Parkins Pitch

Design for Safety (Parkins)
In the decades leading up to September 11, 2001, architects and structural engineers had been influential innovators in skyscraper design and construction, experimenting with ways to make them not only visually appealing but safe. Fire, earthquakes and hurricanes are a couple of the areas where design has been able to alleviate risk.I would like to find out:
In the years following September 11, 2001, the ways in which the design community has been considering terrorist attacks and safety from it in their work, if at all.
How architectural innovation could be used to help keep people, buildings and communities safer in the event of another attack.The article will also cover how architects and engineers view safety; how well or poorly, innovative ideas have been received and; the costs associated with developing and implementing new design features.
Posted by Erika at 5:56 AM

Galyean Pitch

Galyean - pitch
Galyean PITCHFIRE SAFETY: WORDS VS. ACTIONS:Nothing spurs a call to action like a catastrophe. Tragedy on a grand scale is almost immediately followed by promises to learn from the losses and to prevent "something like this from ever happening again." But does anything really change?The 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center demonstrated several fatal flaws in fire safety and evacuation procedures in the buildings. Many of these flaws had already been identified in a 1995 report on the 1993 WTC bombing. However, of the nineteen recommendations made in the 1995 report, only a handful were implemented by 2001.This is consistent with the history of the Port Authority, which owns and manages the WTC but is exempt from city and state building requirements. The agency began circumventing building safety standards even before the towers were built. Despite the agency's professed desire to meet or exceed applicable NYC building safety standards, the Port Authority has only sporadically attempted to do so. A 1970 Fire Commission demand for sprinklers in the WTC stairwells was ignored until a fire spread through several floors of the North Tower in 1975.The Port Authority's resistance, though, is reflected by that of the local real estate lobby, which has opposed most of the fire safety revisions due to both immediate costs and the potential of lost rental revenue (if floor space was dedicated to escape routes, additional stairwells, etc.).I'd like to write a 1,500 word investigative article that assesses the cooperation of the Port Authority and other NYC building developers in implementing fire safety recommendations resulting from the 1993 WTC bombing and the 2001 attacks. For technical information, I will rely primarily on the 1995 report by the U.S. Fire Administration, the 2005 report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the 2001 and 2008 New York City Building Codes. I will interview staff from the New York City Department of Buildings and the Port Authority regarding the integration of previous fire safety recommendations into the WTC prior to 2001 and the integration of the 2005 recommendations into the new NYC Building Code and the construction of the new buildings at the WTC site. Additional interviews with fire safety specialists, FDNY staff, and real estate leaders will help to fill out the story.
Posted by Andrea at 3:55 PM

0 comments:

Carlson Pitch

GOING GREEN (Carlson): Pitch
Are green buildings practical in an age of terrorism? Can sustainable principles be effectively coupled with existing fire and building codes? Do green buildings actually provide a higher level of safety than non-green buildings?The rise in importance of environmental issues has brought into question how to accommodate current fire and building code regulations within the broader context of sustainability. Building permitting agencies struggle to reconcile environmentally responsible practices with the patchwork of existing prescriptive regulations -- likely including those established through Local Law 86 and other post-9/11 requirements.The most well-known organization to have developed standards to address sustainable development is the United States Green Building Council. The council launched the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system in 1998. However, while developers and builders seek to go green, it has become clear to some that sustainability standards do not mesh well with established regulations in certain instances. For example, there are often maximum densities, allowable heights of structures, and parking/road requirements that cause difficulties in ensuring that LEED design principles are being met. Also, some green designers have contemplated installing under-floor ventilation or using straw bale construction as a way to gain LEED points; however, these practices have yet to be approved for safety.Specifically, I would like to investigate the construction of the Freedom Tower which is set to meet Gold level LEED standards. In fact, the tower project has achieved this certification by creating the World Trade Center Sustainable Design Guidelines. Furthermore, I would like to ascertain or at least bring up the question as to whether green buildings can actually provide a greater level of protection from air or fire emergencies.
Posted by Kathryn Carlson at 5:50 PM

Wiltermuth Pitch

Deutsche Bank and 15-Day Fire Inspection Cycle (Wiltermuth) Pitch
The towers came down on September 11, 2001, and promises were made. The nearby Deutsche Bank building stands as a marker from that day. Six and a half years later, in the midst of a massive construction boom, has high-rise safety been improved? What has stayed the same? A fire at the building in August killed two firefighters, exposing unsafe work conditions and a failed 15-day fire inspection cycle. The District Attorney launched an ongoing criminal investigation against the city, as well as against the subcontractor in charge of deconstruction. This story will focus on the 15-day fire inspection cycle. When was it first implemented? Did they know at the time that it was unfeasible?
Posted by J. Wiltermuth at 7:26 PM
Labels: Building Codes, construction

Weiss Pitch

Air Quality: story pitch
(Mike Weiss)Dr. Paul Lioy works at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. A foremost expert on the airborne health hazards created by the terrorist action of 9/11, he has authored several papers on the health issues related to the disaster and has reached this conclusion: within three years of 9/11, the Federal government should have done three things:1. State unequivocably what happened on 9/11 in terms of the health hazards, specifying how and why the government failed to properly alert the public. Basically, why 8,000 people were unnecessarily injured by contaminated air.2. State what the Federal government is doing now to correct the mismanagement of 9/11 so that if a similar event occurs, it will be handled better.3. State what the Federal government needs the public to do so that we are better prepared for another terrorist attack.Since the government has not answered these questions, I will attempt to do so. As part of the class project to determine how high-rise building safety in NYC has improved since 9/11, I will determine how the air quality monitoring and alerting system, an aspect of high-rise safety, has developed since the WTC disaster.Primarily with the help of Dr. Lioy and David Newman, who was formerly part of EPA’s WTC Expert Review Panel and is now working for the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, I will try to trace the way the government should have responded to the public health hazards of 9/11, explain why this did not happen, and why no meaningful steps are currently being taken to improve preparedness.
Posted by Mike Weiss at 8:15 PM

Steagall Pitch

Scaffold Safety Pitch (Steagall)
There has been increased focus on worker's rights in recent months, owing to several fatal accidents from high rise construction sites. On Jan. 14 Yurley Vanchytsky fell 42 stories to his death from the Trump SoHo tower. Jose Palacios fell 12 stories from a Clinton Hill project. And the list goes on.These accidents have prompted a Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force, but the commitment to ensuring worker's rights is called into doubt by recent proposals to gut Section 240 of the Labor Law. New York is currently the only state to have such a law, which reserves for worker's the right to sue their employers should they fall and sustain debilitating, or mortal, injuries. Pro-business types blame it for rising insurance premiums, which they claim make their costs unnecessarily high, and Mayor Bloomberg has expressed support for revising the law. Pro-worker types cite it as a vital tool in preserving worker's rights.At present the city cannot track contractor's performance across job sites, complicating (or, better said, negating) the possibility of holding contractor's accountable for the on-site protection of their workers. Also at issue is the use of non-union workers, who the unions claim make for a more accident-prone jobsite.The city provides training on scaffold safety, but they use vague terminology when explaining what, exactly, that training consists of, and how effectively it is enforced. They also have no mechanisms of enforcement. In response to the Scaffold Worker Safety Task Force finding that "speaking English as a second language, or speaking a language different than that spoken on the job site was often a factor in fatal construction accidents," they have started outreach events in all five boroughs, distributing safety information in multiple languages. But how effective, and comprehensive, is this program? How many workers actually receive the training?Through interviews with contractors, scaffold providers, workers, and acquaintance with the training materials provided to scaffold workers, I will explore the current situation in the city. In addition, I'll be looking at the unfolding debate on the Labor Law 240, contacting union leaders, contractors, and business organizations who are organizing with the aim of repealing, or heavily "reforming" the law.My project will also include a video component, which explains the laws regarding scaffold safety with visual examples of the proper, and improper, construction, and use, of scaffolding. I have already begun compiling footage of various job sites around the city, particularly those that have already witnessed worker accidents.
Posted by *lgs at 9:19 PM 0 comments
Older Posts

Starkey Pitch

History: Pitch
(Starkey: History Story Pitch)As I wrote in my budget line, building code changes in Manhattan have often pitted safety concerns against ones related to the cost of building in an undeniably expensive city. I’m interested in how these two arguments relate. The story will examine each major era of change in the city’s building code, starting with the period in the early 20th century after the Triangle fire. The landmark changes in 1937 and 1968 were written largely with builders’ economic concerns in mind. Fireproofing standards are weaker now than they were in the 30s, according to experts quoted in media reports. Structural columns in high-rises only must last two hours in a fire, not four as required before, a change made because building became too costly. After the 2001 attacks, it seems, these two sets of concerns have again been set against each other as the city continues to embark on its fourth major era of building code change. This is a story about the history of change, and how changes brought the city’s code to where it is today and where it will go in the future. I have already contacted people at Cornell, where professors and students embarked on arguably the most comprehensive Web-based project to study the Triangle Fire, which happened on this campus. I will interview people like Monica Gabrielle, chairwoman of the Skyscraper Safety Committee, who called the structural column dilemma “the dumbest thing I have ever heard.” I will interview Steven Spinola, former president of the Real Estate Board of New York who told The New York Times, “We’re not ashamed to admit to say we are interested in the dollar.” And I will attempt to interview people in the middle, like Patricia Lancaster, the building commissioner. This passage from The New York Times in 2004 perfectly presents the point I hope to expand upon.“To test just what cost differences the new codes might make, city officials are studying building projects now in progress to compare prices under the old and model codes, said Ms. Lancaster, the buildings commissioner. If a certain part of the model code turns out to be significantly costlier, she said, the city will reconsider that provision. Despite the focus on the bottom line, she said, ''I am committed to ensuring that the new code is as safe or safer than the code today.’”
Posted by Starkey at 10:25 PM 0 comments

Scaffold Safety