There are approximately sixteen local municipalities in the United States that require periodic exterior wall or building facade inspections. Some such as the recent addition of Jersey City, NJ require structural inspections as well. The requirements of each of these rules vary, including inspection frequency, hands-on or close-up requirements, sample spacing and more.
Nearly all have been implemented through a reactionary regulatory process. An incident occurs causing physical and possibly even fatal injury to an innocent pedestrian, press conferences are held, building owners’ scruples are questioned, and additional inspection requirements are imposed.
New York City lead this movement with the passage of one of the first laws in 1980 after a woman named Grace Gold was killed. In the wake of the collapse of the Champlain Condominium in Surfside Florida in June 2021, additional measures were added across the country.
Still, is this enough? If the process was not reactionary, would a different regulatory regime be superior to the one that we have today? Often the only tool for regulators is to impose more inspection. Other tools are requirements for fixing potentially unsafe conditions within specified timeframes with monetary penalties for not doing so.
With all of these tools deployed, technology often goes overlooked. New York commendably issued a bulletin authorizing the use of artificial intelligence as a supplement to their inspection requirements. Singapore has addressed the use of both drone technology and AI to reduce inspection cost and increase inspection coverage. Ultimately, the goal should be to align the building owner’s interest in reducing deferred maintenance and inspection cost with the objective of reducing risks to pedestrian safety and building occupants.