« Friday Links Slope's Egg Roll Building Deep Fried »

May 4, 2007

Building Code Overhaul Submitted by Mayor, DOB

con_b73a05bb30.jpg
As the building boom has progressed in recent years, it's become painfully obvious that the building code the city has lived with since 1968 is woefully outdated. During his campaign in 2001, Mayor Bloomberg pledged that he would do something about it. Now he has. At the end of the day yesterday, the Mayor and DOB Commish Patricia Lancaster submitted their proposal to modernize the city's building code by placing an emphasis on safety, technology and sustainability and bringing the way the city does business more in line with the rest of the country. “If this massive revision to the City’s Building Code is approved by the City Council, outdated regulations that are unnecessarily complex and convoluted will be replaced. The international competitiveness of our City will be increased with new, streamlined Construction Codes that allow for the cheaper construction of safer and more environmentally responsible buildings. This proposal will make new construction less expensive and make it easier to build more affordable housing.” Next stop: City Council, whose approval is needed.
Bloomberg Outlines Plan to Rewrite City’s Construction Codes [NY Times]
Bloomberg Unveils Building Code [NY Sun]
Mike Breaks the Code [NY Post]
Photo by Endira Udal




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:58 AM | Comments (15)
Categories: DOB

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1096

Comments

I don't know if you chose that picture conciously or not, but that's the building site on Metropolitan (#349), across from Havemeyer. There has already been a crane collapse there (well covered in Curbed). The site has a host of complaints, violations, stop work orders and fines. You can also see in this pic that they have knocked off a street light, and that the posts are left partially attached overnight and over the weekend.

Poster child, indeed.

Posted by: Halden at May 4, 2007 9:33 AM

The new codes are plenty complicated too, don't worry.

Posted by: Serge at May 4, 2007 9:36 AM

" cheaper construction of safer and more environmentally responsible buildings"

Will the actual emphasis be on CHEAPER or SAFER, etc. I suppose is's possible to have both, but past experience with this, and previous, NYC administrations doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I wonder if this is just a scheme to enable cheap, shoddy, and even more dangerous construction in the name of "international competitiveness" which, I fear, might just be code for bringing NYC down to third-world levels. BTW, I'd be VERY happy to be proved wrong on this.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 4, 2007 9:40 AM

"At the same time, the changes call for more efficient operations at the Building Department, whose governing code is so frequently impenetrable that even Commissioner Patricia J. Lancaster described it as “somewhat Talmudic.” Under the suggested rules, the department would accept online applications and allow for less frequent license renewal."

"Talmudic" doesn't even begin to cover it. Bringing NYC's code more in line with the rest of the country is a Good Thing.

--an architect in Brooklyn

Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2007 10:07 AM

By cheaper, they mean less bureaucratic and "Talmudic", and more consistent with the rest of the country. (as aiB points out). In this case, it is possible to have both.

Posted by: Halden at May 4, 2007 10:34 AM

It sounds glorious. I'm sure every developer will immediately be transformed into the humanitarian that they always wanted to be and buildings will begin to be built entirely of hemp and fairy dust.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at May 4, 2007 10:37 AM

Codes governing new buildings are the easy part. Codes governing new work on existing builings, many of them over a hundred years old, will pose the real challenge for architects and owners.
NYC density is really quite different from most of the rest of the country. How well the universal fire and safety codes will work on our narrow, landlocked buildings is the question.

Posted by: Serge at May 4, 2007 11:13 AM

I love the part about the "proper alignment of toilet paper holders"

WTF? How about worker safety, protection of adjacent properties, proper enforcement of the current CODE?

Come on Mike!

Anyone got a screw driver, I have to head to the bathroom to make some adjustments.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at May 4, 2007 11:15 AM

As per usual, the mayor is speaking in riddles.
" cheaper construction of safer and more environmentally responsible buildings"
Translated means - Cheaper for my wealthy buddies while much more expensive and restrictive for everyone else who doesn't have an Architect and a Lawyer in his pocket.
And for his next trick, the riddler, will tell all small home owners that they are required to provide parking and affordable housing, if they want to expand their all ready, over taxed, small houses.

Posted by: questionsman at May 4, 2007 12:10 PM

^^The cheaper construction refers to a more clear code. I can't tell you how much stuff is subject to interpretation and fighting at the DOB. Fighting = time wasted = budget stress.

More environmentally responsible means new efficiency standards for appliances and water conservation measures, to start.

But questionman, you are right that elements of this code will cost more money, although your specific parking issue is a zoning question, not a building code question. And you might remember there have always been complainers decrying how life-safety measures costs money. But compared to hospitalizations and loss of life, perhaps they should be viewed as a bargain.

--an architect in Brooklyn

Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2007 1:00 PM

I really hope that Arch. in Bklyn., Halden, and [especially] Shahn (love that hemp and fairy dust) are right and I'm wrong, but I lost faith in City gov't sometime during the Lindsey administration :-(

Posted by: Anonymous at May 4, 2007 1:35 PM

Part of the problem is that the old code was written only with new construction in mind. Nothing about rehabs, which is retarded considering that 90% of all DOB permits are for work on existing buildings. Hence all sorts of interpretations and memorandums guessing how the code would apply to existing buildings have been promulgated over the years making the existing code a veritable buffet of rules, most of which contradict each other.
I believe the existing buildings section of the new code will not be released until a later date. So the most confusing part of the codes will stand for now. So don't hold your breath for clarity and logic just yet.

Posted by: serge at May 4, 2007 1:45 PM

Sorry--Anon. !:35 was me.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 4, 2007 1:51 PM

Arch in Brooklyn,
Thanks for your confirmation. As for the Parking etc. - I was only being sarcastic, but who knows.
As Serge said - the codes were open to interpretation on existing building. Thus, as usual, the biggest abusers used this as a loophole to work the system. Like locks on your door, any new codes will only effect the law abiding citizens. The Vultures, like any criminal, will only use the new codes to there advantage while the common folks will be prosecuted to the fullest.
Bottom Line:
More Lip service and expense for most tax payers

Posted by: questionsman at May 4, 2007 3:24 PM

More over, what I'd like to add is that DOB has COME A LONG WAY in the past 2-3 years. No gripes (well some) in the way they have evolved, especially in Bklyn. Mike's proposal seems to add more burdens on a swamped public agency...sprinklers for 1-2 family homes when they "might" reno?

Geeze, gonna put off that legal (R6B) extension till the next Mayor's in...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at May 4, 2007 9:24 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions