7-Chap 7 Sec 2 Issue Response for Parking 1

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

7-Chap 7 Sec 2 Issue Response for Parking 1 E.1. 48. Issue: Section 21.07.060F.15., Bicycle Parking Facilities and 71. As a follow up to Issues #48 and #71 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum, staff recommends several amendments to address development standards for bicycle parking. The amendments respond to recent information provided by the Bicycle Plan project team and comments provided by Commissioner John Weddleton. The first amendment would be a requirement that all bicycle parking be secure. Although the Department has always assumed and intended that any required bicycle parking space would include a lockable bike rack or secure enclosure, the 2007 public hearing draft does not specifically require this. Without some basic requirement for security, an applicant could legally comply with the minimum number of required bicycle parking spaces with just a paved area without a secure bicycle rack. Staff supports the addition of a basic provision to ensure that required bicycle parking spaces are secure and will not damage the bicycle. The second amendment would ensure adequate dimensions especially a minimum width for bicycle parking spaces. Some bicycle racks (with narrow tire slots that can damage bicycle wheels) do not contain enough space between bicycle slots. Not all the spaces can be used at once. This can result in a significant undersupply of usable bicycle spaces. In some cases these have also been reported to bend the tires, because only the tire is secured in place and there is no support for holding up the weight of the bike frame. A review of other communities’ bicycle parking provisions as well as information received through the bicycle parking team suggested that the code should provide a few dimensional standards for bicycle parking spaces just as it does for automobile parking spaces. Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the parking area for bicycles should be maintained on a similar basis as automobile parking, including during winter. Because basic year-round usability of bicycle parking is dependent on winter maintenance, staff does not object to such a provision. Lastly, Commissioner Weddleton also commented that the way subsection 21.07.090K expresses the minimum required amount of bicycle parking in terms of individual “bicycle parking spaces” may be confusing to readers. Most people are not used to thinking of bicycle parking in terms of a “bicycle parking space”. Staff acknowledges that at first this seems unusual or clunky in everyday conversation. However, the term “bicycle parking space” is almost universally applied among zoning ordinances. Eleven of twelve zoning ordinances reviewed by staff use this term. This term is sufficiently general to accommodate the variety of forms of bicycle parking, and is consistent with the required parking spaces for automobiles. Staff recommends providing a term and definition for “bicycle parking space” in chapter 14 such as “Bicycle Parking Space: An area and structure such as a bike rack or U bar or a facility such as a locker or portion of a lockable room, that is used for parking and securing a bicycle.” (Exact definition wording would be discussed in the Chapter 14 issue-response.) Staff Recommendation: Page 45, lines 13-19, amend to read as follows. Most of the underlined changes in subsection “a” were already been recommended in issue-response #35 of the August 28, 2008 Issue-Response memorandum: Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 2 of 35 15. Bicycle Parking Facilities a. Required b[B]icycle parking or a sign leading thereto shall be located in an area visible from the primary entrance area and shall be no farther from a primary entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space, not including designated accessible parking, carpool, or vanpool spaces. b. Bicycle parking facilities shall provide security from theft and damage. A required bicycle parking space shall include a securely fixed structure that allows the bicycle wheel and frame to be locked to the facility, and that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to the bicycle, or shall be in a bicycle locker, lockable bicycle enclosure or lockable room. c. A required bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of 6 feet long and 2 feet wide. d. The surfacing of bicycle parking facilities shall be designed and maintained to be clear of mud and snow. e. Bicycle parking shall not obstruct pedestrian walkways, building access, or use areas. Page 84, line 34, amend to read, “No automobile or bicycle parking facility or loading facility shall be permitted in any required landscaping area.” 48. Issue: 21.07.090K., Bicycle Parking Spaces This is follow-up to issue 48 from the August 28 Issue-Response memorandum to address additional comments by several Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) members regarding the required number of bicycle parking spaces on page 94 of the Parking Section. The concern raised is that Title 21 should more strongly support bicycle parking spaces, to achieve a more ambitious but arguably attainable goal for a substantially greater percent of trips to be made by bicycles, especially in the urban centers. The threshold which triggers a requirement for secure bicycle parking should be much lower than in the Public Hearing Draft. Many multifamily and mixed-use developments that need bicycle parking will fall under the recommended threshold. There should almost always be the standard 3 or 4 secure bicycle parking spaces near an entrance of a non-residential or multifamily building. Other cities require this. Portland, OR, for example, requires secure bicycle parking for residential buildings of 4 or more units, 1 space per every 2 units for projects under 50 units, and 1 space per 4 units for projects with over 50 units. For these reasons, requirements such as the following are proposed: - Provide a minimum or 4 bicycle parking spaces for all multifamily projects with 4 or more dwellings. Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 3 of 35 - Provide 1 bicycle parking space for every 2 dwelling units for developments of up to 50 units and 1 space per 4 dwelling units for developments that exceed 50 units. - Non-residential uses with fewer than 20 automobile parking spaces required should receive a bonus of some sort for voluntary installation of the standard 4-space secure bicycle rack. - Non-residential uses with 20 – 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide 4 secure bicycle parking spaces - Non-residential uses with more than 50 automobile parking spaces required should be required to provide a number of bicycle parking spaces that is equal to 8 percent of the required number of automobile spaces. Staff Response: Staff supports providing a bonus incentive for more bicycle parking. Refer to issue-response 87 below. However, the subsection that requires bicycle parking as recommended by the Public Hearing Draft is purposefully short, simple and conservative. Title 21 does not currently require bicycle parking, and the Title 21 Rewrite is a first step for the community to become familiar with a minimum bicycle parking requirement. A short, simple and conservative requirement provides a safe opportunity to become aware of any basic issues or problems that may arise during its initial implementation. The next step would be the preparation of the Bicycle Plan, currently in progress. The Bicycle Plan will provide a better opportunity to do a more comprehensive evaluation of the community’s bicycle parking needs and aspirations. It can document/demonstrate the need for bicycle parking for specific land uses. It may identify more ways to incentivize bike parking in the zoning ordinance. Once adopted by the municipal Assembly, it will provide goals, objectives and policy basis for more comprehensive bicycle parking standards. There are many zoning ordinances in large and small communities around the U.S. that have more comprehensive Bicycle Parking requirements than what Title 21 Rewrite proposes. Such ordinances result from a community involvement process and bicycle parking demand studies. They are also tailored to the needs and aspirations of specific communities. The Title 21 Rewrite does not provide that level of analysis for Anchorage. Until the Bicycle Plan is completed, Title 21 should remain conservative to avoid problems that can arise from unnecessarily onerous regulations. Information provided by the Bicycle Plan’s project team (see August 28 issue-response memo) seems to support such a phased approach. Pending the completion and implementation of the Bicycle Plan, staff recommends that the bicycle parking requirement in the Title 21 Rewrite be a simple starter provision. Upon further examination, it appears that even the draft provision on page 94, lines 6-9 of the public hearing draft contains an accessory requirement that may be too high for some small businesses. Specifically, it states that any development that partakes of a parking reduction must provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. For example, if a small establishment providing doggie day care gets a parking reduction from a total of six required spaces down to 4 required spaces through the use of two on-street curb parking spaces, it would have to also provide 4 bicycle parking spaces. Does a tiny use that involves delivery of large goods (such as an animal) and which parks fewer than 6 patrons at a one time really need 4 bicycle parking spaces? It is not Planning and Zoning Commission Case 2007-153: Issue-Response for Chapter 21.07 sections 060F.15 and 090 October 13, 2008 Page 4 of 35 clear to staff, nor is there yet a guiding plan or policy basis to help decide. This kind of question is better left to the Bicycle Plan analysis, and in the meantime the public hearing draft provision should be simplified further.
Recommended publications
  • EXHIBIT B CPC Report N 190230 ZRY (Residential Tower
    EXHIBIT B CPC Report N 190230 ZRY (Residential Tower Mechanical Voids) CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 10, 2019, Calendar No. 11 N 190230 ZRY IN THE MATTER OF an application submitted by the Department of City Planning pursuant to Section 201 of the New York City Charter for an amendment of Article II, Chapter 3 and related provisions of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, modifying residential tower regulations to require certain mechanical spaces to be calculated as residential floor area. _____________________________________________________________________________ This application (N 190230 ZRY) for a zoning text amendment was filed by the Department of City Planning (DCP) on January 25, 2019 to discourage the use of excessively tall mechanical floors in high-density residential tower districts. The proposal would require that mechanical floors, typically excluded from zoning floor area calculations, would be counted toward the overall permitted floor area on the zoning lot if they are taller than new specified limits or overly concentrated in portions of the building. The proposed floor area requirements would apply to residential towers in non-contextual R9 and R10 Residence Districts and their equivalent Commercial Districts, as well as Special Purpose Districts that rely on underlying floor area and height and setback regulations or that are primarily residential in character. The provision would also apply to non-residential portions of a mixed-use building if the building contains a limited amount of non-residential floor area. BACKGROUND The New York City Zoning Resolution allows floor space containing mechanical equipment to be excluded from zoning floor area calculations, reflecting the recognition that these spaces perform important and necessary functions within buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Scope of Services Template
    November 2018 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR FINANCIAL PROJECT ID(S). To Be Determined by Task Work Order Continuing Services Existing Roadway Condition Assessment Report (ERCAR) Development District-Wide Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise 1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 6 3 PROJECT COMMON AND PROJECT GENERAL TASKS....................................... 34 4 ROADWAY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 44 5 ROADWAY PLANS .......................................................................................................... 51 6A DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 52 6B DRAINAGE PLANS .......................................................................................................... 56 7 UTILITIES .......................................................................................................................... 57 8 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS, COMPLIANCE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCES .................................................................................................................. 61 9 STRUCTURES - SUMMARY AND MISCELLANEOUS TASKS AND DRAWINGS .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Space Efficiency in Multi-Use Tall Building
    ctbuh.org/papers Title: Space Efficiency in Multi-Use Tall Building Authors: Mahjoub Elnimeiri, Research Associate, Illinois Institute of Technology Hyeong-Ill Kim, Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology Subject: Architectural/Design Keywords: Design Process Mixed-Use Planning Publication Date: 2004 Original Publication: CTBUH 2004 Seoul Conference Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Mahjoub Elnimeiri; Hyeong-Ill Kim Space Efficiency in Multi-Use Tall Building Hyeong-ill Kim1, Mahjoub Elnimeiri2, 1 Research Associate, College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology 2Professor, College of Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology Abstract This paper seeks to make a contribution to the development of the design strategies for multi-use tall buildings in relation to space efficiency of the building for architects, engineers and developers during their early phases of the design process. This research describes the complex challenges of a design development process influenced by vertically stacked functions. This paper addresses the important parameters in the design of multi-use tall buildings and their relationship to the space efficiency. Parameters including functions, lease span, floor-to-floor height, vertical transportation, site area, FAR(Floor Area Ratio), building height, number of floors, building size at the base and top, , aspect ratio, structural system were analyzed. Ten multi-use buildings were carefully surveyed and investigated through specific case studies. To achieve this comparative analysis, a comprehensive data base was established. Based on the results of the case studies, a set of quantitative analysis was performed to show relationship among design factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Single Family Dwelling Addition Handout 3-19
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT 25 W. FOURTH STREET WINNEMUCCA, NV 89446 (775) 623-6322 (775) 623-6337 – FAX hcnv.us (web site) [email protected] (e-mail) CITY OF WINNEMUCCA BUILDING DEPARTMENT 90 W. FOURTH STREET WINNEMUCCA, NV 89445 (775) 623-6319 (775) 623-6321 - FAX RESIDENTIAL ADDITION PERMIT GUIDE March 2019 GENERAL INFORMATION This guide outlines the requirements for obtaining a building permit to construct a residential addition in Humboldt County. In order to ensure that your application is processed in a timely manner, your submittal package must be complete. Once submitted, your plan package will require review and approval from the following County and State Agencies: Zoning Approval Humboldt County Planning & Zoning Department (Site Plan/Zoning Codes) 623-6393 Street Excavation Humboldt County Road Department 623-6416 Excavation permits are available from the Road Department for any excavation in a county road easement or right of Way Plan Review Humboldt County Building Department Flood Zone Area Review Humboldt County Building Department Water/Domestic Well Installation Shall be approved by Nevada State Water Resources (775) 684-2800 Nevada State Manufactured Housing Division (702) 486 – 4138 - Las Vegas Upon submitting your plans to the Building Department and prior to final inspection, the applicant will need to contact the Bureau of Health Protection Services for septic approval. Written approval shall be submitted to this office. Approval from water district or sewer districts is also required. We recommend you
    [Show full text]
  • Elevator Pressurization in Tall Buildings 2. Journal Paper Ctbuh
    ctbuh.org/papers Title: Elevator Pressurization in Tall Buildings Author: John H. Klote, Smoke and Fire Consulting Subjects: Fire & Safety Vertical Transportation Keywords: Fire Safety Vertical Transportation Publication Date: 2013 Original Publication: International Journal of High-Rise Buildings Volume 2 Number 4 Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / John H. Klote International Journal of High-Rise Buildings International Journal of December 2013, Vol 2, No 4, 341-344 High-Rise Buildings www.ctbuh-korea.org/ijhrb/index.php Elevator Pressurization in Tall Buildings John H. Klote† Smoke and Fire Consulting, 19355 Cypress Ridge Terrace, Leesburg, VA 20176, USA Abstract During a building fire, smoke can flow through elevator shafts threatening life on floors remote from the fire. Many buildings have pressurized elevators intended to prevent such smoke flow. The computer program, CONTAM, can be used to analyze the performance of pressurization smoke control systems. The design of pressurized elevators can be challenging for the following reasons: (1) often the building envelope is not capable of effectively handling the large airflow resulting from elevator pressurization, (2) open elevator doors on the ground floor tend to increase the flow from the elevator shaft at the ground floor, and (3) open exterior doors on the ground floor can cause excessive pressure differences across the elevator shaft at the ground floor. To meet these challenges, the following systems have been developed: (1) exterior vent (EV) system, (2) floor exhaust (FE) system, and ground floor lobby (GFL) system.
    [Show full text]
  • Thompson Center, Thompson Center Name of Multiple Property Listing N/A (Enter "N/A" If Property Is Not Part of a Multiple Property Listing)
    NPS Form 10900 OMB No. 10240018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name State of Illinois Center other names/site number James R. Thompson Center, Thompson Center Name of Multiple Property Listing N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) 2. Location street & number 100 West Randolph Street not for publication city or town Chicago vicinity state Illinois county Cook zip code 60601 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide local Applicable National Register Criteria: A B C D Signature of certifying official/Title: Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Date Illinois Department of Natural Resources - SHPO State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Schematic Design Narrative
    Valdez Middle School Project Project No.: 11‐310‐9507 City of Valdez Schematic Design Narrative June 27, 2012 ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS, INTERIOR DESIGNERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Valdez Middle School Schematic Design Submittal TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 2 Overview 3 Code Summary 5 Environmental Design Narrative 7 Geotechnical Narrative 8 Landscape Design Narrative 12 Civil Design Narrative 16 Architectural Narrative 19 Structural Design Narrative 21 Mechanical Design Narrative 22 Electrical Design Narrative 29 Appendix A: “Valdez Middle School Site Pre‐Demolition Hazardous Building Materials & Environmental Assessment” BETTISWORTH NORTH ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS 212 FRONT ST FAIRBANKS AK 99701 907 456 5780 1 Valdez Middle School Schematic Design Submittal ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Client City of Valdez P.O. Box 307, Valdez, AK 99686 John Hozey, City Manager Jack McCay, Project Manager Valdez City School District P.O. Box 398, Valdez, AK 99686 Jacob Jensen, Superintendent Rod Morrison, Junior High Principal Consultant Team Bettisworth North Architects and Planners (Architect/Landscape Architect) 212 Front Street, Fairbanks, AK 99701 Charles Bettisworth, Principal in Charge Tracy Vanairsdale, Principal, Project Manager Mark Kimerer, Project Landscape Architect DeJong‐Richter (Educational Specifications) 4945 Badenton Blvd., Suite B, Dublin, OH 43017 Bill DeJong, Principal Tracy Richter, Principal CRW Engineering Group, LLC (Civil) 3940 Arctic Blvd., #300, Anchorage, AK 99503 Pete Bellezza, Principal Civil Engineer BBFM Engineers Inc. (Structural) 510 L Street, Suite 200, Anchorage, AK 99501 Forrest T. Braun, Principal Structural Engineer RSA Engineering, Inc. (Mechanical/Electrical) 2522 Arctic Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503 Brian Pekar, Senior Mechanical Engineer Channing Lillo, Associate Principal Electrical Engineer Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Geotechnical) 2355 Hill Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709 Steve Adamczak, Principal Geotechnical Engineer NORTECH, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The-Noma-Offering-Plan Part3.Pdf
    210 211 EXHIBIT "4" DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 212 213 50 West 30th Street 50 West 30th Street, New York, NY ARCHITECT'S DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND SPECIFICATIONS 23 November 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE A. Location of Property ...........................................................................................................................2 B. Status of Construction .......................................................................................................................2 C. Site .............................................................................................................................................................2 D. Utilities ......................................................................................................................................................3 E. Sub-Surface Conditions .....................................................................................................................4 F. Streetscape & Enclosure ...................................................................................................................4 G. Building Size ...........................................................................................................................................4 H. Building Systems ..................................................................................................................................5 (1) Foundation ..................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Land Uses and Densities
    APPENDIX C PERMITTED LAND USES AND DENSITIES Section 1.0 Purpose and Intent Section 2.0 Scope Section 3.0 Definitions Section 4.0 Land Use Established Section 5.0 Standard Lot Dimensions by Land Use Section 6.0 Structure Height Section 7.0 Accessory Dwelling Units Section 8.0 Enforcement Section 9.0 Administrative Modifications of Standards Exhibit C-1 Land Use Categories 1.0 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this appendix is to encourage a variety of land uses, densities, and housing types to achieve the East VillageTALUS vision of an urban village, as described in the Planning Goals (Appendix A) and the Urban Village Design Guidelines (Appendix B). The standards set forth within this appendix are intended to guide the general location, bulk, and densities for the various land uses while allowing flexibility to respond to new and innovative approaches to an urban village setting. 2.0 Scope The provisions of this appendix shall apply to the East VillageTALUS Project. 3.0 Definitions 3.1. Accessory Dwelling Unit “Accessory Dwelling Unit” “(ADU)” means a room or set of rooms, either free standing, added onto or created within a single family residence. It generally includes living, sleeping, kitchen, and bathroom facilities, and has a lockable entrance. 3.2. Administrative Minor Modification “Administrative Modification” means those modifications to the East VillageTALUS Project meeting the standards and procedures for an administrative minor modification in Appendix K (Elections and Modifications), processed and approved pursuant to Appendix J (Processing). 3.3. Administrative Review “Administrative Review” means the administrative process established in Appendix J (Processing) of the East VillageTALUS Development Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • STANDARD PLAN RELEASE SUMMARY(SPR) Physical Facilities Department
    STANDARD PLAN RELEASE SUMMARY(SPR) Physical Facilities Department Building Design: Legacy 98 Release Date: November 2003 Release Number: 9 Summarized below is a list of modifications made to the Standard Plans, which are applicable to the Building Design indicated. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or detailed in nature, but is a tool for Project Managers and their consultants to quickly identify the changes made since the last Standard Plan Update. The Priority Level is intended to identify four levels of implementation for current projects in the late design phase or construction phase. Current projects in the planning phase or early design phase should incorporate all Changes where applicable. Level 1 - Critical Priority: Implement Change even if building is near Substantial Completion; Level 2 - High Priority: Implement Change even when Change may require minor additional cost - if Change will require significant additional cost or time, Change is left to PM's discretion; Level 3 - Standard Priority: Implement Change at PM's sole discretion. Level 4 - Low Priority: Implement Change as appropriate to phase of project. Change should not affect cost or schedule. Affected Affected Item Sheet No's SPC Spec. Description No. and Detail No. Section No's Priority Level A1.1, A2.1, Entry Storefronts: Changed the configuration of the entry 1 A2.2, A3.3, 861.3 storefronts at Vestibules 109 &148 to reduce the size of the center A5.2 lite to avoid the look of an additional door. Restroom Bench: Changed the wood bench in restrooms 127 & 2 A6.6 880 128 to 1 inch solid plastic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hows, Whats and Wows of the Willis Tower a Guide for Teachers Skydeck Chicago
    THE HOWS, WHATS AND WOWS OF THE WILLIS TOWER A GUIDE FOR TEACHERS SKYDECK CHICAGO PROPERTY MANAGED BY U.S. EQUITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC WELCOME TO SKYDECK CHICAGO AT WILLIS TOWER THE NATION’S TALLEST SCHOOL When you get back to your school, we hope your students will send us photos or write or create There are enough impressive facts about the Willis artwork about their experiences and share them Tower to make even the most worldly among us with us (via email or the mailing address at the end say, “Wow!” So many things at the Willis Tower can of this guide). We’ve got 110 stories already, and we be described by a superlative: biggest, fastest, would like to add your students’ experiences to our longest. But there is more to the building than all collection. these “wows”: 1,450 sky-scraping, cloud-bumping feet of glass and steel, 43,000 miles of telephone One photo will be selected as the “Photo of the cable, 25,000 miles of plumbing, 4.56 million Day” and displayed on our Skydeck monitors for all square feet of floor space and a view of four states. to see. Artwork and writing will posted on bulletin boards in the lunchroom area. Your students also Behind the “wows” are lots of “hows” and “whats” can post their Skydeck Chicago photos to the Willis for you and your students to explore. In this Tower or Skydeck Chicago pages on flickr, a free guide you will be introduced to the building—its public photo-sharing site: http://www.flickr.com/ beginnings as the Sears Tower and its design, photos/tags/willistower/ or http://www.flickr.com/ construction and place in the pantheon of photos/skydeckchicago/ skyscrapers.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
    NISTNCSTAR1-2A Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers William J. Fasclian Ridiard B. Garlocl< National Institute of Standards and Technology Technology Administrofion • U.S. Deportment of Commerce NIST NCSTAR 1-2A Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers William J. Faschan Richard B. Garlock Leslie E. Robertson Associates. R.L.L.P. September 2005 i % U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary Technology Administration Michelle O'Neill. Acting Under Secretary for Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology William Jeffrey, Director Abstract • Development of estimates of design gravity and wmd loads on the towers for implementation into the reference structural models and use in the baseline perfonnance analysis. Various wind load cases were considered in this study, including wind loads used in the original WTC design, wind loads based on two recent wind tunnel studies conducted in 2002 by Cennak Peterka Peterson, Inc. (CPP) and Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin, Inc. (RWDl) for insurance litigation concerning the towers, and refined wind load estimates developed by NIST from critical assessment of infonnation obtained from the CPP and RWDl reports and state-of-the-art considerations. The following three loading cases were considered for the baseline perfonnance analysis: - Original WTC design loads case. Loads included dead and live loads as in original WTC design in conjunction with original WTC design wind loads. - Slate-of-the-practice case.
    [Show full text]