Sidewalk Shed Designs

Online comments: 3

• Brian Lawson

  Beneath the towers, where the concrete meets the sky,
  A sidewalk shed has stood, and stood, and stood nearby.
  Through winters, rain, and summers hot,
  It seems to claim the sidewalk as its permanent lot.
   
  But now a new design is coming to town,
  With lighter lines and more space around.
  More sunlight above, more room below,
  A cleaner, brighter way for New York to go.

  Comment added August 21, 2026 9:25am

• Yosep Blake Bak - NYS PE 107881

  COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE – RULES REGARDING SIDEWALK SHED DESIGNS

  Reference: DOB-219 / 2026 RG 060
  Submitted by: Yosep Blake Bak, P.E., New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881
  Capacity: Individual

  I am a New York State licensed professional engineer commenting in an individual capacity. I am not alleging misconduct by any individual, consultant, contractor, architect, engineer, firm, or City employee. My concern is whether the technical record presently available is sufficiently complete and auditable to support making these six designs regulatory standard designs.

  I support the objective of Local Law 47 of 2025: improving the pedestrian experience without diminishing the safety of sidewalk sheds. I also support providing registered design professionals with standardized alternatives to conventional pipe-and-plywood sheds.

  My concern is what the proposed rule does with the City’s engineering.

  1. THE PROPOSED RULE MAKES THE UNDERLYING ENGINEERING MATERIAL TO THE PUBLIC RECORD

  Proposed 1 RCNY 3307-03 would allow a registered design professional to use one of six Department-developed Standard Design Packages. More importantly, proposed Section 3307-03(d)(3)(i) provides that, where an installation otherwise conforms to the selected Standard Design Package, no further analysis of the Building Code Chapter 16 design loads incorporated into that package is required.

  That is materially different from merely publishing conceptual reference drawings.

  If the regulated professional is permitted to rely upon the City’s standardized Chapter 16 engineering without independently reproducing that analysis, the underlying structural calculations and design basis should be available for independent professional review.

  I reviewed all six currently published packages:

  Air Shed, PPD-A1 through PPD-A11;
  Baseline Shed, PPD-B0 through PPD-B16;
  Flex Shed, PPD-F1 through PPD-F11;
  Rigid Shed, PPD-R1 through PPD-R13;
  Speed Shed, PPD-S0 through PPD-S5; and
  Wide Baseline Shed, PPD-W0 through PPD-W10.

  The packages contain substantial drawings, schedules, details, notes and specifications. However, the underlying calculation reports are not included in the published drawing packages. The drawings therefore do not allow an independent engineer to reproduce the member design, connection design, anchorage design, stability analysis, robustness analysis, or governing load combinations on which the standardized system is based.

  I am not asking DOB to require every applicant to redo the City’s engineering. I am asking DOB to publish the engineering upon which the applicant is being permitted to rely.

  2. THESE ARE NOT JUST DRAWINGS: THE PACKAGES DELEGATE OR DEFER SIGNIFICANT ENGINEERING

  The issue becomes clearer when the six packages are read as construction documents rather than renderings.

  The Air Shed describes a structural system attached to the existing building and states that the building tie-back and its load path must be verified by the project Engineer of Record. [Air Shed PPD-A3 and PPD-A6]

  The Flex Shed describes its lateral and gravity resistance as a rigid moment-frame structure, with beam-to-column moment connections and an in-plane diaphragm distributing loads to the frame. Its base-plate and anchorage detail expressly leaves final anchorage design to the Engineer of Record. [Flex Shed PPD-F3 and PPD-F10]

  The Rigid Shed similarly establishes a rigid moment-frame system and contains extensive steel fabrication, welding, bolting and anchorage requirements. [Rigid Shed PPD-R2 and PPD-R3]

  The Wide Baseline Shed uses substantial steel framing, including open-web steel joists, Vierendeel truss panels, girders and adjustable post groups, and provides separate scaffold-support conditions. [Wide Baseline PPD-W1 through PPD-W4]

  The Speed Shed uses structural aluminum and post-installed anchors and expressly states:

  “NET ATTACHMENTS: TO BE DEVELOPED.”

  It also requires stamped engineering drawings and calculations for the contractor-engineered T-slotted aluminum framing and building connections. [Speed Shed PPD-S1]

  That statement is difficult to reconcile with treating the package as a completed standardized design without identifying exactly what remains outside the City’s standardized engineering.

  The Baseline and Wide Baseline packages also contain literal specification placeholders, including “GUTTER – INSERT SPEC” and, in the Wide Baseline package, “INSERT SPEC” entries for certain decking products. [Baseline PPD-B1; Wide Baseline PPD-W1]

  These may be straightforward editorial or procurement items, but that is precisely why the final rulemaking record should identify whether these entries are placeholders awaiting completion, references to external specifications, or intentionally delegated project-specific components.

  3. VEHICULAR IMPACT AND ALTERNATE LOAD PATH

  Building Code Section 3307.6.4.2.3 addresses vehicular impact. It requires a sidewalk shed to be designed or protected against vehicular impact. One compliance path requires an alternative load path for each vertical member so that loss of a vertical member does not result in global or localized failure of the shed. The Code also identifies specific alternatives involving physical protection of vertical members.

  The proposed rule states that the applicable requirements of Section 3307.6 remain applicable except where specifically modified by the rule. [Proposed 1 RCNY 3307-03(d)(3)]

  I therefore request that DOB identify, for every Standard Design Package, how Section 3307.6.4.2.3 is satisfied.

  Specifically, the rulemaking record should state:

  (a) whether the design relies upon alternate load path analysis or physical vehicle protection;

  (b) the vehicle-impact condition assumed;

  (c) the vertical-member loss scenario analyzed;

  (d) the resulting load path;

  (e) the localized and global stability checks; and

  (f) the calculations demonstrating compliance.

  This is especially important for the packages that reduce the number of vertical supports or rely upon rigid moment-frame behavior.

  Calling a frame a “moment frame” describes a structural system. It does not by itself demonstrate robustness following the loss of a vertical member.

  New York City has a large volume of vehicular traffic immediately adjacent to sidewalk sheds, including trucks operating in the roadway. The engineering question is therefore not theoretical: the public record should demonstrate what happens to the standardized structure when a curb-side support is struck.

  Reference: NYC Building Code §3307.6.4.2.3; City Council Int. 0970-2023, §5.

  4. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AND SECTION 1619

  The standard packages raise a separate question concerning temporary-structure design.

  NYC Building Code §1619.3.3 provides that temporary construction installations do not need to consider seismic design and, except for supports of excavation, are to be designed for a minimum 2 percent of dead and live load as a service-level lateral force in lieu of seismic forces. The same section permits a reduction in basic wind speed for temporary construction installations by a factor of 0.8, subject to the Code’s exceptions. Section 1619.5 addresses action plans when reduced environmental loads are used.

  Several of the City’s standard packages expressly state that the temporary-construction wind-speed reduction was not used.

  For example, the Baseline package states:

  “IN ORDER TO AVOID ACTION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT, NO REDUCTION IN WIND LOADING HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN. WIND LOADS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ASSUMING INSTALLATIONS ARE PERMANENT.”

  The Air and Rigid packages contain substantially similar statements, and the Speed and Wide Baseline packages also state that the temporary-construction wind-speed reduction is not considered. [Baseline PPD-B1; Air PPD-A2; Rigid PPD-R2; Speed PPD-S1; Wide Baseline PPD-W1]

  At the same time, the packages contain 2 percent notional lateral-load provisions and, in some cases, also publish seismic design parameters.

  I am not asserting that DOB is prohibited from designing these systems more conservatively than the minimum temporary-construction provisions. I am asking DOB to explain the classification and design methodology.

  For each Standard Design Package, please identify:

  (a) whether the shed is being treated as a temporary structure or temporary construction installation for purposes of Section 1619;

  (b) whether Section 1619.3.3 or 1619.4.3 was considered;

  (c) whether the stated 2 percent lateral force is intended to operate in lieu of seismic design under Section 1619;

  (d) why permanent-level wind design was selected instead of the permitted temporary-construction reduction;

  (e) whether avoiding an action-plan requirement was a design objective; and

  (f) the cost, material, inspection and installation consequences of that decision.

  These are not minor code questions. The City’s own notes explicitly identify action-plan avoidance as the reason for the selected wind methodology.

  References: NYC Building Code §§1619.3.3, 1619.3.4, 1619.5, and 1619.4.3/1619.4.4 as applicable.

  5. SPECIAL INSPECTION AND ENGINEERING BURDEN

  The proposed rule expressly provides that sidewalk sheds installed under the rule remain subject to all applicable special inspection requirements, including welding, bolts and steel fabrication. [Proposed 1 RCNY 3307-03(h)]

  That requirement is material because several of these designs introduce structural systems that require substantially more fabrication and connection control than the conventional pipe-and-plywood shed.

  The Air, Baseline, Flex, Rigid and Wide Baseline packages contain structural steel, bolted and/or welded connections and post-installed anchor requirements. The packages expressly reference NYC Building Code special-inspection requirements. [Air PPD-A2; Baseline PPD-B1; Flex PPD-F2; Rigid PPD-R2; Wide Baseline PPD-W1]

  The Speed package uses structural aluminum and post-installed anchors and separately requires engineering calculations for portions of the system. [Speed PPD-S1]

  NYC Building Code §1705.2 establishes special-inspection requirements for applicable steel construction, including steel fabrication, welding and bolting. Section 1705.37 establishes inspection requirements for post-installed anchors.

  I therefore request that DOB publish a special-inspection matrix for each of the six designs identifying:

  (a) fabrication inspection;

  (b) welding inspection;

  (c) high-strength-bolt inspection;

  (d) post-installed-anchor inspection;

  (e) continuous versus periodic inspection where applicable;

  (f) required inspector qualifications;

  (g) required inspection documentation; and

  (h) which requirements are triggered only by project-specific materials or configurations.

  Reference: NYC Building Code §§1705.2 and 1705.37; Proposed 1 RCNY 3307-03(h).

  6. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ENTRANCES

  The packages contain numerous detailed conditions for corners, sidewalk obstructions, variable widths and structural adjustments.

  For example, the Baseline package specifically identifies means of ingress/egress, vehicular access points, subway entrances, vault access points and other obstructions that must be identified on site-specific plans. [Baseline PPD-B1 and PPD-B10]

  The Baseline package also includes special scaffold and access-platform arrangements. [Baseline PPD-B6]

  The Wide Baseline package likewise addresses corners, obstructions and wide-span conditions. [Wide Baseline PPD-W6 and PPD-W7]

  I did not identify a comparably developed standardized design condition for the interface between the shed and a typical building entrance/accessway.

  Because the stated objective is to create repeatable standard designs, DOB should clarify the minimum requirements for maintaining compliant pedestrian circulation, building entrance access and means of egress where the standardized geometry conflicts with an entrance or other required pedestrian route.

  If the entrance/accessway design is intentionally left entirely to the project-specific registered design professional, the rule should state that explicitly.

  7. SPECIFICATIONS AND DEFERRED DESIGN INFORMATION

  A design package intended for repeated regulatory use should make clear which portions are complete and which are intentionally delegated.

  Examples include:

  (a) Speed Shed: “NET ATTACHMENTS: TO BE DEVELOPED.” [Speed PPD-S1]

  (b) Baseline Shed: “GUTTER – INSERT SPEC.” [Baseline PPD-B1]

  (c) Wide Baseline Shed: “INSERT SPEC” for certain decking components and “GUTTER – INSERT SPEC.” [Wide Baseline PPD-W1]

  (d) Flex Shed: final base-plate and anchorage design is expressly assigned to the project Engineer of Record. [Flex PPD-F10]

  (e) Air Shed: building tie-back/load-path verification remains a project-specific engineering responsibility. [Air PPD-A3/A6]

  I recognize that site-specific engineering is necessary. My concern is the distinction between a completed standard design and a framework that still requires substantial design to be supplied elsewhere.

  DOB should publish a schedule identifying, for every package, every deferred submittal, delegated design item, external specification, manufacturer requirement, product approval, calculation and testing requirement incorporated by reference.

  8. THE ECONOMIC CLAIM SHOULD INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION COST

  The City selected Arup US and Practice for Architecture and Urbanism to produce six new designs as part of the “Get Sheds Down” initiative. The City’s February 29, 2024 announcement described the designs as “more cost-efficient,” and the Mayor’s Office of Operations certified under Charter §1043(d) that the proposed rule minimizes compliance costs consistent with the rule’s purpose.

  The City Council’s published financial materials identify a $3.5 million two-year contract for the new shed-design program.

  The relevant contract records are:

  ARUP: CT181020248807295

  PAU: CT181020248807353

  I am not alleging that these contracts were improper. I am asking that the economic analysis be transparent.

  A valid comparison with conventional pipe-and-plywood sheds should not compare only the physical cost of steel, aluminum or decking. It should also account for:

  engineering;
  fabrication;
  welding;
  bolting;
  anchor design and installation;
  special inspections;
  testing;
  erection;
  field adjustment;
  maintenance;
  replacement;
  scaffold-support engineering where applicable; and
  removal and sidewalk repair.

  For a program justified in part on cost efficiency, DOB should publish the methodology and assumptions used to conclude that each new design is economical for the regulated community.

  References: NYC Mayor’s Office, February 29, 2024 announcement concerning Arup US and PAU; NYC Charter §1043(d); NYC Council financial materials concerning the $3.5 million two-year sidewalk-shed design contract.

  9. THE LOCAL LAW 47 REPORT AND CHARTER §1133

  The proposed rule states that the six Standard Design Packages were developed from the Department’s 2025 sidewalk shed design study required by Local Law 47 of 2025.

  City Charter §1133 requires City agencies to post publications on the Government Publications Portal.

  The Department should therefore identify the Local Law 47 study and recommendations by title, date and publication location, and identify the complete set of technical deliverables that materially informed the six designs.

  The Government Publications Portal search history associated with the Local Law 47 sidewalk-shed report should also be made clear, including any late-publication history.

  The City’s public drawings are not equivalent to the complete technical record supporting those drawings.

  10. ONE ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION QUESTION

  The proposed rule describes all six items as “Standard Sidewalk Shed Designs.”

  However, the Air Shed drawing package itself describes Air Shed as a “NON-SIDEWALK LEVEL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION SYSTEM ATTACHED TO EXISTING BUILDING.” [Air PPD-A3]

  The City’s February 29, 2024 announcement likewise described the overall six-design program as including four sidewalk-level shed options and two non-sidewalk-level pedestrian safety equipment options.

  DOB should therefore clarify the legal and technical classification of each of the six packages and explain how the Air Shed fits within the proposed rule’s definition of a “standard sidewalk shed.”

  11. REQUESTED ACTION

  Before adopting the rule, I respectfully request that DOB:

  1. Place the complete engineering calculation packages for all six designs into the rulemaking record.

  2. Publish the structural, connection, anchorage, stability and robustness calculations supporting each standardized configuration.

  3. Publish the vehicular-impact and alternate-load-path analysis required by NYC Building Code §3307.6.4.2.3.

  4. Explain the application of NYC Building Code Chapter 16 and Section 1619 to each design, including the 2 percent lateral-load provision, seismic treatment, wind-load methodology and action-plan implications.

  5. Identify every delegated, deferred, external or placeholder specification and make the complete referenced information available.

  6. Publish a special-inspection matrix for each design.

  7. Identify the minimum standardized pedestrian-access and entrance requirements.

  8. Publish the methodology supporting the City’s conclusion that these designs minimize compliance costs, including engineering and special-inspection costs.

  9. Identify the Local Law 47 study, recommendations and material technical deliverables in the public rulemaking record and Government Publications Portal.

  10. If any material engineering or other technical deliverable was not available for public review at the time of the proposed rule, publish it and provide a meaningful opportunity for public comment before final adoption.

  CONCLUSION

  I support the City’s effort to improve sidewalk sheds and to provide registered design professionals with standardized alternatives to the conventional pipe-and-plywood system.

  My objection is not to modern materials or to the use of rigid frames, cantilevers, Vierendeel systems, aluminum framing, transparent decking or other engineering approaches.

  My concern is that the proposed rule would allow professionals to rely upon standardized Chapter 16 engineering without independently reproducing that analysis, while the public drawing packages contain substantial delegated engineering and, in at least several locations, literal deferred or placeholder information.

  The Department’s own documents demonstrate that these are not merely aesthetic redesigns. They introduce new structural systems, building connections, anchorages, fabrication requirements, inspection requirements, scaffold-support arrangements and project-specific engineering obligations.

  That makes the engineering record important.

  I therefore ask DOB to complete and disclose the technical record before making these designs part of the City’s regulatory framework. Doing so would not undermine the program. It would make the program safer, more defensible, easier for engineers to use correctly, easier for DOB to enforce consistently, and consistent with the Department’s stated objective of providing clear and consistent requirements to the regulated community.

  Respectfully submitted,

  Yosep Blake Bak, P.E.
  New York State Professional Engineer, License No. 107881

  REFERENCES PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE AS OF 2026/09/02:

  1. NYC Department of Buildings, Proposed Rule – Rules Regarding Sidewalk Shed Designs, DOB-219 / 2026 RG 060, proposed 1 RCNY §3307-03, including §§3307-03(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m).
  https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Proposed-Rule-Rules-regarding-Sidewalk-Shed-Designs.pdf

  2. NYC Department of Buildings, Air Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-A1 through PPD-A11, particularly PPD-A2, PPD-A3 and PPD-A6.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/air-shed-design.pdf

  3. NYC Department of Buildings, Baseline Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-B0 through PPD-B16, particularly PPD-B1, PPD-B6 and PPD-B10.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/baseline-shed-design.pdf

  4. NYC Department of Buildings, Flex Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-F1 through PPD-F11, particularly PPD-F3 and PPD-F10.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/flex-shed-design.pdf

  5. NYC Department of Buildings, Rigid Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-R1 through PPD-R13, particularly PPD-R2 and PPD-R3.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/rigid-shed-design.pdf

  6. NYC Department of Buildings, Speed Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-S0 through PPD-S5, particularly PPD-S1.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/speed-shed-design.pdf

  7. NYC Department of Buildings, Wide Baseline Shed, Pedestrian Protection Designs, PPD-W0 through PPD-W10, particularly PPD-W1, PPD-W4, PPD-W6 and PPD-W7.
  https://www.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/wide-shed-design.pdf

  8. NYC Building Code §3307.6.4.2.3, Vehicular Impact.
  https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-186183

  9. NYC Building Code §§1619.3.3, 1619.3.4, 1619.4.3 and 1619.5, temporary structures and temporary construction installations.
  https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-178089

  10. NYC Building Code §§1705.2 and 1705.37, special inspection of steel construction and post-installed anchors.
  https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCadmin/0-0-0-178221

  11. NYC Department of Records and Information Services, Government Publications Portal; NYC Charter §1133.
  https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCcharter/0-0-0-3253

  12. NYC Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Adams Announces Selection of Two Firms to Redesign Scaffolding Sheds, Pedestrian Safety Equipment as Part of ‘Get Sheds Down’ Initiative,” February 29, 2024.
  https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2024/02/mayor-adams-selection-two-firms-redesign-scaffolding-sheds-pedestrian-safety

  13. NYC Mayor’s Office, “Mayor Adams, DOB Commissioner Oddo Unveil Plan to Remove Unsightly Sheds, Scaffolding From NYC Sidewalks,” July 24, 2023.
  https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2023/07/mayor-adams-dob-commissioner-oddo-plan-remove-unsightly-sheds-scaffolding-nyc

  14. NYC Council financial materials concerning the $3.5 million two-year contract for new shed designs.
  https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6067648&GUID=DD5B6FFA-6D51-4A76-8AE4-7BF7970B517F&Options=&Search=

  15. NYC CheckbookNYC, City contract record: CT181020248807295 (ARUP).
  https://www.checkbooknyc.com/contract_details/agid/9072276/doctype/CT1/dashboard/ss/newwindow

  16. NYC CheckbookNYC, City contract record: CT181020248807353 (PAU).
  https://www.checkbooknyc.com/contract_details/agid/9206077/doctype/CT1/dashboard/ss/newwindow

  Comment added September 2, 2026 9:50am

• Anonymous

  Our colleagues at the Department of Buildings,
  It is high time for New York City to take up this task. Existing sidewalk sheds are installed, left up to avoid the cost of action, while building and facade renovations are left incomplete, ultimately affecting the quality of life of all New Yorkers who travel under or near that shed. Design has an impact on our everyday lives, the quality of our lives, our mental health. It is essential to take up the important action of modernizing sidewalk sheds and develop a standardized design that is both safe, functional, in line with legal requirements, but also aesthetically-fulfilling so that sheds might uplift New Yorkers while representing our city properly.

  Comment added September 16, 2026 10:20pm