by Deb Cupples | The General Services Administration actually opposes tougher safety standards for skyscrapers (e.g., extra fire-proofing and an extra stairwell).
Yes, even in this post-9/11 world, some of the nation's biggest builders and landlords don't want to spend money on safer buildings -- and they've got the GSA's ear.
The New York Times reports:
"A federal agency has joined some of the nation’s biggest landlords in trying to repeal stronger safety requirements for new skyscrapers that were added to the country’s most widely used building code last year, arguing that they would be too expensive to meet.
"The new provisions, which include requiring tall office buildings to have more robust fireproofing and an extra emergency stairwell, were enacted as a result of an exhaustive federal study into the collapse of the twin towers at the World Trade Center seven years ago this week.
"The General Services Administration, which serves as the federal government’s property manager, is now opposing the tougher standards, even though they were based on a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which issues recommendations for safety standards after investigating fires and other building catastrophes....
"'It does not take a NIST report or a rocket scientist to figure out that requiring additional exit stairs will improve overall occupant evacuation times,' David Frable, a General Services Administration fire safety engineer, wrote in a petition asking the International Code Council to rescind the changes, which go to a vote next week. 'The bigger question that needs to be answered is at what economic cost to society?'” (NY Times)
I wonder if New Yorkers who saw the Twin Towers fall on 9/11 agree that money in builders' and landlords' pockets is more important than safer skyscrapers.
What's even more appalling than the fact that the Bush Administration invariably prioritizes big corporate interests over the public's needs is that the fact that it no longer comes as a surprise.
Comments