c,

I do not believe the scaffold guys should be forced to wear their masks. 
I believe that they should be educated to know the consequences of their 
work environment. A hard hat can be seen from the ground, a dust mask 
not over the nose is difficult to spot. Problem with the cheaper dust 
masks is that one cannot breath very easily with them. A more expensive 
dust mask can be provided that is more inducive to comfortable use. The 
dust masks being used are inappropriate to the task. They are 
uncomfortable and restrict breathing. I would not want to have to work 
and wear one myself.

As to interior work on the public schools it would be nearly impossible 
to put the kids elsewhere for the duration of the work. We looked at a 
project in Hartford recently where the college says that they are going 
to house the students in a hotel for the next year. There are no other 
or enough buildings available in the urban environment to relocate the 
school process. Parents would likely freak in Brooklyn if their children 
were daily shipped off to a facility in NJ.

The interior work seems to be handled through the custodial - 
maintenance angle and the custodians have a very strong say over what 
happens in their areas of control.

][<


[log in to unmask] wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/2007 7:51:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>     I was at a NYC school project yesterday.
>
> Ken, I also went to a NYC school project (the day before) yesterday.  
> It was a classroom of kids making lizards out of papier mache. (I was 
> picking up the Komodo dragon from my wife's classroom because she is 
> afraid of Komodo dragons.)  This is one of those crisp, optimistic, 
> we-can-change-the-world C. B. J. Snyder H-plan schools, behing the 
> Museum of the City of New York.  About ten? years ago it got the top 
> to bottom masonry treatment that has been progressing around the 
> public schools - indeed, I believe they just took all the brick off, 
> and replaced all.  Which was a waste, as far as I was concerned, and I 
> imagine the union thought the same but why say anything?  
>  
> At any rate, PS 171 has a pristine (indeed, too pristine) exterior but 
> inside ... all the wonderful old transoms and plywooded up, the paint 
> on the woodwork and trim rests in globs (and I am sure the woodwork 
> was originally "natural"), the hardware is dinged up, the beautiful 
> 1903 tiles are abused etc. etc.  If you believe in the healing power 
> of architecture, these kids are completely missing it.
>  
> I assume that is the case because a) the needless exterior work is 
> done for "safety" (they don't want a loose brick falling and killing a 
> little kid in the courtyard ooops the courtyards are full of teachers' 
> cars never mind)  and b) it is easy for big firms to bid masonry work, 
> but hard to do so for the interior restoration work that is "only 
> cosmetic."
>  
> Your opinion, maestro?                                    yrs  hall 
> monitor
>  
> PS  And, do you think the scaffold guys should be forced to wear their 
> masks?

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>