[Build] Landlord

[jim]

   if we're going to try to fix the problem 
with the elevator gate, let's try to do so 
in such a way that there's no further need 
to slam the gate hard, as that will probably 
guarantee future problems (past slamming 
might be the reason it screwed up). 


On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 01:11 -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:52:20PM -0700, Dr. Jesus wrote:
> > The gate needs to be modified so that pushing hard on it doesn't cause
> > it to pop open.  Either he can do it or I can do it.
> 
> This sounds like a great idea.  I would assume that the landlords are
> not going to do it, so we should plan on doing it.  Given that the gate
> is inherently not secure against climbing over, I am a bit loathe to put
> too much effort into it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure they'd prefer to stick with keys than go to prox cards.
> We should add a prox card reader and improve the striker -- preserving
> the existing keying if at all possible -- rather than building a
> proxcard-only system.
> 
> Would it be possible to add a separate cylinder lock keyed to the 83c
> key that activates the electronic strike?  That would remove one of the
> necessary keys for NB access.  I'm envisioning a small box mounted on
> the wall, into which I stick my NB key and turn to activate a switch.
> 
> > Modifying the front door is not a hard requirement for me like the
> > gate is, but key management will be a little more complicated without
> > doing so.  I'm trying to simplify access control down either to one
> > key or one prox card for all members, and if the glass doors continue
> > to use the existing tumblers then I can't do that.  I need to
> > understand the key management impact to select one of the available
> > options, which are: do nothing and we use two keys, swap out their
> > keys for prox cards ($1.80 each if we pay), or swap out their keys for
> > our keys ($0.75ish each if we pay).
> 
> Seems to me the existing glass-door key system is suboptimal.  Can we
> replace it with something cost-effective and equally secure that would
> enable prox card access?  Ideally preserving some form of key access for
> the other tenants, but if that's not feasible we could raise the
> possibilty of providing prox cards to other tenants.
> 
> > > * how this will affect the 2nd floor tenants
> > 
> > Out of all the above options, the only solution to the requirements
> > which doesn't involve them at all is changing the gate or the gate's
> > striker and not modifying the glass doors.
> 
> We can involve other tenants.  We shouldn't expect them to lay out a ton
> of money on our project, though.  Ideally the solution will come at zero
> up-front cost to the other tenants -- yes, this means we comp them prox
> cards for their existing keyholders if we go to a prox-card-required
> system -- and low ongoing expenditures.  Keys are a well-understood
> system with bounded costs, which is a compelling feature for a low-end
> merchant.
> 
> > > * what we need the landlord to do, if anything
> > 
> > Help us understand the key management impact to him and our downstairs
> > neighbors if we change the locks, and whether he's open to doing that
> > in the first place.
> 
> I have the impression that ~20 employees of the 2nd floor tenant have
> keys to the gate.  It was my impression that only some (maybe only the
> manager?) have keys to the glass doors.
> 
> The first-floor tenant also has access to the lobby mailbox.
> 
> > > * why they should let us do it (hopefully this is something like, "it'll
> > > be a lot more secure and you don't have to do any of the work")
> > 
> > If he's open to changing the keys at all, and prox cards are suitable
> > replacements, then he gains the following benefits over regular locks:
> > 
> >  - Log when his users come in (but not out) if he wants to.
> > 
> >  - Remote key disable.
> > 
> >  - Very minor increase in property value if he chips in for any of
> > this.  Otherwise, it's our property.
> 
> If we build this, even if we pay for it, it becomes a building
> improvement and we leave it in place when we leave.  That's just basic
> tenant relations as well as good business sense -- if we were to assert
> ownership of the access control, the landlords would have a strong
> disincentive to approve the project.
> 
> This also means that whatever we build should have a subset that is
> industry standard.  We can add on AnonAccess --
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/attachments/989_anonaccess.pdf
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/AccessSystem
> -- if we want, or whatever other additional systems we choose, but there
> should be something that a commodity locksmith will recognize and be
> able to fix after Noisebridge enters the Singularity and is bodily
> uplifted in the Rapture of the Nerds.
> 
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> Build mailing list
> Build at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/build
>