http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1114680

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark! The article quotes some guy as
saying the pier was tough to get at as it is "thick, old wood".
Kinda, sorta, but no. I was one of the assistant project managers for
the construction manager when South Street Seaport was going up in the
early 80's and was involved with the pier's wooden deck construction.
So the wood is old, as in a tree is old, but 30 years ain't exactly
ancient.

The wood that was selected for the deck on top of the concrete pier
was Bongossi, an African hardwood with some very exceptional
properties. It is extremely hard, extremely durable, extremely
resistant to rot, and almost a fireproof wood, which were the main
reasons it was chosen for use at the Seaport.
http://www.interwood.it/inglese/azobe.php

I think I still have one of the original samples of the wood that was
submitted for testing and architectural approval in the garage
somewhere. At the time I found it rather hard to believe that a wood
could be that resistant to catching fire, but after holding a lighter
flame against it for minutes at a time with little apparent effect, I
had to admit the stuff really didn't burn readily. Of course my
simple test was done on a piece of relatively freshly cut wood, and
not a piece that had been exposed for a few decades, but there is
little doubt that Bongossi is a very special wood indeed. Once the
decision was made to have a wooden pier deck, Bongossi was about the
only real choice.

For that wood to have caught fire there must have been a concealed
fire burning for some time. A lit cigarette by itself would not have
done it. I can only hazard a guess that maybe a cigarette ignited
some debris that was between the deck and the concrete pier, and that
the fire must have smouldered for a while before the deck went up in
flames. I'm just glad no one was hurt.

R

"RicodJour" wrote:

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark! The article quotes some guy as
saying the pier was tough to get at as it is "thick, old wood".
snip
--------------------------------
Looks like the fire was limited to the pier and no windjammers were
involved.

Are the windjammers tied up at a different set of piers?

Lew

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:54:33 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1114680

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark!


For that wood to have caught fire there must have been a concealed
fire burning for some time. A lit cigarette by itself would not have
done it. I can only hazard a guess that maybe a cigarette ignited
some debris that was between the deck and the concrete pier, and that
the fire must have smouldered for a while before the deck went up in
flames. I'm just glad no one was hurt.

R

Lots of smoke too. I have to wonder if there was other flammables
burning, oil soaked wood or oil under it. No telling what may have
accumulated over 30 years.

On Jul 15, 12:30*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote:
Ouch. *That's going to leave a mark! *The article quotes some guy as
saying the pier was tough to get at as it is "thick, old wood".

snip
--------------------------------
Looks like the fire was limited to the pier and no windjammers were
involved.

Are the windjammers tied up at a different set of piers?

Next pier to the south and the wind appeared to be blowing to the NW.
Whew!

R

On Jul 15, 2:00*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 20:54:33 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour

wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...an-south-stree...

Ouch. *That's going to leave a mark!

For that wood to have caught fire there must have been a concealed
fire burning for some time. *A lit cigarette by itself would not have
done it. *I can only hazard a guess that maybe a cigarette ignited
some debris that was between the deck and the concrete pier, and that
the fire must have smouldered for a while before the deck went up in
flames. *I'm just glad no one was hurt.


Lots of smoke too. *I have to wonder if there was other flammables
burning, oil soaked wood or oil under it. No telling what may have
accumulated over 30 years.

You can be sure that now they're going to have to find out what's
under there. As I recall there's really no access or room to speak
of, so they're going to have to do some remote camera thing to see.

R