JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,644
- Reaction score
- 1,510
Pardon me for being the contrarian, but are these fires actually a problem? Or is all this risk already accurately priced into insurance. Yes, it's awful and wasteful when under construction buildings burn. In the perfect world this would never happen and cost effective measures should be taken to prevent it.
But as far as I know, Greater Boston has seen two significant fires in under construction buildings over the course of this entire building boom. It just so happens that they both came within about a month of each other. How many large wood frame buildings have been built in this time? I'm guessing about 100 across the whole metro since the end of the Recession. Is 2% actually bad? Do we have any reason to believe this is a higher loss rate than insurers expect?
Sure, we can point to additional fires if we expand the scope beyond Boston, but as we expand the numerator in our loss calculation we also have to expand the denominator. Is there any evidence (beyond the recent anecdoes) that building fires are becoming more problematic than previously anticipated?
And as far as fires putting people in danger, aren't there ways in which wood frame construction is safer for workers too? These fires have had no serious injuries. Meanwhile, off the top of my head I can remember one worker crushed by a steel beam a few years ago on a project in Eastie and another killed by a construction elevator collapse on the Partners building at Assembly. There was also that steel collapse at the AVA Theater District that seriously injured some workers. These accidents were all the result of steel construction, and there were surely more that I can't remember off the top of my head. I'm not saying that steel construction is thus absolutely more dangerous (these are all anecdotes too), but all construction has its risks and from a worker safety point of view it may be misguided to push for steel over wood.
Again, obviously it would be better if these never happen. But developers have insurance for a reason, and all insurers fully expect that they'll have to pay out on losses from time to time. When designing policy, the whole big picture deserves more consideration than the spectacle of two dramatic fires in one month.
But as far as I know, Greater Boston has seen two significant fires in under construction buildings over the course of this entire building boom. It just so happens that they both came within about a month of each other. How many large wood frame buildings have been built in this time? I'm guessing about 100 across the whole metro since the end of the Recession. Is 2% actually bad? Do we have any reason to believe this is a higher loss rate than insurers expect?
Sure, we can point to additional fires if we expand the scope beyond Boston, but as we expand the numerator in our loss calculation we also have to expand the denominator. Is there any evidence (beyond the recent anecdoes) that building fires are becoming more problematic than previously anticipated?
And as far as fires putting people in danger, aren't there ways in which wood frame construction is safer for workers too? These fires have had no serious injuries. Meanwhile, off the top of my head I can remember one worker crushed by a steel beam a few years ago on a project in Eastie and another killed by a construction elevator collapse on the Partners building at Assembly. There was also that steel collapse at the AVA Theater District that seriously injured some workers. These accidents were all the result of steel construction, and there were surely more that I can't remember off the top of my head. I'm not saying that steel construction is thus absolutely more dangerous (these are all anecdotes too), but all construction has its risks and from a worker safety point of view it may be misguided to push for steel over wood.
Again, obviously it would be better if these never happen. But developers have insurance for a reason, and all insurers fully expect that they'll have to pay out on losses from time to time. When designing policy, the whole big picture deserves more consideration than the spectacle of two dramatic fires in one month.