not including these simple, cost-effective solutions for those “just in case” scenarios.
-The reaction of commercial and residential high-rise building users to the question, “if you knew that it would only cost X dollars per square foot to make your building safer, would you care more about building safety?”
To do the above, I have to:
-Price the materials and safety features
-Interview developers, among them I hope to talk to Larry Silverstein about the World Trade Center redevelopment
-Do some man-on-the-street interviews to see what people’s reactions would be to simple, inexpensive safety measures that could save their lives one day.
Also, in following up with my interview with Rick Bell, I have an appointment to meet with the New York chapter of the National Society of Structural Engineers, to see what improvements and innovations are being made on the structural side of things and if they are attractive to developers. I will also speak to the architects at SOM about the work they did on 7 World Trade Center.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Sooyeon's progrss memo
Because the 17-acre U.N. compound, built in the early 1950s, is technically international territory, it was exempt from state and federal regulations on worker and environmental safety, and even with respect to smoking, until last year the inspection by the NYFD.
They racked up 866 violations. It estimates that fewer than 20 percent of those violations have been addressed so far, according to the mayor's office.
Also required improvements included certifying a number of U.N. security personnel as fire directors, filing updated plans to address the remaining fire-code violations and establishing a link with the city in case of fire.
I also found out that U.N. have struggled for years to persuade the United States and the other 191 member nations to finance a multibillion-dollar renovation project for the headquarters. The project, known as the Capital Master Plan, has finally received funding but is not scheduled for completion until the end of 2014.
I interviewed a couple of random UN employees working at the UN headquarter building. But they didn’t want to put their name on my articles. ( I guess UN has pretty strict rule to talk to newspaper..) They generally talked me how much they feel unsafe about the building and some said the UN had ignored and didn’t have any budget when NYFD inspected the building. They had to take some money from the other budget. Some were happy to see the renovation plan finally approved, but said “it can’t take care of the problems right now’’
Today, I finally got the contact of Gary Fowlie, Chief of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, fowlie@un.org, through Prof. Barbara Bors.
So hopefully, he will be able to answer the main questions (If there has been any changes since 9/11, or what has been updated or fixed since the inspection last year. )
Most of all, I’m planning to ask him to introduce me someone working for the UN building. (I heard there is a guy, the only one who can control the old building system.)
Also I will contact NYFD if they have done more updates about the violations at UN since last November.
They racked up 866 violations. It estimates that fewer than 20 percent of those violations have been addressed so far, according to the mayor's office.
Also required improvements included certifying a number of U.N. security personnel as fire directors, filing updated plans to address the remaining fire-code violations and establishing a link with the city in case of fire.
I also found out that U.N. have struggled for years to persuade the United States and the other 191 member nations to finance a multibillion-dollar renovation project for the headquarters. The project, known as the Capital Master Plan, has finally received funding but is not scheduled for completion until the end of 2014.
I interviewed a couple of random UN employees working at the UN headquarter building. But they didn’t want to put their name on my articles. ( I guess UN has pretty strict rule to talk to newspaper..) They generally talked me how much they feel unsafe about the building and some said the UN had ignored and didn’t have any budget when NYFD inspected the building. They had to take some money from the other budget. Some were happy to see the renovation plan finally approved, but said “it can’t take care of the problems right now’’
Today, I finally got the contact of Gary Fowlie, Chief of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, fowlie@un.org, through Prof. Barbara Bors.
So hopefully, he will be able to answer the main questions (If there has been any changes since 9/11, or what has been updated or fixed since the inspection last year. )
Most of all, I’m planning to ask him to introduce me someone working for the UN building. (I heard there is a guy, the only one who can control the old building system.)
Also I will contact NYFD if they have done more updates about the violations at UN since last November.
Progress Memo: Galyean
PRIMARY SOURCES - highlights:
Being ignored by Dept. of Buildings, but have pulled all applicable documents from their website. Have compiled several remarks from previous interviews with Patricia Lancaster as well as press releases, her testimony to City Council - see below for samples.
Drafted questions for Glenn Corbett, John Jay College (scheduled to address class on 4/4) - I was already planning on him as a source for my story.
Reviewed Dept. of Buildings WTC Building Code Task Force meeting agendas to find changes considered but not included in final code. - MORE TO DO
Quotes from Patricia Lancaster (previously published):
From NYT: regarding why the 1995 fire evacuation recommendations weren't implemented in the WTC before 9/2001: "It just didn't happen."
From NYT: "No building is safe from everything. It's up to the owners to assess how much risk their building, their piece of land, their edifice, is at. There's no one answer to what you should do. That's why not everything is mandated in the building code. If you mandate too much, then we'll be building concrete bunkers."
From NYT: "If you increase a stairwell by one inch at the top of a 90-story building, you are giving up dozens and dozens of square feet of rentable space."
From NYT: re: why not requiring more stairwells: "We were not successful in gaining consensus on that issue."
From NYT: re: requiring sprinklers: "I think it's a miracle we got this passed at all, frankly." AND "The real estate industry was pretty darn good about stepping up to the plate and going along with this stuff. They were sobered, as were the rest of us, after 9/11. When they became convinced that this would really help people in an extreme event, they adopted it. It's really pretty striking. Those guys have big bucks."
From Gotham Gazette: "When the mayor asked me to write a new building code, I wasn’t sure it was possible. It hadn't been possible in 40 years."
SECONDARY SOURCES - highlights:
I've been comparing NIST and McKinsey (FDNY) reports related to fire codes (WTC compliance and recommendations) with relevant 2008 NYC Building Codes to see which recommendations were incorporated.
- Identified the 13 NIST recommendations that have been included in 2008 building code
- drafting questions about those related to fire & evacuation that were not included in NYC bill 126-A.
Culled information from previous reports (NY Times, Gotham Gazette, Village Voice, Daily News, NIST website)
Per NYT article: “Dr. Sunder said that fully equipped firefighters - carrying nearly 100 pounds of gear up stairs - begin to reach their physiological limits about the 15th or 20th floor, and that it takes about two minutes to climb per floor. For people on the 60th floor of a building that has lost power, Dr. Sunder said, "help is actually a few hours away. We did not look at other buildings, but we are very confident in our recommendations."
NIST report: on 9/11, even though building was not at capacity, people took about twice as long to go down each flight of stairs as engineering standards estimate - this calculation does NOT appear to have been effected design (width) of staircases in new building standard.
North tower impact area: three staircases about 70 feet apart - all destroyed immediately.
South tower impact area: three staircases about 200 feet apart - one partially intact.
NYC building codes called for 4 staircases in each tower, but there were only 3 in each – total 6. 5 were destroyed by planes – one in south tower was used by at least 18 survivors.
No one above the 91st floor on North Tower could get out.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey used 1968 NYC building code that did not require as many staircases as 1938 version.
But 4th staircase was required because Windows on the World (north tower) and observatory (south tower) had occupancy ratings over 1,000
The Port Authority is not bound by NYC codes, but claims to "meet or exceed"standards.
NYT article: "On the issue of the fourth staircase, we will respectfully disagree with the N.I.S.T. findings and maintain that we met the city building codes in this area," said Steve Coleman, an agency spokesman.
But former WTC director told 9/11 Commission in 2004 that stairwells needed to be wider for faster evacuation.
From NYT:
Port Authority correspondence includes note from Malcolm P. Levy, the Port Authority's chief planning engineer (now deceased): ''The tower core should be redesigned to eliminate the fire towers and to take advantage of the more lenient provisions regarding exit stairs.''
NOTE: 2008 Building Codes do not require additional or wider staircases compared to 1968 Codes.
Being ignored by Dept. of Buildings, but have pulled all applicable documents from their website. Have compiled several remarks from previous interviews with Patricia Lancaster as well as press releases, her testimony to City Council - see below for samples.
Drafted questions for Glenn Corbett, John Jay College (scheduled to address class on 4/4) - I was already planning on him as a source for my story.
Reviewed Dept. of Buildings WTC Building Code Task Force meeting agendas to find changes considered but not included in final code. - MORE TO DO
Quotes from Patricia Lancaster (previously published):
From NYT: regarding why the 1995 fire evacuation recommendations weren't implemented in the WTC before 9/2001: "It just didn't happen."
From NYT: "No building is safe from everything. It's up to the owners to assess how much risk their building, their piece of land, their edifice, is at. There's no one answer to what you should do. That's why not everything is mandated in the building code. If you mandate too much, then we'll be building concrete bunkers."
From NYT: "If you increase a stairwell by one inch at the top of a 90-story building, you are giving up dozens and dozens of square feet of rentable space."
From NYT: re: why not requiring more stairwells: "We were not successful in gaining consensus on that issue."
From NYT: re: requiring sprinklers: "I think it's a miracle we got this passed at all, frankly." AND "The real estate industry was pretty darn good about stepping up to the plate and going along with this stuff. They were sobered, as were the rest of us, after 9/11. When they became convinced that this would really help people in an extreme event, they adopted it. It's really pretty striking. Those guys have big bucks."
From Gotham Gazette: "When the mayor asked me to write a new building code, I wasn’t sure it was possible. It hadn't been possible in 40 years."
SECONDARY SOURCES - highlights:
I've been comparing NIST and McKinsey (FDNY) reports related to fire codes (WTC compliance and recommendations) with relevant 2008 NYC Building Codes to see which recommendations were incorporated.
- Identified the 13 NIST recommendations that have been included in 2008 building code
- drafting questions about those related to fire & evacuation that were not included in NYC bill 126-A.
Culled information from previous reports (NY Times, Gotham Gazette, Village Voice, Daily News, NIST website)
Per NYT article: “Dr. Sunder said that fully equipped firefighters - carrying nearly 100 pounds of gear up stairs - begin to reach their physiological limits about the 15th or 20th floor, and that it takes about two minutes to climb per floor. For people on the 60th floor of a building that has lost power, Dr. Sunder said, "help is actually a few hours away. We did not look at other buildings, but we are very confident in our recommendations."
NIST report: on 9/11, even though building was not at capacity, people took about twice as long to go down each flight of stairs as engineering standards estimate - this calculation does NOT appear to have been effected design (width) of staircases in new building standard.
North tower impact area: three staircases about 70 feet apart - all destroyed immediately.
South tower impact area: three staircases about 200 feet apart - one partially intact.
NYC building codes called for 4 staircases in each tower, but there were only 3 in each – total 6. 5 were destroyed by planes – one in south tower was used by at least 18 survivors.
No one above the 91st floor on North Tower could get out.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey used 1968 NYC building code that did not require as many staircases as 1938 version.
But 4th staircase was required because Windows on the World (north tower) and observatory (south tower) had occupancy ratings over 1,000
The Port Authority is not bound by NYC codes, but claims to "meet or exceed"standards.
NYT article: "On the issue of the fourth staircase, we will respectfully disagree with the N.I.S.T. findings and maintain that we met the city building codes in this area," said Steve Coleman, an agency spokesman.
But former WTC director told 9/11 Commission in 2004 that stairwells needed to be wider for faster evacuation.
From NYT:
Port Authority correspondence includes note from Malcolm P. Levy, the Port Authority's chief planning engineer (now deceased): ''The tower core should be redesigned to eliminate the fire towers and to take advantage of the more lenient provisions regarding exit stairs.''
NOTE: 2008 Building Codes do not require additional or wider staircases compared to 1968 Codes.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Progress Report (Wiltermuth)
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
*
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
*
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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.
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
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)