« Long-term Rates Hit 20-Month High. Now What? Trolley Tracks: Mementos from Another Age »
March 8, 2006
Another Death on a Scarano-Certified Site
When does coincidence become a pattern? That's the question Robert Scarano should be asking himself this morning. Manipulating building codes and giving the finger to entire communities is one thing; being consistently involved as a certifying architect in projects where workers are injured or killed is another. With news yesterday of Anthony Duncan being crushed by a collapsing wall on a worksite at 733 Ocean Parkway, the Scarano-related death count reached three (207 South 1st and 187 20th Street). We know what he will say (in all capital letters, no doubt): It's the fault of the developer (O.P. Equities) and the contractor (A-1 Construction Expo), not mine. Okay, we might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in any one isolated incident. What about when it happens twice? Three times?
Even if he has no legal culpability (which we are not in the position to judge), we hope this latest catastrophe will at the very least make Mr. Scarano do a better job of picking his partners. At a certain point, it's like being the grown up who leaves a loaded gun out on the table and then says it's not his fault when a child shoots himself. Mr. Scarano, you must have made enough money that you can stop whoring hiring yourself out to bottom-of-the-barrel clients who cut every corner they can. Please, stop enabling their irresponsible and dangerous behavior. How can you sleep at night?
Worker in Brooklyn Dies as Wall Falls [NY Times]
Brooklyn Worker Killed [NY Post]
Construction Worker Killed in Collapse [NY1]
733 Ocean Parkway DOB Application [NYC DOB]
Comments on 207 South 1st Death [Brownstoner]
Comments
SHAME on YOU, mr. brownstoner, for not posting the names of the developer and the contractor! architects are NOT responsible for the means and methods of construction. THAT is the business of the CONTRACTOR, and THAT is STANDARD PRACTICE! you blame the architect for everything, mr. brownstoner. maybe instead you should blame your fellow fat-cat wall street buddies for becoming cheap and ruthless developers. THEY are the responsible parties.
Posted by: fed-up architect at March 8, 2006 9:34 AM
Excuse me Mr. Brownstoner, but this rant is just stupid.
Scarano is the busiest, biggest, and most active in all sections of Brooklyn, so of course he will have the most injuries and tragedies happening at his sites, if you are big, and you have a lot of projects, then you will be successful, and make a lot of, money, but in the same time, you will have the most unfortunate incidents happening at your sites, cause you have the most of them.
If you go on his website, you can see that he has tens of projects under way now in Brooklyn, now consider that this involves thousands of workers doing construction, which was always a very dangerous job, so three killed is not that high of a number to deserve such a rant, of course every single person killed in an enormous loss and tragedy, but you have to look at things in their perspective, just think how many people died building all of the known landmarks in this city, i.e. The Brooklyn Bridge, The Empire sate Building, etc.
To on a rant like this, and implying that Scarano is in any way responsible for those tragedies, is irresponsible, childish, and unacceptable.
Posted by: mentch at March 8, 2006 9:39 AM
I've got to say brownstoner, I love your blog, but I think you are over the line on this one.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 9:46 AM
Fair point about not mentioning the contractor and developer names. We've added them. And as we said, if this were an isolated incident, we'd say you were right. But in the end, our post was an appeal to him to do what he can to prevent this type of thing happening in the future regardless of whether he has any legal obligation to do so. As you point out, he's the biggest, most successful architect in the borough. Why not use that as a pulpit to effect change or lead by example--to go beyond what's required by law?
Posted by: Brownstoner at March 8, 2006 9:51 AM
Great post. I can't believe anyone is making excuses for this guy.
Posted by: Rose at March 8, 2006 9:52 AM
Well, Rose, we can understand why other architects feel strongly about where the line of responsibility should be drawn. Our point is that regardless of where that line is legally, there's a human toll to this that transcends the law.
Posted by: Brownstoner at March 8, 2006 9:56 AM
Brownstoner please stand tall on this one.
I expect at some point somebody will write here - it is not the architect fault, it is the workers fault for standing next to the wall. Why does he work on a construction site anyway?
To the architects: Who is responsible? Who has actually been punished after the previous construction accidents?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:02 AM
Brownstoner. I love your site and usually agree with most of your opinions posted here. However, I query whether an architect on a development project really has the responsibility over the safety of the worksite. I'm not an architect btw. Wouldn't it normally be the case that a developer would approach Scarano and say I would like develop a certain site and then look at some of Scarano's proposals? If Scarano worked with a developer that regularly had safety issues, then I can see your point (not that legal liability would necessarilly flow through to Scarano, but perhaps he would not want to be involved in such projects from a reputational point of view - plus I doubt that he would want his architecture to be built in a shoddy manner). However, without knowing all of the facts, I think it is premature to call out Scarano on this. It may be that in each case it was a different developer and different contractor, which would not necessarilly be a pattern but might in fact be three unfortunate accidents. The contractor might be at fault, but that doesn't mean Scarano was simply turning a blind eye. Maybe look into who the contractors/developers are and then petition them?
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 10:07 AM
I'm with ya, Brownstoner. My feeling is that the architect, developer, and contracter should ALL be responsible for these situations. It's easy for each of them to blame the other, but they are all in it together. I can understand the postings of the folks who disagree with Brownstoner, but someone needs to be responsible instead of all the finger pointing.
BTW, I had noticed that last night Scarano's colored lights that usually decorate his office in DUMBO were not lit...
Posted by: Gidget at March 8, 2006 10:08 AM
Wait, 3 people is quite a number - since killed (not just injured) in construction accident is not commmon.
And Scarano may have plenty of items on his web site....many long completed,
many not even started and may never come to fruition, and just a handful currently under construction.
Although you may not want to blame him for the deaths.... it does show he has an extensive working relationship and quite willing to work with developers/contractors who do not play by the book and willing to sacrifice safety for bucks.
Architects certainly are partly overseeing the construction and a real mentch of an architect would be reporting the builders to the city instead of being complacent.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:09 AM
Killed in construction was uncommon in New York City until recently--hasn't it occurred to you that the deaths and accidents that make headlines aren't on high-rise buildings or inherently dangerous sites but on smaller developments? The mad rush to make money endangers the lives of the poorest people in the real estate food chain--immigrant workers. Nobody should be killed building a two-family house or small apartment building in this city. Brownstoner, thank you for taking a stand on this issue. Simple work safety methods that have been used for decades have been tossed to the wind, and every party to this Dickensian process should be held responsible. If the letter of the law were followed, these guys would be going home on the subway and not in a body bag. Bending rules, looking the other way, not insisting on proper methods and--worst of all and SHAME on the city--deciding to pay a few piddling fines for violations are killing people. And if the construction oversight is so lax guys are dying, what kind of quality do you suppose results? Go Brownstoner!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:19 AM
i suspect, but do not know, that mr. scarano took responsibility for the underpinning "controlled inspection" on this job. if so, he's at least potentially liable for any failure. 2ndly, it's not at all uncommon on his jobs for there to be underpinning issues--it's NOT purely coincidence, and it all can't be blamed on the GC
Posted by: anon at March 8, 2006 10:24 AM
The question is does the architecht have any control over the construction site or safety practices....I dont know the answer but I suspect the answer is no - in which case blaming him is really out of line.
Posted by: Anon at March 8, 2006 10:24 AM
My point above is (and I'm asking a question): In a development project, is it customarily the responsibility of an architect to oversee construction and worksite safety? I don't know. I suppose the architect should point things out if onsite, but wouldn't the developer and contractors who are implementing the architectural plans be the ones who look at the plans and decide the most efficient way to construct the building safely? I do not have experience in this so I do not know.
However, even if the architect has no legal liability, if I was in Scarano's shoes, and if more than one of these deaths happened with the same developer and/or contractor, I would consider not doing business with them in the future from a a reputational risk point of view.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 10:31 AM
Brownstoner,
check your email...
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:33 AM
Agree with lp--Scarano is taking money from safety-shy developers, so he is throwing his lot in with a bad crew to begin with. Architects have some responsibility and are asked questions here and there about methods--but, you know, buyers have some responsibility too. Boycott crap--aesthetic crap, moral crap, social crap. Demand more for yourself. And for your money!
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:41 AM
I repeat, they are all in it together and therefore should not be separated in their levels of responsibilities in their particular jobsites. Thank you Anon 10:41.
Posted by: Gidget at March 8, 2006 10:48 AM
But are they "in it together" - many architechts simply provide the plans/design and 'construction architechts' deal with construction - I dont know what the situation is here but before we call the guy a murderer should we know more than the location is listed on his website?
Posted by: David at March 8, 2006 10:55 AM
I agree with David. You don't know the roles/responsibilities so you can't simply say everyone is legally responsible. You have to know the facts and review the contractual arrangements between the architect, developer and contractors.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 11:01 AM
We're NOT calling the guy a murderer--that would imply an intent we do not think is there. We are, however, asking the question of where the moral, if not legal, responsibility should lie. If people keep dying on your clients' projects do you at a certain point need to rethink the type of people you do business with even if you may not have any legal obligation to do so? Or maybe rethink the level at which you involve yourself in trying to make sure your clients act responsibly.
Posted by: Brownstoner at March 8, 2006 11:02 AM
Where is DOB in all this? There are two Scarano projects happening by me. People have made numerous complaints to DOB and nothing happens.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 11:04 AM
David, I know what you're saying here, but I'm trying to look at the big picture. Granted, it is my picture and no-one else's and it is coloured with my personal favorite hues and shades (information) which relate to Scarano and the types of jobs that I see him doing in my neighborhood of DUMBO. It's difficult for me to believe that he (or the folks that work for him) doesn't have a choice in who he hires to do the development and construction of HIS projects. He is therefore quite involved, and has quite a big say in those decisions = responsibility.
Posted by: Gidget at March 8, 2006 11:05 AM
The precident for whom exactly is responsible for jobsite safety has been decided in construction law, and, assuming Scarano signed the ususal AIA contracts, site safety is the responsibility of the contractor.
However, this assumes a lot of things -- that Scarano has a contract with a Client rather than is doing the job design-build (in which case, he's partially liabable), and that he can successfully argue that the underpinning was not done according to specification (if such exist or were issued). I believe this site reported earlier that Scarano's ability to self-certify jobs was revoked, but that just makes someone else in the firm who actually stamped the drawings liable.
But even if he's been careful in setting up the job, in writing a tight contract and in issuing a good set of drawings and specifications, he still has to bully his contractors. Work site safety is paramount. Scarano or whomever signed the drawings is responsible for touring the site at least weekly, and for acting as a fiduciary to the client -- it's his job to help the client avoid these kind of mishaps.
Finally, I argue that whatever the legal arrangements particular to this job, he has an ethical responsibility to act for site safety. An architect's most important responsibility is to protect public safety (this is the basis for why architects are licensed in the first place; the basis from which their legitimacy ultimately stems), and one can agrue, along with Brownstoner, that there is a strong case he has neglected this duty.
Frustrating.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 11:17 AM
Gidget, does Scarano hire developers or do they hire him? I agree with the moral obligations of Scarano to stop working for/with developers/contractors who have safety problems and on-site deaths.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 11:17 AM
11.17am was me.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 11:18 AM
Architect at 11.17am. Thank you for your post. It helps clarify how these sorts of arrangements can operate, and it obviously varies. I would hope that aside from an legal liability, that moral obligations would in fact make business sense too. Why would you want to be associated with unsafe worksites. Then again, people have a short memory and if it does not affect Scarano's bottom line, his firm might not take any action. Who knows.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Hi Anon 11:17, I'm not sure if Scarano hires developers or they hire him...not sure how the process works. I know for a fact, however, that one developers group in particular is very chummy with Scarano. I won't mention their name!
Posted by: Gidget at March 8, 2006 11:28 AM
Did you just shout yourself out lp, or was that someone shouting you out saying it was you?
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at March 8, 2006 11:32 AM
Heh, I'm now "architect at 11.17 am". You're right that being associated with unsafe worksites is bad business. Even though this is a big town (the biggest, right?), the architectural community is not that big, and it is filled with bitter practicioners who love a bit of schadenfreude before another day of being a CAD monkey or holding client hands (e.g., http://gutter.curbed.com/ ). This is certainly not the way to increase your standing with your peers.
But, my sense is that Scarano, whom I've never heard of before I began reading Brownstoner, doesn't really play in the same sandbox as my other peers -- that is, he's decided to work on a different category of project, or perhaps I should say, work with a different category of developer. He's been smart identifying a category of work and building a practice out of this neglected sector, but at the same time his bread and butter also seems to be people who really put the bottom line before (and I mean WAY before) safety, or, even, aesthetics.
And that's not smart. In my business, if you're successful but a hack, you can still go home and count your money. But if you're a hack without scruples, you'll only live and work, rise and fall, with others of your ilk -- and that sounds pretty sorry to me.
***
But let me reiterate what someone above posted -- there is no reason for any workers to die building these little projects. Scarano should think about that as he arranges for counsel.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 11:36 AM
I agree with David that more research is necessary, but the track record of Mr. S's company working with less-than-stellar contractors, demo companies, and ultimately, developers that is at the crux of the question.
A question that comes up way too often with Mr. S on these types of issues. Not using a broad brush to paint a theory, but...
Even if his firm has no fault in this or the other two deaths...When is enough...enough? When does DOB step in? When do our elected officials step in? When do the police, DA or DOI step in?
We can PLAY THE BLAME GAME because there is NO OTHER GAME TO PLAY.
Outside of becoming a vigilante "inspection squad," which is totally ridiculous (though by now I feel as if some of us boarder on that with our need to protect our neighbors, property and workers) WHO IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY?
Not the architect. Not the contractor and their subs. And most definitely, not the developer, who has the ultimate ability to fire all these chumps when something a tragic as a worker's death (let along injury) and hire the proper crew. But who's that anymore these days in Brooklyn?
Reputable builders these days are hard to fine...though we have seen a few. I can count them on one hand, which disgusts me to no end.
behind you 110% brownstoner. Glad someone has had the balls to post this "question of responsibility" in a public forum.
Three deaths in 6 months is three to many, regardless of the situation!
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 8, 2006 11:36 AM
Gidget, go ahead and mention their name...we all know it.
The Developers Group. Ubber-middle men.
Aptly named...
Posted by: GottaLoveBob at March 8, 2006 11:38 AM
or is that über?
Posted by: GottaLoveBob at March 8, 2006 11:39 AM
go brownstoner!
Takes guts to put a post like that up. I am really not sure whether you are right or wrong, but the issue should have been raised and you did that..
I hope that someone actually investigates this guy and throws the book at him if he is liable.
And really someone should revoke his license just because he is building and designing such ugly stuff. Why is putting graffiti illegal but ugly buildings are not?
Posted by: anon at March 8, 2006 12:00 PM
property owner, Viera Novak, and developer Ari Chitrik of O.P. Equities
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:01 PM
Shahn, I shouted myself out. I posted anonymously by accident.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 12:03 PM
my take - i am in league with those posters who don't know the specifics of the interaction between developer, contractor, and architect, so i asked myself this question: "in what position would you find yourself, suzy, if you were the architect?"
the answer is that i would find myself in a position of culpability at the time of the first death, if i had not addressed the situation up until that time. i would take every measure to identify the problem, and then, to solve it. i would, then, most likely become involved in administrative (city gov't, vox populi) reform.
i'm not self-righteous, nor am i riding a high horse. i do the right thing in my businesses. if people are being killed whilst i'm making money, i've got to do something. so does this guy.
Posted by: suzy at March 8, 2006 12:07 PM
Scarano is not a murderer, but a negligent professional. how many more workers will have to die and how many structures should further collapse before the city recognizes him as a threat to public health?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:07 PM
Couldn't all this info be sent to a higher level? obviously the city is doing nothing about it! are licenses awarded at a city level or state or national? any thoughts?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:10 PM
B'stoner - I know you didnt actually call the guy a murderer.....
FYI not that its relevant here but you dont need intent to be a murderer -its called Depreved Indifference Murder - same as intentional Murder 2 - if you can prove it.
Posted by: David at March 8, 2006 12:12 PM
David, Could then - in this case -professional negligence be translated into murder? that's some statement.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:20 PM
I'd like to think that Scarano would take enough pride in his work to not want to have his reputation sullied by having slipshod work done by the contractors. I'd like to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure why he's not bullying his contractors and developers to adress these safety issues given his willingness to bully posters on this board who don't like his work or disagree with his views on the impact his projects have within the community.
If I could speak to him what I'd want him to take away from all of this is that whether or not he has any legal responsibility, he can and should use his power to make the projects he attaches his name to as safe as he possibly can. We can agree to disagree on whether his designs are ugly, but we should be able to come to a consensus that safety on his projects should be a paramout concern to him, to his contractors, to his developers, and to all of us living in the shadow of his work.
Posted by: Oh Lord! at March 8, 2006 12:32 PM
One more angle:
Scarrano is not a single architect anymore. There was an article some time ago about how many young architects he hires from around the country/world.
If all of these learn the trade from him and will start to open their on shops down the line, you know that there wil be problems for years to come....
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:37 PM
Licenses are granted by the State of New York. In New York, one must licensed but also registered to practice architecture in this jurisdiction. Registration lasts for three years, and has certain requirements.
Incidentially you may check on the registration of any professional here: http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm . And before you rub your hands together in glee too much, I already see that Robert Scarano is registered.
You can also view what kinds of disciplinary actions the Board of Regents does: http://www.op.nysed.gov/rasearch.htm . Even a quick browse will reveal that most stuff is for improper handingly of things related to licensure -- not renewing, not keeping documents long enough, stamping someone else's work, etc. I suppose someone could go after him for not having detailed enough plans or specifications, but that would be a long shot.
Of course, if you could link him to any kind of felony conviction, that would also revoke his license. Felons cannot be architects in the State of New York.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:38 PM
correction: some kind of felonies. I hope to never really learn where the cut-off is!
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 12:41 PM
Anon @12:20 - strictly for academic sense (since it has no relevance here) possibly (I am sure it has never been applied that way and never will - FYI Depraved Indifference murder has been under attack recently by appeals courts and its viability is under some question) - that disclaimer aside, technically any negligence that-
is imminently dangerous and presents a very high risk of death which a jury finds is 'so wanton, so deficient in moral sense and concern, so devoid of regard for the life or lives of others, as to equal in blameworthiness intentional conduct'
could be basis for murder 2 charge and conviction.
Posted by: David at March 8, 2006 12:47 PM
Great post. Blogs are the muckrakers of the 00's
Posted by: ryan at March 8, 2006 1:04 PM
anon 12:20, yes, professional negligence can translate into murder and should. my friend is an architect and she told me of a case they studied in school (that was 15 years ago) where a jury found an architect to be guilty and sent him to prison for murder. it happened in england where an architect used a structural material (don't remember what) around a swimming pool that reacted with the chlorine bleach and the building collapsed years later, killing countless.
besides, isn't it customary for architect to charge a 10-15% fee based on cost of construction? if that is the case here, then in my not so humble opinion, scarano should be accountable.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 1:09 PM
All this talk about who's to blame and to what extent is axactly why these vultures are allowed to continue killing people. Each one- Architect, Developer, Conmtractor, DOB, Police etc. will say that it is someone else's responsability. They are all Culpable. As long as they can keep the finger pointing going around and around then they just keep making money and no one is ever held to the Fire. What is most telling about this whole sorbid affair is that had these same circumstances existed on a Union Job, you can bet that there would be people being hauled off to prison and all over the front page, in hand cuffs. These so called developments involve many more Questionable issues, but they are allowed to stay just below the radar , and given a free ride by the press and our City agencies.
It's time these Vultures were held to the same standards as the rest of the working class (that includes the Union men and women who have built this City)
Posted by: QM at March 8, 2006 1:13 PM
It's cool lp, I post anonymously to support my own arguments all of the time... :P
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at March 8, 2006 1:17 PM
lol Shahn. Wasn't what I meant to do in this case, that's why I said it was me.
Posted by: lp at March 8, 2006 1:52 PM
I just wanted to clarify the development process for the people on this site. A developer is the entity who finds and aquires a site. He then hires an architect, in this case Scarano, who designs the building and create the construction documents. At his point the developer goes out and hires a general contractor (GC), who hires the subcontractors. The GC is in charge of all construction matters, including saftey on site. Scarano, while he may be able to recommend contractors and consultants, ultimately has no say in it, as it it the developers choice who to hire. It is completely unfair and ignorant to blame the architect, unless there was something unsafe in his contrcution documents, for accidents that occur on site during the construction process.
Posted by: - NYC Developer at March 8, 2006 1:55 PM
NYC Developer (or any architects reading this): your point is taken, but the architect still has an inspection role during construction, no? Isn't the architect responsible for controlled inspections during the course of construction?
Separately (perhaps), what role does the project's engineer have in the process? In this case, retaining walls were being erected and (presumably) a foundation being laid. Is that typically done off the architect's plans or is an engineer involved.
Obviously, none of us know the details in this particular case, but I'm curious as to "standard" practice.
Posted by: Not an architect at March 8, 2006 3:04 PM
THANKS, NYC Developer. you're the first developer i've ever heard of who IS NOT blaming the architect. kudos to you for clarifying (and pointing out) general ignorance. ultimately, the architect is not hiring (or paying for) the contractor and is not responsible for the methods of construction. and to clarify, as an architect, i worked on a very large job ($140 million) where there was an arsonist on the job site causing general havoc, and at one point on this job the 40 story crane collapsed. don't even tell me any of that was the fault of the architect. ultimately, it lies with the contractor for A) hiring someone with a dubious background, and B) unsafely installing a crane. just remember that contractors are licensed by the state as well, and have safety standards to uphold. the architect is not on the job site 24/7, and for that matter may not even be contractually obligated to be on the job site at all. generally, the site foreman (hired by the GC) is responsible for overseeing safety unless an outside safety consultant is hired by the GC or owner.
Posted by: fed-up architect at March 8, 2006 3:07 PM
i agree with NYC developer, however, the architect - in this case Scarano- as stated on a previous blog is responsible for the underpinning inspection, (As per his DOB application). Unless he had and officer reviewing the underpinning process he was negligent to this requirement, which makes him liable. Accidents occur, however the pre-established safety measures imposed by the city agencies are being ignored.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 3:08 PM
Very sensible post, NYC Developer.
I am an architect who has worked in NYC for 20 years. The architect's involvement in site safety is typically an obligation to point out unsafe circumstances to the contractor/construction manager. And contrary to what you might think, QM, I know of a (fairly) large union job at which someone was killed, and it never even made the paper (sad but true). What typically happens in an instance like this, EVERYBODY gets sued (architect, owner, engineer, construction manager, subcontractor). All documents are subpeonaed, lawyers winnow through a mountain of drawings, shop drawings, specifications, correspondences, emails, etc., and, after many years, someone is held accountable (or not).
While I agree with those on the post who emphasize that no one should be getting killed on small, 'residential' scale job sites, it's important to remember that most if not all jobsites are inherently dangerous places. Workers can and do get killed through their own negligence. I have seen some workers on site do incredibly bone-headed things - this is not to say that that is the case here, but it can be difficult on a jobsite to protect the negligent from themselves.
Posted by: Bklyn Archt at March 8, 2006 3:23 PM
Here is another Scarano as architect current job where construction company was cited for not protecting neighboring structures when digging foundation. Fine $1000. Just a little extra expense - and look how much time/money it saved contractor.
335 Warren Street.(Smith/Hoyt).
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/ECBQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=2&ecbin=34481312K&s=A03C41B885B461E4F46BD08866A7430E
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 3:47 PM
Good points from our resident architects, but...
Let's gt back on topic...we're talking track record, plain and simple. Not just this death, or the other two, but, many, many, many sites, different GC's, subs and developers. Major DOB and ECB violations...all one thing in common: the architecture firm in question.
Plain & simple.
Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at March 8, 2006 4:11 PM
if anyone actually read the articles in any of the mainstream media, those papers did not even mention scarano as the architect, because it it widely known that architects are not responsible for construction related accidents. personally, i think this whole post is brownstoner's personal vendetta against scarano because of the nature of scarano's work. and since brownstoner has personal distaste for said design, he's going to use his website as a soapbox and spread his anti-scarano message. as far as i'm concerned, brownstoner is way out of line for doing so, and by falsely claiming that scarano is at fault, i would tend to think there's some slander in there somewhere. comment on his design, brownstoner, but don't accuse him of negligence, because frankly, that's more than just a little repugnant.
Posted by: fed-up architect at March 8, 2006 4:28 PM
"fed-up"
There is something called the 1st amendment.
I don't remember reading anything on this string in reg's to Scarano Architects design aesthetic from brownstoner. This is about accountability, I think. Picking one's clients and bedfellows does say something, no? Seems bad for biz to me.
What would be great to see from the architect in question, which would show some conscience and compassion, is for his firm to help the DOB investigate what may or may not have gone wrong...hell, perhaps look at the other 2 sites with accidents (and the many with violations) and find a solution to this ongoing problem...not potentially just dodge well earned criticism. Though we haven't heard from our man as of yet.
Posted by: GottaLoveBob at March 8, 2006 4:44 PM
"fed-up" don't you find a "little bit" more "repugnant" that somebody died? with this said wouldn't you agree that labeling all parties involved in this incident -including the architect- as negligent is an understatement?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 4:56 PM
i'm "fed-up" because everyone is blaming the architect, not the developer or the contractor (who are ultimately going to be the ones at fault). brownstoner blamed the architect. plain and simple. blame the contractor for negligence. blame the owner for hiring a negligent contractor. blame society for allowing developers to cut corners in the name of the almighty dollar. in fact, let's all blame ourselves for living in a society with such gross class inequities that would have allowed this to happen. really, though, all i am saying is architects are not responsible for construction related incidents. it's not scarano's fault. it's terrible that someone died and that his family is probably going to suffer terribly from now on. i'm not saying it isn't. but let's face it, scarano provided a service to a client, and that client ultimately proved to be negligent. is it scarano's fault? NO.
Posted by: fed-up architect at March 8, 2006 5:21 PM
"fed-up," I agree, with one caveat. Why does Scarano continue to provide services that ultimately end up in the hands of those "who cut corners in the name of the almighty dollar?" Seems like you may be saying his hard-earned dollars are not as green as the developer's? All parties benefited here, except one, the dead worker. That's the real evil of our society...
Posted by: GottaLoveBob at March 8, 2006 5:46 PM
Just a comment re: death on union job--of course, guys get injured and even killed on union jobs. But there are safeguards in place--so many, and so detailed, that when the lawsuits start getting filed, you can be sure that some safety issue was overlooked--like operating a particular piece of equipment when the wind was over a certain mph. My point is, over a century of unionized--and non-unionized but regulated--building in this city has resulted in a vastly safer workplace, and those gains are being trampled by the disregard for law and common sense we see by developers all over Brooklyn. In the past year or two, men have been killed in Bay Ridge, Williamsburg, Midwood--all over, and all on small jobs. And devlopers have walked away with pockets full of money, because they saved so much with their shoddy construction. Plus, the guys who died have been poor, with little or no family here, and no union to fight and sue for the parents, widows, kids, dignity. The city and the DOB bears a lot of responsibility, but they'reobviously raking it in too, legally or not, along with the shady developer scum. What's one poor, usually immigrant, life to these lowlifes?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 5:53 PM
GottaLoveBob, that's business. do you get thrown in a moral quandary every time you shop at the GAP? you probably should, because the people who make those clothes probably live in abject poverty that couldn't be imagined by even the most dickensian mind. ultimately, where do you draw the line? and how is scarano to know what the client or contractor will do? there's no way of knowing. let's say the client is "green" to development with no previous track record. should scarano say no? ultimately, architect's fees are so low that the industry rarely has the luxury to turn clients away. speaking of ethics, i hear brownstoner himself has a "wall street" job. brownstoner, do you research all your clients' business practices to make sure they are all morally upright?
Posted by: fed-up at March 8, 2006 5:57 PM
Fed up: Just to clear something up, someone posted earlier that the architect has to make a physical inspection of the project on a regular basis. Is this true? Because if it is, it brings us back to the responsibility of the architect to at least go on the record if he/she sees safety issues or concerns, especially when the foreseeable results of these problems are loss of life.
Posted by: Oh Lord at March 8, 2006 6:13 PM
"Stop whoring yourself out"?
It is terrible a worker was killed.
But how does name calling contribute to the dialogue?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 7:21 PM
the architect does not necessarily have to make physical inspections of the site. i've been working on a VERY large job that has been in construction since last summer, and i (nor anyone from my office) have yet to set foot on the site. it's not in our contract to do so. the contractor is coordinating the construction per the contract documents, and nothing in the job has arisen in which the architect has needed to inspect anything. in any job, if an unsafe condition is seen, then yes, someone should say something, but unless it's glaringly obvious, there really is no way of telling whether something might fail on site. ultimately, the contractor foots the responsibility of safety on site.
Posted by: fed-up at March 8, 2006 9:27 PM
2 things
First I believe that all parties should be held accountable. The facts will show that many of these sites start and end with the usual suspects. They are all in bed together and will change names and affiliates to suit there needs. I have seen Jobs that were Illegally self certified by One Henry Radusky. When it was brought to DOB's attention (By the way the real guilty party is DOB- for facilitating these atrocities), The planes were resubmited by Mr. Scarrano.
Like I said all Vultures with no regard for the people or the Communities that they destroy.
Secondly as to the Union issue. Yes all construction jobs are inherantly dangerous. and yes unions do have there problems. That is to be expected whenever there is MONEY involved. BUT when something goes wrong, at a union job there is much more acountablity. and ultimately that is what this whole thread is about ACCOUNTABILTY.
Lastly let me add that I feel sorry for not only the poor people who are sacrificing there lives on these sites but also the fools who will buy these Cheaply built death traps.
Posted by: QM at March 8, 2006 10:12 PM
fed-up, I get your points but I read your GAP analogy the other way: it indicates to me that we have become so inured to corruption and exploitation that we not only ignore it when we don't see it (Asian factories with horrendous conditions), we don't bat an eye when it carries on in front of our very eyes (the unsafe job sites dotting our streets). Put it that way and you can't brush it off or try to say it's relative. Pros know better than we do what corners are being cut, which means if we're aware then they are mighty responsible, even if only ethically.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 10:14 PM
What a fascinating and important discussion. I'm glad so many professionals in the industry have added their know how to the mix, and given us experienced opinions on how the construction and building industry works.
For what it's worth, I think Scarano is at least morally culpable. I wouldn't want my name and reputation connected to any kind of unethical practices. If for no other reason than that, I would think he'd be doing more to see that safety standards were stringently adhered to, and corners were not cut.
Fed-up, it is a worthy endeavor to protest poor labor practices on the other side of the globe, ala the Gap. We should. But when people are being exploited right under our noses, here in the USA, and no one does anything, we become hypocrits. Greedy developers always siphon the money out in the ways that hurt us all the most - in cutting corners in materials and paying for labor. Why hire union with their laws and standards, their health insurance and high wages? Better to hire a bunch of really hard workers from somewhere like Mexico, who won't ask too many questions, won't take too many breaks, will take whatever money you decide to pay them, and don't even know there is any such thing as health insurance. Plus they don't speak too much English, and if they are illegal, they aren't going to complain. Oh, we lost a couple. Too bad, let's just throw a bit of money to their families back in the home country, hire a few more, and get back to work.
It's disgusting. Brownstoner, thanks for going out on a limb with this one, it's a worthy cause. And to Anon 10:19 who first brought out the fact that all of these deaths have taken place in smaller, low rise projects - kudos for a very observent and telling revelation.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at March 9, 2006 12:55 AM
mentch..... This is completely disturbing. "....so three killed is not that high of a number to deserve such a rant.....". So what number would you prefer? perhaps 30? then it would qualify as mass murdering, but then again 30 is probably not enough "to deserve such a rant".
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 9:36 AM
fed-up, you seem to know building procedures quite accurately, could you explain to us what is the meaning of a "controlled inspection" as stated by poster "anon at March 8, 2006 10:24 AM"
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 9:40 AM
Brownstoner - to make it brief, great sight, great insight and all around great job - but I have to call you to task over this one - I'm no fan of Scarnao's work either, but the Architect has no control over, liabilty or responsibilty for any death or injury onsite , assuming he/she didn't specifically direct someone to anything. The basic legal rule is that once construction begins, the Architect is an agent of the Owner, and has no formal connection to the contractor (assuming its not design build or some other non-standard agreement) While i'm with you on his work, i've gotta break with you on lumping all bad things together on him.
Posted by: anon at March 9, 2006 9:45 AM
"controlled" inspection? no idea, really. however, if there was an inspection of the underpinning of the wall, i would suspect that either a civil or a structural engineer would be the qualified party to oversee that part of the job.
Posted by: fed-up at March 9, 2006 9:56 AM
Anon 9:45,
We've already stated that we're not claiming he has a legal responsibility. At this point, it's become a moral one. If you were in his shoes, wouldn't you want to do something proactive to try to prevent future accidents? One thing, we suggested, would be to be more careful about which developers he does business with. That's all.
Posted by: Brownstoner at March 9, 2006 10:05 AM
controlled inspections are performed for various components of the project (boring/test pits, underpinning, concrete, sprinklers, etc. - it can be quite a lengthy list). Typically a third party engineer is retained by the owner to inspect the work in question and certify that it was done according to the construction documents, specifications, and architect/engineer approved shop drawings (prepared by the contractor/subcontractor). The architect only certifies that such an inspection has taken place.
Posted by: Bklyn Archt at March 9, 2006 10:59 AM
Inspections, and who is responsible for which, are detailed in the Plan/Work application. In New York, architects are allowed to do engineering incidental to their design work -- that is, I could design part of a heating system in a renovation I was working on, or detail some foundation sections with the appropriate rebar, dimensions, depths and specifications.
"Controlled inspections" are a subcategory of inspection that are observed and/or a report is issued for the results of the inspection. If this were my project I would have hired an engineer as a consultant to take on this particular inspection, as one is certainly not supposed to perform any work beyond one's abiliities.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 11:05 AM
Brownstoner, I, too enjoy your website, but you have really crossed the line here. It is really clear that you have a pure distaste for Scarano; your many posts have proven that, but, pardon me, the article is a bunch of crap, written to take the guy down. We get it, you like brownstones, hence the site name, new construction and gentrification are the enemy, etc., but you can't escape that the reason the guy has so many projects in the works is because there is a great majority who disagree, namingly the true locals who have called these up-and-coming areas home for generations...
But, to stay on track here you took it too far. And the majority of bloggers here seem to agree.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 3:21 PM
Anonymous at March 9, 2006 03:21 PM
are you blind? most bloggers are with Brownstoner. not the other way around like you are trying to present it.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 4:21 PM
In today's NY Daily News editorial section, worth posting as it relates to this string:
Fatally falling through the cracks
New York's booming construction industry has given rise to an explosion of unsafe, even deadly, job sites. The latest human casualty was Tony Duncan, a 47-year-old building worker killed Tuesday by a falling foundation wall in Brooklyn.
Though authorities are still probing exactly what caused the wall to tumble, Duncan's death fits a tragic pattern. From 2001 to 2005, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration recorded 68 "catastrophic" construction accidents in the city, "catastrophic" meaning a worker died or at least three were seriously hurt.
Mining OSHA data, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association found that such catastrophes happen predominantly on smaller jobs, many of them nonunion, rather than on major skyscraper projects. In 2002, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says, contractors with fewer than 20 workers employed 38% of laborers but accounted for 56% of deaths. And there are small job sites all over the city, like the Manhattan brownstone where Antonio Roman died in a scaffolding collapse in May 2002. Or the site of a new two-family home in Queens where Jian Guo Shen was buried under a concrete foundation in June 2004.
Deaths like these keep happening because there's virtually no enforcement of building rules and no penalty for violating them. In the metropolitan area, OSHA averaged 2.3 job site visits a day in 2004; many contractors haven't been inspected in a decade. And when a tragedy does occur and OSHA is called in, the penalties are laughable. For an on-the-job death, the average fine is less than $5,000. Repeat offenders are rarely hit with more than $10,000. It's cost-effective for careless contractors to play fast and loose with safety precautions.
Against this backdrop of shoddy enforcement, the city's building boom has fostered what OSHA calls an underground construction industry, sites with inadequate permits or none at all and no safety training for workers.
Back in 2000, when livery cab drivers were being killed on the job, the city mounted an intensive and successful effort to protect them. Yet in the construction industry, nothing changes as workers die on unsafe job sites. The government must do far more to protect these laborers. Their bosses clearly won't.
--NY Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/03-11-2006/news/ideas_opinions/story/398652p-337838c.html
Posted by: hot-of-the-presses at March 11, 2006 7:50 PM
this is the most clueless post and / or comments i have ever read. if you are going to have a blog regarding all things built, past and present, you should educate yourself about the industry a bit.
your assumptions are so off base, they are in another galaxy
Posted by: minerva at March 11, 2006 10:06 PM
Why is it clueless?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2006 12:25 AM
anon 3:21, you're a little off and...namingly? (did you just make up a word?) (that's cool.)
Posted by: hmmm at March 12, 2006 3:26 PM
I've never been a big fan of Scarano's wirk, especially since he decided to put up a 16 story tower near my house un Williamsburg, but I think that is is time we gave this guy a break! as tragic as this poor worker's death is, how can you blame the architect for it? Is he supposed to be at all his sites all day monitoring every single construction worker to make sure they don't put themselves at danger? Really, be realistic!
Posted by: sally fahey at March 12, 2006 4:21 PM
Scarano has been responsible for bringing some tasteful and different buildings into our borough, and now even people from Manhattan want to live here. think of all the thousands of people he has given new lives to, instead of trying to pin this death on him. I'm sure the guy feels badly about it! Have you tried to ask him in person? I met him once. He is the nicest, most genuine Brooklynite you will meet. He has shown more taste in contributing to our great borough than you have done here. As one of your website's biggest supporters I must say I am disapointed in you, Brownstoner!
Posted by: Alex Fox at March 12, 2006 4:26 PM
Ask yourself this, Brownstoner (and be honest!):
I this accident had not been on Scarano's job, would you still have blamed the architect? This has personal vendeta written all over it!
Posted by: anon at March 12, 2006 4:27 PM
Did you see that article in the Daily News the other day? With the guy from "lost in Brooklyn" quoted as if he has a clue, calling Scarano "Architect of Ruin". To think that such a reputable New York institution would draw its information from a guy who has made Scarano's life hell only because his rent has gone up due to increasing property values that result from new Scarano buildings in his area, using the false pretence of wanting to preserve the historic nature of the statues thing... I don't know... this guy is a real ass, and so is the journalist who was stupid enough to regard this idiot as an actual source to get ahead in his own career... really people! get a clue!
Posted by: anonymous at March 12, 2006 4:37 PM
I was interested in finding factual evidence of your claim that this death is "a pattern", as you put it, because I was concerend as you were. So I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ro2/cfoi9660.htm), and learned that: "A total of 107 fatal work injuries were reported in New York City in 2004, up from 94 in 2003, according to the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor."
Now, if you take into account just how many proejcts Scarano has underway, it is a wonder that we don't hear of this more often.
I just thought I would shed some perspective on this, considering I originally went into this research thinking "I am going to show that it is, in fact, a pattern", and I was proven wrong!
Numbers don't lie, and this architect has thousands of jobs in the works, so I stand corrected.
Posted by: Alfred Kohn-Peckler at March 12, 2006 4:59 PM
Hot off the presses:
It is a clueless post because any critical thinker would have thought to ask about the legal arrangements between contrator - owner - architect to see where the liability resides before making ill-informed accusations. A few minutes of research about legit architectural contracts would have led to the realization that the liability rests with the contractor in this case.
Posted by: minerva at March 12, 2006 7:28 PM
Man, Someone has friends and family working overtime to avert the blame from those who should feel shame. On his blog, Brownstoner expressed (gasp!) an opinion and raised a question that, clearly, other posters have had: who will take responsibility, and when, for the dangerous corruption in DOB resulting in so many deaths and injuries on the crappy little building sites springing up all over town? If the number of office workers killed on site went from 94 to just 107 in a year, I think there would be a different attitude. Yes, construction is dangerous, but I reiterate that NOBODY should die building a 1- or 2- or 3-family house. It is appallingly needless to waste human lives in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2006 10:57 PM
Those still tuning in will be interested (though perhaps not surprised) to note that the following posts all came from the same IP address:
Alfred Kohn-Peckler
Anon 4:37
Anon 4:27
Alex Fox
Sally Fahey
Posted by: Brownstoner at March 13, 2006 8:21 AM
Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...
Posted by: Dandre Alford at November 17, 2006 9:50 AM
Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...
Posted by: Dandre Alford at November 17, 2006 9:51 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Pomme de Terre
added November 19, 2008 12:01 PM in Ditmas Park -
Scopello
added November 18, 2008 12:01 PM in Fort Greene -
DiFara
added November 17, 2008 11:59 AM in Midwood -
Chiles y Chocolate
added November 14, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Downtown Bar and Grill
added November 13, 2008 11:58 AM in Cobble Hill -
Tempo
added November 12, 2008 11:57 AM in Park Slope -
The Chocolate Room
added November 11, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill, Park Slope -
Tanoreen
added November 10, 2008 12:02 PM in Bay Ridge -
Black Iris
added November 7, 2008 12:02 PM in Fort Greene -
Quercy
added November 6, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.