Wasn't the plane too low to use an airframe parachute?
"In terms of avoiding an accident, one problem with the Cirrus is its unforgiving handling compared to other basic four-seaters. The plane is harder to keep level with rudders in a stall than a Cessna or Diamond; if in a deep uncoordinated stall, the Cirrus wants to drop a wing and go into a spin. Thanks to a "split-airfoil" wing design, in which the inner portion of the wing has a higher angle of attack than the outer portion, the Cirrus gives more of a stall buffet warning than many airplanes. The outer portion of the wings, which are in front of the ailerons, are still flying and permitting the pilot to control roll with the yoke, even as the inner sections of the wings may be stalled and creating a warning buffet. This illustrates one of the advantages of composite construction; you could build a metal wing like this, but it would be very costly. For pilots accustomed to learning about an impending stall by feeling reduced airloads on the flight controls, the Cirrus provides much less stall warning. This is due to spring cartridges that continue to resist flight control movement even when the airplane is not moving. In other words, the flight controls feel similar whether you're flying or stalled.'
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/cirrus-sr20
I don't think so, last I looked they had a 1000' min alt. Wasn't this guy at about 1000-1500 when he started having problems? According to the maker, 920' is the minimum demonstrated altitude for deploying the parachute, and pilots are urged to use the system in case of disaster, engine failure, airframe failure, spins, or loss of control without waiting to try something else.
This sounds like it was controlled flight into the building. He probably got disoriented while trying to fly up the river in marginal visibility and ended up with the building in his way with no time to react... especially as a new pilot.