Why New York City Can't Fix Its Ugly Scaffolding Problem | Hacker News Reader

Why New York City Can't Fix Its Ugly Scaffolding Problem

wsj.com

IMO, we are spending way too much money on scaffolding to save very few lives. Does getting killed by an errant piece of brick from above suck? Yes it does. But so does getting killed by a speeding vehicle which happens on a weekly basis. I'd rather most of the money that goes into scaffolding go towards making our streets safer (such as daylighting, speed control measures, etc). It'd save way more lives per dollar spent.

We should still have scaffolding for the most unsafe buildings (until fixed), but what we have today is really just a huge waste of money lining the pockets of the mob (which allegedly controls the scaffolding business).

I think the reasoning (whether correct or not) is that the constant vigilance (such that it is) prevents a torrent of facade from crumbling and falling; it wouldn't just be "an errant" piece.

I'm not suggesting zero vigilance, as I said we should still have scaffolding for the most unsafe buildings and that requires a baseline of vigilance.

But our current scaffolding exists because of Local Law 11, which was enacted in 1998. There were some deaths that occurred before that, which is why the law was enacted. But I think the amount of money we spend today to save those lives & injuries is highly out of proportion with out safety priorities elsewhere in the city.

Put a number on it. How much should we spend per life?

Seems like the estimate for an adult is $12.5m in the us according to dot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

Who pays for the scaffolding today? My assumption would be the building owners would pay, to avoid paying for fixing the building itself, and it would a one time expense for the most part.

The items you suggest (daylighting, speed control measures, etc) would be costs the city would need to take care of, and require ongoing monthly costs. The power for the street lights, the staff to maintain the lights and do the extra speed control measures, depending on the speed control measures you’re thinking about, it could also mean civil engineers, construction crews, etc. All of this sounds very expensive.

>>The laws stem from the death of a Barnard College student killed by a falling piece of masonry in 1979.

Interesting timing given the recent article about somebody who died from falling bricks from their aging facade while sweeping their stoop[1].

The article didn't explain another wrinkle for old buildings that are designated as historical buildings with the NYC Landmark Preservation Commission[2]: any identified facade repairs must also be approved by LPC[3] which likely adds to the substantial burden on low(er)-income co-ops/condo corporations.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/nyregion/brooklyn-woman-b...

[2] https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/index.page

[3] https://www.nypap.org/preservation-history/new-york-city-lan...

>any identified facade repairs must also be approved by LPC[3] which likely adds to the substantial burden on low(er)-income co-ops/condo corporations.

Well that finally somewhat explains why most new housing being constructed in nyc is so insanely ugly

I hate the scaffolding. It has some benefits (shelter from the rain) but it's a blight on the aesthetics. I lived in an area for 18 months and just before I left they removed scaffolding over it, and I couldn't believe how much nicer it made the block.

New scaffolding half a block away would have popped up 2 months later.

It absolutely did. Barely any time to enjoy the sunshine in the old area before some other part of your daily walk is covered.

I like the scaffolding. Makes it easier to smoke in the rain.

I wonder if it increases smoking enough to cause more deaths than it prevents.

I unironically like it, too.

It might not look nice in photos, but the semi-permanence of scaffolding in NYC has resulted in some pretty nice-looking scaffolding structures, some even with lighting. (John Wilson made a great episode on that.)

Beyond that, as a pedestrian you start ignoring the "ugliness" pretty quickly. The scaffolding almost feels kind of cozy, and protects you from the elements.

Wonder if we could build them on purpose, instead. Cover each pedestrian lane with a stoa/arcade kind of thing, just made out of more permanent and nicer looking materials.

Season 1 Episode 2 of How To With John Wilson. Loved lived that show.

https://archive.ph/qsMlD

Scaffolding? What scaffolding? Living in NY, you might as well complain about the amount of people. It’s a way of life. I don’t even think about it except when it rains.

They care more about scaffolding being ugly and nothing about dirt, grime, trash, homeless. And don't tell me we can care about more than one thing at a time.

This is a unique requirement of OSHA ,the state of new yorks own safety rules, and liability protection. It will be cheaper to throw up scaffolding than to pay out a few million to tools and bricks that fall onto people below.

I would appreciate it if they made the scaffolding less obviously dangerous.

There are ankle breakers all over, sharp pieces pointed at my head.

I dont care if it's ugly as sin, if it's safe. It's not safe at the moment.

The simple truth is that scaffolding commandeers a public good for private purpose. Developers may say scaffolding protects pedestrians, but it’s really there to protect the construction firm from liability.

And what does the public get in exchange for the usurpation of its property? Nothing. The greatest cost is erecting the scaffolding and taking it down. It stays up until there’s no chance it will be needed again, because capitalism.

The solution, obviously, is to charge rent. The scaffolder should pay a monthly fee for the privilege of using the sidewalk. Moreover, that rent should double periodically, perhaps every 90 days. At some point, we’d see scaffolding removed because it’s uneconomical to leave in place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com