 |
| Sidewalk scaffolding at night in New York |
Strolling down the streets of New York is always awe-inspiring. The buildings are beautiful and the streets are alive with the bustle of a city that never sleeps. But in the last few visits to New York I have had a hard time looking up at the buildings in Manhattan. Shielding my view, block after block, are scaffolds on building fronts covering sidewalks. These scaffolds cover sidewalks and make it difficult to walk through the already crowded streets.
It turns out I wasn’t the only one concerned as I found numerous articles about the issue. I also found that due to numerous accidents related to falling building facades and bricks from New York’s aging buildings, the city enacted Local Law 11, requiring an engineering brickwork check on building facades every five years.
 |
| Over 7,700 building scaffolds cover New York City sidewalks |
Since New York is an older metropolis, it makes sense that the city does not want people getting injured from falling debris. But is it possible that everyone is checking their brickwork at the same time? There had to be more to it.
 |
| One NYC Buildings Dept map shows over 7,700 scaffold sheds |
THE IMPACT OF LAW 11
It turns out it costs roughly $25,000 to put up the scaffolding to do the appropriate work on a building façade. However, half of that cost is paid to put that scaffolding up, and the other half is paid when taking it down. Reports indicated that many building owners were simply avoiding the teardown costs and retaining the scaffolding as a permanent protection against liability.
Perhaps this pricing model is part of the reason for all the scaffolding. If you have to pay to have it taken down, why bother?
I would argue there are a few reasons to take it down. It impedes pedestrian traffic and it’s difficult to navigate if you have mobility issues (imagine trying to get around these with a wheelchair). The excessive scaffolding also reduces street visibility, requires extra lighting (and higher energy costs) to enhance visibility at night and takes away from the historic beauty of New York City.
 |
| There must be a better way to protect pedestrians |
Why not rewrite city policy and instead create an incentive system to take down the scaffolding? What if property owners paid $30,000 to put the scaffolding up, but received $5,000 when it was taken down? I have no idea if this fits into the current payment scheme, but it seems this change would trigger more demand to remove all that unnecessary scaffolding.
While it may not address the sheer number of buildings that require these five-year checks, it would help to restore the Big Apple’s walkability and visibility that is so important for street life and safety.
Wouldn't the scaffolding owner charge some rental cost as well to the initial outlays? Otherwise they would not be able to reuse that scaffolding for other projects. I suspect the "inspector" takes time and then any repairs have to be scheduled as well, plus a "re-inspection"
ReplyDeleteNot sure how that costing system works, but it sure looks a mess. It seems like a case of unanticipated consequences. I read one engineering report that said a 100 foot sidewalk shed was $14,000 for 3 months and then $4,000 for each additional 6 months if they are not done the work in 3 months. That's $18,000 for brickwork and that doesn't ensure that additional brickwork won't be needed later. If that's the case, a few years of scaffolding and liability protection from falling bricks might make sense! https://randpc.com/ask/exterior-repair-and-maintenance/sidewalk-sheds
ReplyDeleteIN Melbourne (Aust) we have a lot of new building and like the above we find that scaffolding as pictured above reduces the natural surveillance of the space under scaffolding by the residents from their apartments.
ReplyDeleteI am paying about a $6,000 assessment for my co-ops LL 11 work. Every five years for this is ridiculous. 10 years is fine. Meanwhile one of the workers fell of the rigging today and crashed to the scaffold and is probably critically injured. This was in Kips Bay.
ReplyDelete