From reading McClure's and old New York Times on the fire,I have this hypothesis: it seems that the TSF building was designed as a loft and not a factory. Because of the high demand for buildings in the late 19th century, and because it was considered cheaper to build in a loft (aka not as many regulations as in a factory) the owners of TS company bought a loft. Technically the loft was fire proof but because it was a loft, it wasn't illegal to have machines and people working in cramped quarters. It was the latter condition that led to the fire. So really, it was the high costs imposed by regulation that motivated the factory to be housed in unsafe conditions.
In anycase the official history is far too condemnatory of the Harris bros. who owned the building IMO. 1) there had already been a fire in the building and Harris himself, I think, put it out with his coat -there was little expectation of the inferno that occured (by either the owners or everyday new yorkers). For awhile the doors were locked but on the day of the fire that policy had been previously changed -the doors were not locked. Also, the owners were not monopoly-man absentee "robber barons" they were themselves immigrants who always worked at their office in the very same building as their laborers did. They even tried to call to the workers to get out when the fire started and helped some to the roof of the building where they survived. And their own sister worked as a laborer in the building.
Great work.
I think that's good to point out the regulations that forced them into a loft.
But perhaps you have a citation that the doors were not locked that day. All the info I have seen says it was.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
My source is New York Times Dec. 23, 1911 -"Triangle Owner Tells of the Fire"
Of course, towards the end the prosecution insinuates that one of the workers had his wages raised before he testified to the fact that the doors were unlocked. But the very woman who stated "My God the doors are locked!" also testified that she didn't say that thing (but she was Harris's sister).
Now I'm more interested in evidence that the doors were locked -what is the argument for it being so -I think the most convincing counterarg. is that Harris was already sued by a girl for inspecting her person for stollen shirtwaists -so the postulated raison d'etre for door locks doesn't exist at that time.
Other sources include a report on fire safety by the NYC gov. and an article on the fire by the Chicago Tribune.
Oh yeah, and thanks Liberty Student
I thot the reason the claimed to be locking the doors was because the workers were taking too many breaks.
I'm going to have to re-research this lol.
Well, before this is done, perhaps it will be I that will have to be re-researching, XD.
It seems you are correct. The reasons the doors were locked was suspected theivery.
And it was only one door that was locked, one that didn't really lead to safety anyway.
THe biggest problem was the lack of a sprinkler system, the inadequacy of fire fighter's tools at the time, and, most importantly, the doors opened in, instead of out.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:And it was only one door that was locked, one that didn't really lead to safety anyway. THe biggest problem was the lack of a sprinkler system, the inadequacy of fire fighter's tools at the time, and, most importantly, the doors opened in, instead of out.
Comrade, clearly this is a failure of capitalism.
In socialism, everyone would have their own sprinkler, their own firefighter, three unicorns and the doors would always be double hinged!
You're wrong.
There wouldn't be double hinges.