What is safe?

What is ‘safe’?

Safer approaches to fire and life safety

By Joan Stein

By the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, it had become commonplace to observe that everything had changed. What wasn’t clear then - and in many respects isn’t clear today - is exactly how much buildings need to change. Already, as this special report shows, many things about buildings have been rethought: There are tighter procedures, more guards, steps to protect HVAC systems, some system upgrades, and a higher priority for security in budgets and the design process. But is all of that enough?

A big question is whether further changes should be mandated. New York City is evaluating significant new code requirements intended to make high-rises safer - proposals that could be a precursor to changes nationally. That prospect has some worried. Changes in building codes and standards in the wake of Sept. 11, says Building Owners and Managers Association International past president Sherwood Johnston, represent “potentially an enormous new threat.”

Certainly, the costs of new measures could be high. A recent report from Gensler, an architecture firm, notes that the federal government spent $1.2 billion following the Oklahoma City bombing to protect federal facilities against truck bombs. Is it simply a waste of money to take measures to thwart attacks that never come? Certainly not. No one buys term life insurance hoping the benefits will be paid out. What’s more, security improvements are more than insurance.

Hardened buildings are less inviting targets. But how much is deterrence worth? The debate about safety and security must sort out difficult questions like that. Are current measures adequate? Should a timetable be imposed? Who should have the final say? It will be years before those issues are resolved; this special report looks at where things stand today. It examines changes being made in different types of buildings, explains how and why codes might change, and details new approaches that could improve fire and life safety.

ADA Evacuation Question:

Who Needs Help?

Old principles must be modified to meet new risks;

issue is broader than people with obvious physical disabilities.

Since the attacks on Sept. 11, the old rules of emergency evacuation for people with disabilities now seem naive. The standard plan was based on determining the safest, most expedient and most effective methods of providing safe haven, rescue assistance and safe evacuation. Following Sept. 11, three fundamental points have to be considered in emergency evacuation planning:

1. The threats no longer come just from fire.

2. There is a new focus on the time it takes to evacuate many people from a high-rise commercial office structure.

3. It is crucial to know who is in a building and to understand their ability to evacuate by means of stairs.

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

Back to Articles