Hacker News Reader

I wonder whether the inventor would have better luck shipping his cranes to another state where the regulatory barriers would not be so steep. Lots of mid/high-rise buildings going up in places that are not NYC...

View on HN

I think the main advantage of this crane is that it is bolted to the building, therefore falls under the general insurance policy of the development, whereas tower cranes require a separate policy, which as the article states, are basically impossible to secure right now in NYC. It's interesting to see this article now, as I was just reading about the litigation following the crane collapse at One57 which involved a dispute with the insurer over whether it should be covered by the general insurance policy.

If your crane can be deemed a part of the structure itself, you save millions in insurance costs.

Insurance costs for tower cranes are insane in NYC due to the risks - there were big payouts after a few collapses which killed people. As there are not that many tower cranes in NYC to begin with, this risk pool is not very large.

Seriously - the NYC-centricity of this article is astonishing. People need a basic lesson in logic - just because "if you can make it there you can make it anywhere," doesn't imply the reverse - if you can't make it in NYC you can always try somewhere else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com