Do you support invetment to provide better disaster survival options for high rise buildings?

[lightbulb27]

A Documentary from 9/11 on the few people that survived in the stairwell of North Tower... for reference.

It's clear watching such footage... we had nothing to control this situation or help people.

No "balloons" for people to jump onto and no personal parachutes provided... they hit the ground and died. If it was a boat... they'd have a life vest...

No aircraft that can put douse a fire at high levels of a building. Anyone up for a helicopter that can shoot water horizontally?

Terrible evacuation logistics, communication and coordination... telling people to stay at their desks or go back up to their desks... most of which died there.

No way of climbing down the outside of the building... no outside stair case option like other buildings.

A lot could be done to improve peoples chances of surviving such situations. To my knowledge nothing has substantially changed other than maybe communications.

As it is... the buildngs keep getting taller...

World trade center was only 1348 ft!!

Yes, we can and should

No

Other

[WindAtMyBack]

I worked in the building industry for many years, and been associated with it much longer. There is room for improvement in some cases, but in general the current codes are already too strict. We have gone well beyond diminishing returns. In many cases it's completely absurd.

Last year I was on "fire watch" for a while. The fire marshal required it for super nit-picking reasons. It amazes me some of those codes even exist.

The excuse that "it will save lives" is BS. You can ALWAYS save more lives no matter what you do. There will always be risks in life. You have to be practical about it and stop being so narrowly focused. I don't want to live in a sterile bubble.

[lightbulb27]

Do you see any improvement in ability to handle such situations, fire at the top of a high rise?

[WindAtMyBack]

I never dealt with high rises. Codes in general have gotten much more strict during my life though. Although there were some pretty important changes before I was born.

I think in high rises it's more about prevention than escape.

[lightbulb27]

yes, and thus the costs. Maybe there's good reason, other countries I've seen (Peru).. the wiring is just "dange the wire".

[ObscuredBeyond]

Not sure. But these numbers are awe-inspiring. Especially since the shortest buildings on that list still tower over the Sears / Willis Tower, which makes the Amway in Grand Rapids at only 318 feet tall look like the Star Shooter's Bar of Big Rapids in comparison.

And I remember being a small child, and thinking the Amway was an impressive feat of a building. It was even taller than the Varnum Building, (known as the Rogers back in the 90s.) Though, from the southbound side of 131, the Varnum / Rogers definitely was a much nicer-looking building.

All those buildings are nothing compared to the monster skyscrapers of today.

[lightbulb27]

It's insane. better know someone with a helicopter if going up there or bring a parachute.

[exitseven]

The public should not have to finance this. Building codes need to be changed just as they were when sprinkler systems were mandated. Landlords all screamed about it but it was still done.

[lightbulb27]

public always pays, but yea, can be done by code. buildings cost more, they pass the cost onto others.
may have been more dooable when rates were low to finance.
Could for example, require a % of parachutes stored in each building. that's just a $. Inventing giant pillows to jump into... been done, needs research. Helicopter water cannons = $ to invest probably military. etc..
I for one not going up in big buildings anymore. Fun to go, get stuck, it's a bad day.

[exitseven]

How about a sky trolley. That would save lives and be fun too.

[OddBeMe]

Usually that costs less than the disaster.

[Agape93]

Nope. Let it fall.