I’m often struck by buildings with safety measures that have clearly been added on later, e.g., railings, fences, etc. Like this view from a proposed observation deck on the Chrysler building: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19989364/Screen_Shot_2020_05_20_at_11.07.25_AM.png (from https://ny.curbed.com/2020/5/20/21264740/chrysler-building-new-observation-deck)
Even the original railing itself looks like it was an afterthought. Why would the original designer think that a knee-height wall was a sufficient safety measure for a terrace?
In: 15
I’m not an expert, but based on conversations I’ve had with my architect uncle, it comes dowm to cost vs benefit.
Contracts (generally) go to the lowest bidder and a lot of the time, designers and builders deal with constant delays and set backs so they make up the overspending by understanding in some areas. You also (according to my uncle) need to consider how many people are likely to use that part of the building. An elevator? 2 fail safe systems and the laws of friction mean that it (ideally) will never fall fast enough to kill someone or slam their body against it’s roof. And even if it does, there’s an emergency button and phone number. That’s because pretty much everyone uses the elevator.
But the very top of the building? Just tell the building owners to lock it. Realistically, only like a dozen people a month will go there. So pay for the extra expertise and machinery neccessary to haul heavy large rails that high when you can just put up smaller cheaper ones that meet the legal “standards.”
Latest Answers