The General Services Administration (GSA), a federal agency which serves as the government's property manager within the United States has joined some of the nation's biggest landlords in trying to repeal stronger safety requirements for new skyscrapers, that were added to the UBC and IBC last year arguing that they would be too expensive to implement.The new provisions are based on a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which issue safety standard recommendations after building catastrophes, and now requires all non-residential buildings over 420 feet or about 40 stories to have more robust fireproofing and a third stairwell for emergency egress. Also, the new codes would require all buildings taller than 75 feet to have "glow in the dark" markings on stairwells as a back-up in case the power goes out. The fireproofing in itself must be capable of withstanding an impact of 1,000 pounds per square foot and could cost real estate developers $13million for a 42 story building as well as $600,000 a year in lost rent due to decreased rentable floor space.
David Frable, a GSA fire safety engineer argued that, "It does not take a NIST report or a rocket scientist to figure out that requiring extra stairs will increase general occupant evacuation times but the question that needs to be answered is at what economic cost to society?" Frable and many others from the GSA have written petitions to the International Code Council to rescind the changes this week at the Minneapolis Code Council meeting.
As the debate rages on, one consideration that might be made is to replace the third stairwell with specially designed elevators that can reliably operate during a fire or any event of power outage. The GSA are hoping that this will help recover lost building space and money to what they describe as "an emotional reaction to the 2001 attacks that has led to unrealistic and unnecessary new building standards."
Well, I am not surprised that the GSA, who are really developers are more interested in overall profit above the occupant's safety. I know that the Sept 11 attacks were isolated cases and there is a very slim chance that another plane could come crashing into another highrise but as long as there is that likelihood of occurrence, everything should be done to prepare for it. I do understand the concern about reduced square footage within the building but safety is a higher priority. That is what architecture is about! Not just pretty building to fatten a landlord's purse but a place of refuge and safety for the tenants.
This new standard is no different from designing for earthquakes which definitely requires more money for something that might never happen but still we ensure that the building is ready to withstand the strongest tremors specific to the site. That being said, the General Services Administrations should stop worrying about the money being taken from their already bulging pockets and get with the program.
Images obtained from The New York Times.
For more information check www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/washington/08codes
4 comments:
ArchSource, good article and very timely. i couldn't disagree with you more. Building's are not "areas of refuge" from a terrorist attack! Buildings are not bomb shelters in which you can "duck and cover" in safety while you blow up the outside world. So what happens if a terrorist drives a truck laden with explosives into your lovely 20-foot high ground floor storefront glass? That would be very destructive. Do you then ban glass at lower levels and install concrete barriers? What if a terrorist drives a car bomb into the underground garage? What then?
The idea of including phosphors (glow in the dark materials) to stairs, exit pathways etc is a great idea. The requirement for "more robust" fireproofing is a good idea but I need to understand what more robust means. The third stairwell or elevator is excessive.
Now I have worked on a number of highrises and I will say that the architects have a definite pattern of design. They always design the stairs adjacent to the core. Usually one stair on either side of the central elevator shaft & services core. This is a good layout as people instinctively flow from the perimeter to the center. Where would you place a third stair? It has to be adjacent to the core for structural reasons and every stair needs a vestibule for smoke control and entry and also a corridor. These will greatly reduce the efficiency of the floor plate with no guarantee that it would save lives.
One size fits all solutions are never effective. Would it not be better to have performance specifications stating the allowable duration of exit from a highrise? And let the designers figure out how to achieve this.
This is a great topic and there is a lot to consider. I hope you do a follow up on it.
I get your point. The last highrise I worked on, I cursed at the space the second stairwell took up not to mention if I had to include a third one.
Also, I know that highrise buildings cant be designed to be as impregnable as bunkers but I think that we can find a way to design them so that egress can be faster in the event of any catastrophe.
Thats what I meant when I spoke of designing for safety. And why are we in the United States always behind the rest of the world these days? In Europe, they've already implemented the third emergency elevator in all skyscrapers above 40 stories and they didn't have any planes fly into their buildings.
We can find a way to do it too "if we try." Just like we haven't tried to find a way to design in the gulf coast against rising sea levels and are content to have thousands of homes destroyed every couple of years. In the Netherlands, they too are at high risk when it comes to flooding from rising sea levels. After the floodings of 1993 and 95, they found a way to design homes so that they float when the area floods (for more info on this, check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6405359.stm).
But anyways, I've digressed from the issue at hand. All in all, we need to come up with something that enables us evacuate occupants of highrises quicker. Be it a third elevator, stairwell or a bunch of parachutes! But we can't just say, "oh this won't work." And then just fold our hands and not look for alternatives.
I think our national security since the attacks has been and will continue to be stringent enough to ensure that there are no more such attacks. That being said, there is no need to waste money and space with the third stairwell or third elevator.
And say what you want about developers but the fact remains that we make you architects money. If we aren't making money, you aren't either!
This is all nice and good, all valid points. But this is exactly what these people want, architects, engineers,and contractors, arguing about who is on the right.
Instead we should be focusing on what matters, on buildings that not only look good, but function well, that provide a save environment to who ever works or lives in such buildings.
The safety of the people, (even our own) should not be a game. Sure we don't experience disasters either natural or provoked by human hands, everyday, but at least we deserve the right to peace of mind.
We live an work in buildings or at least know some who does, and it would be a shame if someone we love were to be endanger due to poor design and the blame game.
A third set of stairs is not a guarantee but at least the extra cushion exists. The possibility of gaining extra time to get the hell out is there. As professionals we should be coming up with new ways to provide a more viable solution for everybody.
Post a Comment