We attended the NIST briefing yesterday in NYC on probable
causes of the WTC towers' collapse. The material presented
and much more is available:
http://wtc.nist.gov
It was a very high-quality two-hour report on what appears to be an
exceptionally comprehensive and informative investigation,
as NIST stated, unprecedented in scope and thoroughness.
None of the NIST recommendations have yet been implemented
as a result of the investigation. Best advice from the podium:
"hope no plane attack occurs, for no buildings are designed to
withstand that, and it is not likely they will be."
However, it was admitted that each high-rise will have to
be studied individually to determine vulnerabilities despite the
NIST and other investigations.
We asked if NIST would be withholding any information due
to national security concerns or due to the hazard of revealing
vulnerabilities of existing high-rises. Answer: no.
That would be a refreshing change from other governmental
studies of the 9/11 attack all of which have elected to withhold
information from the public as well as design professionals.
NIST promised to send us more information on the team's
methodoloy, information gathering, and public dissemination.
Related topic:
There appeared to be few architects present at the briefing,
perhaps none besides we two. And there was no recommendation
by the local AIA to attend the briefing if for no other reason than for
continuing education, which is regrettable for the excellent material
far surpassed the banal, inept, demoralizing, back-slapping
continuing ed offerings at the AIA.
Inattention to the NIST investigation is more evidence that there
is likely a scandal brewing about continuing ed of architect, due
to the excreable CE offerings, the shallow product promotionals,
the vanity showings of mediocre work, the variable credits
for mandatory education, particularly for HSW (health,
safety and welfare).
No notable architects have been seen at the AIA offerings
and it is probable they are being given credit for attending
private offerings at their firms, either by their own staff,
by consultants or by vendors. Perhaps they credit themselves
though that is supposed to be prohibited unless certified as
a CE provider.
It is inexcusable that the NIST presentation was overlooked,
for what could be more relavent for HSW compared to
uninformative attendance at peurile presentations of what
should be seen as embarrassing projects is encouraged
with the lure of free snacks and liquor and, not least,
unjustified HSW credits.
My experience with continuing education over the past two
registration periods is that about 10% of the offerings provide
substantial education, the rest are illusionary time-wasters.
Now, I can understand if these lax standards are a honeymoon
period to coax architects back to the classroom, but that should
be made clear to the public, along with an account of when the
standards are going to be raised to a meaningful level. Otherwise
the press is going to pick up on this shoddy misrepresentation,
as the kind of illusion politicians, public officials and famous
architects commonly exhibit in lieu of competency and
accountability, not only at the WTC long-term negligence and
now rebuilding.
With other states who require continuting education as a
condition of registration, the New York State Board for Architecture
needs to assess continuing ed at the AIA, private offerings within
offices, and anywhere else non-compliant, and worse, self-certified,
lousy continuing education is being passed off as the real thing so
greatly needed.
John Young
Natsios-Young Architects
Tel: 212-873-8700
causes of the WTC towers' collapse. The material presented
and much more is available:
http://wtc.nist.gov
It was a very high-quality two-hour report on what appears to be an
exceptionally comprehensive and informative investigation,
as NIST stated, unprecedented in scope and thoroughness.
None of the NIST recommendations have yet been implemented
as a result of the investigation. Best advice from the podium:
"hope no plane attack occurs, for no buildings are designed to
withstand that, and it is not likely they will be."
However, it was admitted that each high-rise will have to
be studied individually to determine vulnerabilities despite the
NIST and other investigations.
We asked if NIST would be withholding any information due
to national security concerns or due to the hazard of revealing
vulnerabilities of existing high-rises. Answer: no.
That would be a refreshing change from other governmental
studies of the 9/11 attack all of which have elected to withhold
information from the public as well as design professionals.
NIST promised to send us more information on the team's
methodoloy, information gathering, and public dissemination.
Related topic:
There appeared to be few architects present at the briefing,
perhaps none besides we two. And there was no recommendation
by the local AIA to attend the briefing if for no other reason than for
continuing education, which is regrettable for the excellent material
far surpassed the banal, inept, demoralizing, back-slapping
continuing ed offerings at the AIA.
Inattention to the NIST investigation is more evidence that there
is likely a scandal brewing about continuing ed of architect, due
to the excreable CE offerings, the shallow product promotionals,
the vanity showings of mediocre work, the variable credits
for mandatory education, particularly for HSW (health,
safety and welfare).
No notable architects have been seen at the AIA offerings
and it is probable they are being given credit for attending
private offerings at their firms, either by their own staff,
by consultants or by vendors. Perhaps they credit themselves
though that is supposed to be prohibited unless certified as
a CE provider.
It is inexcusable that the NIST presentation was overlooked,
for what could be more relavent for HSW compared to
uninformative attendance at peurile presentations of what
should be seen as embarrassing projects is encouraged
with the lure of free snacks and liquor and, not least,
unjustified HSW credits.
My experience with continuing education over the past two
registration periods is that about 10% of the offerings provide
substantial education, the rest are illusionary time-wasters.
Now, I can understand if these lax standards are a honeymoon
period to coax architects back to the classroom, but that should
be made clear to the public, along with an account of when the
standards are going to be raised to a meaningful level. Otherwise
the press is going to pick up on this shoddy misrepresentation,
as the kind of illusion politicians, public officials and famous
architects commonly exhibit in lieu of competency and
accountability, not only at the WTC long-term negligence and
now rebuilding.
With other states who require continuting education as a
condition of registration, the New York State Board for Architecture
needs to assess continuing ed at the AIA, private offerings within
offices, and anywhere else non-compliant, and worse, self-certified,
lousy continuing education is being passed off as the real thing so
greatly needed.
John Young
Natsios-Young Architects
Tel: 212-873-8700