Category Archives: Building Technology

The technical stuff – yes, it’s architecture, too.

Unknown's avatar

Specifying Masonry

by

Last Wednesday, I was part of a panel discussion at the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute (RMMI).  We discussed “Specifying Masonry.” 

I was there to be the “put the info in the right place” person on the panel, and I learned a lot from the other panel members:  Diane Travis of the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, David Eatherton of Eatherton Masonry, Jay Retzko of Boral Best Block, and Brad Olson of Acme Brick.

Here’s the link to download a copy of my “Specifying Masonry” reminders hand out: http://www.lizosullivanarch.com/uploads/LizOSullivanSpecifyingMasonry.pdf

One of the things that I stressed in this panel discussion is that when architects need information on the masonry products that they’re designing with, they should contact the technical reps for those products.  The reps know more about their products than anyone else could be expected to know.

And for technical assistance beyond the masonry products themselves, architects can contact RMMI’s technical director Diane Travis at dianet@rmmi.org.

Architects can get AIA continuing education credits for attending the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute Take-Out Talks, which are at 11:30 a.m. on the first and second Wednesday of each month, at RMMI, 686 Mariposa Street, in Denver.   Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute’s website is www.rmmi.org.

 

 

 

Unknown's avatar

Additions to Historic Buildings

by

I believe that there should be a clear separation between an original historic building and an addition to that historic building.  I happen to strongly prefer traditional additions onto historic buildings, but I consider my style preference to be personal, and not something that should be dictated by historic preservation guidelines or zoning codes. 

I want to see the historic building as its own entity expanded by what is obviously a later addition.  I do not want to see a historic building with an addition with brick toothed in and a new seamless roof over the entire building.  This misleads future observers of historic buildings into believing that the building was originally built that way.  It waters down future observers’ understanding of the integrity of historic forms and construction methods.

Unknown's avatar

Old Windows, LEED®, and Historic Character

by

We have storm windows on the outside of the original windows on our century-old house in Denver.  From inside our home, I get to enjoy the wavy character of the old glass and the beauty of the old wood.  I try to discourage neighbors and friends from window replacement, and encourage them to get storm windows instead.  LEED® encourages window replacement, but it shouldn’t.  Here’s why, taken straight from a publication by the National Institute of Building Sciences:

“LEED® fails to acknowledge that historic windows are important features and that their energy efficiency can be upgraded.  LEED® encourages the use of highly energy efficient windows, which often requires the removal of historic windows that are potentially reusable.  Moreover, original windows are character-defining features of historic buildings and their removal can significantly alter a structure’s integrity, thus conflicting with preservation goals and the Secretary’s Standards.

“With proper maintenance, windows built from old growth wood can function indefinitely and their performance can be substantially bolstered by using storm windows, caulk, and weather-stripping.  Studies have shown that these simple improvements can result in efficiency similar to that of new insulated glass windows.  Modern windows also have a relatively short lifespan and can be difficult, if not impossible, to repair.  Once modern windows fail, there are few ways they can be recycled, and they will likely end up in landfills.  This begins an environmentally insensitive cycle of removal and replacement.

“Therefore, the most responsible approach is to retain historic windows that last and retrofit them with increased effectiveness rather than install new windows that, without exception, will fail and cannot be repaired.  Regrettably, the replacement window industry is strong, and old windows are touted as poor performers, so the common practice of replacing windows in not likely to change much in the immediate future.  To combat this, LEED® should consider awarding points for the repair and continued use of old windows where significant improvements in energy efficiency are demonstrated, as well as where significant amounts of historic fabric are being retained and reused.”  –  National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide, WBDG13 “Strategies for Sustainable Historic Preservation”

The bold text above highlights the important issue.  The most sustainable thing to use is what you already have, especially when it’s as precious as a historic window.

Unknown's avatar

Adapt or… What?

by

For years, it’s been said (mostly in whispers) that Architecture is a dying profession.

One of the reasons for this dismal outlook is that many of the building products and systems that we are incorporating into our buildings today are pretty complicated, and require quite a bit of project-specific design work by their manufacturers.

As Michael Chusid’s important blog post today said:

“Instead of building with raw or semi-finished materials, we assemble buildings from components that are shop fabricated and finished. Master builders with a personal knowledge of all building materials and methods are an endangered species; designers and builders must now rely on manufacturers’ product data sheets, shop drawings, installation instructions, field training and supervision, and off-site fabrication. Many building products require such specialized experience or knowledge that they can only be detailed or installed by the manufacturer. The building product industry today is more than just a material supplier; it plays an integral role in detailing, engineering, and constructing systems, sub-assemblies, and entire buildings.”

Some buildings end up with a large percentage of components that were designed by the product and system manufacturers, instead of the architect.  Entities who are part of the contractor team – subcontractors, vendors, manufacturers, and installers – sometimes do so much of the design for specific elements that some people wonder why the architect was engaged in the first place.  They may wonder if the architect’s function is just to produce a schematic design.  They may ask, “Well, couldn’t some hotshot fashion designer / interior designer / artist do that just as well?”  No.

The role of the architect has NEVER just been to produce a schematic design.  Aside from schematic design, what we architects have always done is to design how all the different components of a building go together.  What we do, what we need to do, what we are more qualified to do than anyone else, is design the transitions from one material to another.  We select the systems and the products, which are often detailed by the manufacturer.  But then WE, the architects, design the way these things go together.  This, we cannot delegate.  This, general contractors are not particularly well suited to do.  This is the work that architects will always need to do, no matter how much project-specific design manufacturers do.

Remember, our primary job as architects is to interpret the owner’s wishes for the building, and communicate those wishes to the contractor, to get the building built.  We are the people who need to communicate to the contractor how he is supposed to get the subcontractors to build the building.  The general contractor needs to coordinate all the different installers, but we, the architects, need to draw, and specify, how all the different manufacturers’ standard pieces go together to make a building.  Every building is different.  Every manufacturer has standard details and standard specifications for their products, and the architect is the person who needs to take those standard details and specifications, and, working with the manufacturer, properly adapt them to the specific project, and then produce those adaptations as part of the project drawings and specifications.  This is pretty much how it’s always been – it’s just more complicated today.

As those systems and products have gotten more complicated, so have the transitions between all those systems and products.  The transitions between different materials and products have always been the most vulnerable parts of buildings.  No one manufacturer, and no general contractor, and certainly no installer in the field, should be designing the transition from one manufacturer’s product to another manufacturer’s product.  (I’ve seen what happens when the installer solves an unaddressed transition issue in the field.  This is the LAST thing we want.  Fellow architects, design those transitions, please!)

We need to be familiar with the products and systems we are drawing and specifying, but we need to remember that the product reps and manufacturers will ALWAYS know more about their products than we will.  They know more about their products than architects, specifiers, contractors, and owners ever can.  Except when drawing and specifying simple, straightforward products, it’s always a good idea to talk to product reps about your project.  For systems (elements such as curtainwall, exterior metal panel rainscreens, or roofs) it’s even more important to talk to the reps for all the manufacturers that you are incorporating into the documents.

In this time of increasingly complicated building products and systems, architects need to be spending a little less time copying manufacturers’ standard details, and a LOT more time figuring out and detailing those pesky transitions between all these complicated products and systems!

The profession of Architecture should not be dying.  Architects need to continue to be the leaders in the design and construction process (great phrase – thanks, Michael Chusid).  Trained and licensed architects are important to the look, feel, safety, durability, and function of our built environment.  Architects are essential to ensuring that owners get a good value for their construction dollars; architects help keep contractors honest.  But, as Michael Chusid wrote:

“A better understanding of the organization, activities, and concerns of the building product industry would enable architects to design with and specify building materials more astutely and effectively, and would strengthen their ability to lead the design and construction process.”

This is today’s world of architecture and construction.  Architects must recognize the important role that product reps play in the construction process.  Architects must realize that the role of product reps does not threaten the role of architects, but complements it.  Together, we can improve our built environment.  Architects must step up and meet the challenge of more complicated products and systems.  Architects must adapt or… what?

This is the link to today’s important post from Michael Chusid, of Chusid Associates: http://www.buildingproductmarketing.com/2011/05/architect-consumer.html

Unknown's avatar

Construction Product Reps – NOT Just Salespeople

by

Denver CSI had its annual Symposium today – technically, it’s the Education Symposium and Product Show.  There were about 35 different product reps (my estimate) representing hundreds of construction products.  Unfortunately, I only managed to visit 6, because I spent a very long time with each one I got to talk to…  I always have lots of questions.  I hope to be invited by a product rep again next year, and catch up with the rest of the reps I didn’t get to visit with! 

The Product Show component of today’s event reminded me of a comment I made on someone else’s blog a couple of months ago.  The blog is written by a young architect and the intended audience is intern architects.  The post that prompted me to comment was entitled “The gentle art of product-rep self-defense.”  I’m not the only one who commented – actually, the blog post started a truly excellent discussion among commenters and the blog author.  Here’s the link to the blog and comments: http://architectureintern101.blogspot.com/2011/01/gentle-art-of-product-rep-self-defense.html

It’s somewhat embarassing to admit that only in the last few years have I come to understand the importance of the role of product reps in construction projects.  These people can be tremendous resources throughout an entire project, from schematic design through the warranty period. 

Copied below is my comment from the discussion:

“I was just discussing this issue yesterday with a product rep, and fellow Denver CSI member. I’m a spec writer, and a licensed architect, and I practiced as an architect for years before I started writing specs. As soon as I started writing specs, I realized how hugely important product reps are. But when I was working as an architect, my opinion of product reps was the same as yours.

“Product reps know their products better than anyone else could ever hope to – they know them better than architects, spec writers, contractors, owners, and users do.

“These people aren’t just salespeople – many of these people do forensic investigations on their products, when failures occur on projects. Failures usually turn out to be due to improper installation. Sometimes improper installation is a result of poor or incorrect project specifications written by the project specifier, or poor or incorrect details drawn by the project architect. We, as design professionals, may have more to learn from failures than from anything else. These product reps are tremendous technical resources for specifiers and for architects who know how to tap into them.

“My recommendations to your readers: Get to know a product rep for a product you frequently use. Ask this rep to review your project specifications and details that include their product – you may surprise yourself and learn something about a product you thought you knew well! Then you’ll see how much product reps have to offer.”

Unknown's avatar

Respect for the Construction Trades

by

I have great respect for people who work hard and are good at their work.

Many people consider hard work and skill to be respect-worthy.  However, the same people who respect hard-working and successful doctors, actors, and software engineers, often have little or no respect for hard-working, successful construction tradespeople.

This lack of respect may partially stem from a lack of understanding of what is involved in the work of tradespeople.  Sometimes we do a little fix-it work around our own homes and figure that it’s not that hard.  We watch tradespeople on TV who make their work look easy, and think, “Oh, well I could do that.”  But it actually only looks easy, and that’s because they know what they’re doing!

I suspect that there’s actually a deeper and broader pattern of thinking that’s at work here, and it needs to change, soon.

There is a lack of respect for the construction trades because of the push by schools to get kids to college.  Somehow, attaining a 4-year college degree has become the only respected post-high-school option for many kids.  It may be the only avenue they hear about from their guidance counselors and parents.

In the Denver Post on February 20, 2011, a guest writer, high school teacher Michael Mazenko wrote:

“…schools keep pushing the college-for-all mentality.  The education system should promote the trades and skilled labor as much as it does academics and bachelor’s degrees, and education at all levels should become more experiential and skill-based.”

“This conclusion is supported by the recently released Harvard study that concluded not all kids should go to college – or at least not a four-year university in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree.  The aptly titled report ‘Pathways to Prosperity’ recommends a new direction for education reform, based on the practical needs of students and the economy.”

Not every teenager really wants to have a career that requires a 4-year-college diploma.  But there is pressure from society to go get that college diploma, or else he may be considered to be not smart, or to be an underachiever.  Sometimes it works out, and the college student thrives, and ends up taking a career path that did require that college degree.  Sometimes it doesn’t work out, the student struggles or hates college, or just wonders why he’s there, AND has student loan debt to deal with after the inevitable drop out of college.

Maybe it made sense to keep pushing oneself through college in the days when a 4-year-college degree guaranteed a job.  But today, when a college degree guarantees little more than loads of student loan debt for many, if someone’s not cut out for college, it doesn’t make sense to go.

If alternative education paths, and alternative career paths, were considered to be acceptable, and respectable, by a greater percentage of people in the U.S., we’d have fewer kids dropping out of college, and maybe we’d even have fewer kids dropping out of high school.  We’d surely have more, and better-trained, construction tradespeople.  They’d get their educations in trade schools or two-year technical college programs, and on the job.  While in high school, they’d have a better understanding of how their class subject matter will be used in their careers.

I’m lucky to have known since I was 12 years old what I wanted to do for a living.  Some people my age still aren’t sure…  If young people are exposed to more options at a young age, options for careers, not just options for more education, they may be as lucky as I was, and be able to live through the rest of their formal educational lives with clear goals in sight.

Another surprising and great piece of information from Michael Mazenko’s piece addresses wages:

“In a study of Florida college graduates, the earnings discrepancy between two-year programs and bachelor degrees is a revelation.  Five years out of school, the average trade school or community college graduate makes $47,000 per year compared to bachelor degree holders who average $36,000.  School administrators, counselors, and education reformers are being disingenuous if they fail to promote this information to students and parents.  By not offering advice on students’ realistic prospects for college degrees and marketable skills, schools are setting up too many kids for failure.”

And, from the Harvard “Pathways to Prosperity” study:

“There will …be a huge number of job openings in so-called blue-collar fields like construction, manufacturing, and natural resources, though many will simply replace retiring baby boomers.  These fields will provide nearly 8 million job openings, 2.7 million of which will require a post-secondary credential.  In commercial construction, manufacturing, mining and installation, and repair, this kind of post-secondary education—as opposed to a B.A.—is often the ticket to a well-paying and rewarding career.”

These post-secondary credentials mentioned above include 2-year associate’s degrees and occupational certificates.  A four-year-college degree is not required for any of these 8 million job openings, and only a high school degree is required for over 5 million of these jobs.

If this pattern of “college-for-all thinking” doesn’t change, these jobs will be tough to fill with qualified, properly trained, people.  I see a future with a large percentage of new construction being pretty bad, and a very small percentage of new construction being good, but very expensive.  There just won’t be enough skilled tradespeople to go around, so those with the skills will become very expensive and very much in demand.  (And how will they have the time to train the skilled tradespeople of the future?)

Well, maybe that’ll be the way to engender the respect that is due…  If the U.S. won’t learn the easy way, by reading studies and making some changes in our patterns of thinking, maybe we’ll learn the hard way – by experiencing even higher financial costs of good quality construction, and the less-measurable costs of living with poor quality construction.  I’ve seen and lived with both.  I’ve seen good work in action, and I’ve seen bad work in action.  I highly respect the good work of good tradespeople!  Now if we can just get the rest of the U.S. to think this way, we can have a brighter economic future, and a better built environment.

Unknown's avatar

Need Under-Slab Vapor Retarder AND Under-Slab Void Forms?

by

There’s not a lot of information out there about this topic (what to do when you need both an under-slab vapor retarder AND an under-slab void), probably because this situation is a regional condition.  Not every part of the United States has the expansive soils that parts of Colorado have. 

The first part – the voids: 

Expansive soils on project sites often prompt geotechnical engineers to recommend under-slab voids, which are created by placing concrete for slabs on top of void forms, also known as carton forms.  Yes, we actually call for wet concrete to be placed on top of cardboard boxes… but not directly on top of the cardboard boxes!

The cardboard void forms, which are in contact with the soil, absorb moisture from the soil and degrade over time, while the concrete slab stays in place, so a void space is created between the bottom of the slab and the top of the earth.  This void allows expansive soils to expand, or swell, without impacting the slab.

The second part – the vapor retarder:

We specify under-slab vapor retarders to prevent water vapor from migrating through the floor slab-on-grade and damaging moisture-sensitive floor coverings or moisture-sensitive equipment.  (We do this everywhere, not just in Colorado.)  Without a vapor retarder between the slab and the soil, water in the soil can travel through the slab in vapor form, and then it can condense and form into liquid water once inside the building, where it can cause damage. 

Now – put the voids and the vapor retarder together:

The requirement for an under-slab void on a project calls for slightly different vapor retarder requirements than we normally specify.  My article on how to deal with this situation is published on the Construction Specifications Institute Denver Chapter website.  Click the link below for the article.

http://www.denvercsi.org/journal/2010/12/8/when-both-a-vapor-retarder-and-an-under-slab-void-are-requir.html

Unknown's avatar

Respect for Application Instructions

by

Despite the fact that application instructions are printed right on paint cans and bags of materials for stucco, manufacturers’ application instructions are often ignored.  This information is not a “recommendation,” but an actual “instruction.”

Is this widespread disregard for instructions a result of less respect (and less pay) for the work of construction tradespeople?  Or is it a result of peoples’ having less pride in their work? Or is this a result of less respect for the written word?  Or are that many kids actually not learning to read?

Although misapplication occurs most often in residential construction, commercial construction is not immune to this problem.

It’s 30 degrees Fahrenheit in Denver today.  This morning, my family and I drove by a property which has a new retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk.  Two men were out on site applying a first coat of stucco to this new wall.

Except for a few specialized products intended for cold weather application, stucco is required to be applied when temperatures are warmer than 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and applied stucco must be protected from freezing temperatures for several days.  Stucco can fail if these application instructions aren’t followed.

Paint coats can fail if application temperature requirements aren’t followed.  Floor finishes can fail if underlayment application instructions aren’t followed.  Warranties for such products are automatically voided in cases of improper application.

As we drove by the house with the new wall, I said, “It’s too cold to apply stucco.”  My 7-year-old son responded, “Yeah, that’s not going to set right.”  Somehow, my 7-year-old knows this, but the guys out there doing the work either don’t know or don’t care.

Read the directions, people!  And show some pride in your work.

Unknown's avatar

More on boring buildings

by

Following up on the post with the quote:
“Architecture should have the confidence and the kindness to be a little boring.” – Alain de Botton

Denver has lots of new buildings that are junk.  Our new art museum is an interesting, although not very functional building, that was either not designed well, or was not constructed well, because the roof has been recently replaced because of leaking.  A large ugly apartment building nearby, also new, has been shrouded in scaffolding and plastic, because of leaking at doors and windows and other major water problems.  Foundations on houses and condos all over the metro area crack like crazy because nobody analyzed the soils or nobody read the geotechnical report or somebody designed the foundations improperly.  Lawyers have a field day with these construction defects, or design errors or omissions.
 
Good technical details and execution of those details need to be a prerequisite, achieved before “interesting” can be attempted.  Here in Denver, that doesn’t always happen.  I’d like to see some boring buildings that stay weathertight for 50 years, instead of the attempts at “interesting” that need to be completely revamped because of some failure in design or construction.  Interesting can be good, AFTER the basics of sound construction are achieved.