[42025] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re: Rumor Control, Indeed (was: Re: Rumor Control: Re: 60 hudson may collapse..
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Thu Sep 13 03:59:42 2001
From: Frank Coluccio <fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com>
To: perry@piermont.com
Cc: fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com, sean@donelan.com, nanog@merit.edu,
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 07:04:48 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1000364688.303fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On the construction of 60 Hudson, Perry Piermont wrote:
>>It is not a windowless telecom building -- it was
originally a western union office building that slowly
evolved into its current role.<<
Good point, 60 Hudson is not windowless <except, in parts, where the windows have
been plugged up ;> But from my recall of its details it was built to the
same 'fortress-like' standards as 32 Sixth Avenue and other classical telco-grade
buildings of the era. But true, its design precedes windowless COs by about
thirty years ;)
>
> Frank Coluccio <fcoluccio@dticonsulting.com> writes:
> > Like 140 West Street (adjacent to where 7 WTC once stood), 60H is a
> > brick shit house.
>
> 60 Hudson is not properly built for its role, actually. It is not a
> windowless telecom building -- it was originally a western union
> office building that slowly evolved into its current role. Most of
> the nearby telecom buildings are indeed windowless and designed to
> take punishment, but 60 is not. I recall on many occasions pointing
> it out to friends and noting you could see racked equipment through
> its numerous windows.
>
> It may (or may not) be perfectly true that it is safe, but its design
> has nothing to do with that safety -- only its position during this
> incident.
>
> Perry
>
