What is “Building Technology”?

I often mention “building technology” in my blog posts.  I’ve realized that I’m using a term that many people aren’t familiar with.

When I use the term “building technology,” I am not talking about information technology within a building.  I am not talking about the software technologies used to design buildings.  I’m not talking about only high-performance buildings.  I am not talking about only new technologies in building systems.

I am talking about “technology” in terms of its most basic, stripped-down definition: “1. The practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area. 2. A manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.”  (Definition is from Merriam Webster.)

And I am talking about “building” as defined by Webster, too: “The art or business of assembling materials into a structure.”

When I use the term “building technology,” I mean knowledge of the technical processes and methods of assembling buildings.  Drawing proper construction details requires understanding building technology.  Identifying conflicts between the construction documents and the way things are being built on the job site requires understanding building technology.

Knowledge of building technology is an important part of the practice of architecture, but it’s an area in which many of today’s young architects are weak.  This is an area in which I was weak, until I started writing specs and suddenly had starting points for researching my questions (or rather, I suddenly realized what questions I ought to be asking).¹

We hear a lot about high-performance new technologies in buildings, but somehow, we seem to have lost the basics of knowledge about detailing foundation, roof, and exterior wall assemblies that meet the minimum of the applicable code requirements.

Without an understanding of basic building technology, an architect cannot properly prepare construction documents for submittal to the authorities having jurisdiction for the purposes of obtaining a building permit.

From the 2009 International Building Code (which has been adopted by many municipalities), Chapter 1, 107.2.4 “Exterior Wall Envelope”:

“Construction documents for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall envelope in sufficient detail to determine compliance with this code. The construction documents shall provide details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including flashing, intersections with dissimilar materials, corners, end details, control joints, intersections at roof, eaves or parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane and details around openings.” 

Without an understanding of basic building technology, an architect cannot demonstrate (to an owner, to a contractor, or to the building department) the constructability of a design.  A building is not made up of bits and pieces erected next to each other; a building is composed of interrelated systems and assemblies that work together to contribute to the building’s proper functioning.  If these components are not carefully selected, specified, and detailed, with the designer taking into account these components’ effects on all the other parts of the building, the completed building may not be able to protect its occupants from drafts, moisture intrusion, mold, condensation, cold, outside noise, or excessive heat.

When I worked as a project architect, I often put off the detailing of tricky conditions until the last possible time.  I know that some other architects do, too.  Drawing construction details is hard work.  There are other, more fun, more easily achieved, tasks that also must be accomplished before a set of construction documents is finished.  But waiting to detail the tough transitions is a problem – when we finally get into the meat of these things, sometimes we realize that the assumptions we’d carried all along were incorrect, and we need a taller parapet, or we need more rigid insulation in the cavity, or we need a building expansion joint.

This detailing work can be less tedious, less torturous, and less time-consuming when we have more knowledge and more understanding of these things.  We produce better construction documents, and help to get better buildings built, when we know more about building technology.

Without an understanding of basic building technology, we can’t contribute much to high-performance building initiatives, such as those by the Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program, the U.S. Green Building Council, and many cities and states.  Just as the IgCC (International Green Construction Code) is an overlay to the other ICC codes (such as the International Building Code), high-performance building technology does not replace, but enhances, basic building technology.

But… who’s teaching architects about basic building technology today?

Architecture school curricula have gotten heavier on design; architecture graduates are supposed to learn almost everything else they need to know during their internships.  But as more and more knowledgeable gray-haired architects retire, many of the mentors for interns and young architects know less about basic building technology than the mentors of the past.

CSI (the Construction Specifications Institute) recognizes this problem, and is currently exploring the concept of a Building Technology Education Program.  The task team for this program has been charged with formulating “the concept of a building technology education program for participants in the design/construction industry that will benefit the industry by raising the technical knowledge of the participants.”  I don’t think a program like this exists today, and I don’t think that any other organization is working on anything comprehensive like this proposed education program.²

This program is envisioned as being for everyone in the construction industry – not just for intern architects and emerging professionals.  (Architects, remember: we’re part of the construction industry.)  The more that everyone in the industry can understand the concept that all parts of a building are interrelated, and that a modification to one assembly may require modifications to other assemblies, the more effective all of us in the construction industry can be.

Notes:________________________________________________________________________________

1. Here are some links to past blog posts of mine that discuss technical weakness in architects – including my own past technical weakness.  I have greatly increased my understanding of building technology – anyone can.
   1. 
      http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/architects-take-back-the-reins/
      
   2. 
      http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/the-fervor-of-a-convert-part-one/
      
   3. 
      http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-fervor-of-a-convert-part-two/
      
2. Here’s the roster of the Building Technology Education Program Task Team on the CSI website
   http://new.csinet.org/csi_services/committees.aspx
   .  (Scroll down to “FY 2013 Building Technology Education Task Team.”)  If you have suggestions for the team, please contact one of the members.

Old Mansion, New Office

I’ve settled in to my new office.

At the beginning of January, I moved my office from a 1972 building in Cherry Creek to a 1920 building in Capitol Hill.  Although there’s so much to love about my new office, the gentle hot-water heating and the natural light are at the top of my list.  The loud 1970′s HVAC and fluorescent lights in the old office were wearing on me.

I’m now in the Historic Kistler-Rodriguez House.  Here’s an old photo, which I copied from the nomination form for the building’s historic designation.

 

Denver’s Capitol Hill has a number of large old mansions that are currently used as office buildings.  There’s an interesting reason for this.  Denver’s 1957 zoning code drastically “up-zoned” Capitol Hill, which at that time was covered with single-family houses, to residential high-rise zoning.

Capitol Hill’s proximity to downtown Denver makes its land valuable, so demolishing houses to make way for high-rises started to make a lot of economic sense.  But Denver’s citizens didn’t want all of its historic mansions destroyed, so an interesting exception was carved out in the zoning code to allow for designated Historic buildings in residential-zoned districts to be used for office use.

The highest and best use for these properties was suddenly less clear. Demolition to make way for more dense income-producing residential buildings was no longer necessary; with a few alterations, these buildings could generate more income per-square-foot as office buildings than they could as residential buildings.  This exception saved many historic buildings from destruction by allowing them to produce more income for their owners than residential use could, which de-incentivized their demolition.

Shortly after the photo above was taken in 1982, a “glass box” addition was added to the south side of the building.  It’s a pretty cool addition, and, to use a word favored among architects, a nice juxtaposition of 1920′s and 1980′s.

The Kistler-Rodriguez House, also known as the Dominican Republic Consulate, was designed by Jules J.B. Benedict, and was built in 1920. It was designated (entered into the National Register of Historic Places) in 1983.

I’ve often called the building the “Governor’s Park Dental” building, because my dentist has been the main tenant of the building for the last 30 years.

The Denver Public Library has more information on the building here, and here’s a link to the National Register Nomination Form that was submitted to the Department of the Interior.

Working on historic preservation in Denver is still important today. Among other things, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods (CHUN) Historic Preservation Committee works on getting historic buildings designated as Historic.  To get involved, start by learning more, here.

A Silly Solution

DesignIntelligence has published a new article by Scott Simpson, FAIA. “What Have We Learned?” is well-written and lays out some of the problems in the profession of architecture right now. http://www.di.net/articles/what-have-we-learned/

The article mentions that most owners find architects’ construction documents inadequate.

I just posted the following comment on the article. It’s not showing up yet. It might soon, it might never. I feel strongly about this, so I am sharing it here.

The article states that “…92 percent of owners do not believe that architects’ construction documents are suitable for the purpose intended.”

How can attempts “to prove that ‘good design is good business’” possibly solve this problem? Will SOMEONE ELSE fulfill the task of producing adequate construction documents while architects busy themselves with “becoming conversant” in “good business” and making up new “value propositions” to offer to potential clients?

Adequate information with which to construct buildings will still be necessary, whether it’s in digital form or on paper. Someone needs to produce this information. For hundreds of years, architects have been the people doing this. This is what architects are licensed to do. It still needs to be done. 

Encouraging architects in different directions, without addressing how this need for adequate construction documents is to be fulfilled, is silly.

Bad behavior in toddlers is best addressed by redirection (“Don’t pull the flowers off the bush; here’s a ball instead!”) Redirection is NOT the appropriate remedy for inadequate performance of NECESSARY duties.

Architects ought to be producing good construction documents. I believe that this is our primary obligation under the terms of our licensure. If we don’t, who will?

The Construction Specifications Institute can help. Have you seen the new CSI logo? The new tagline is “Building Knowledge. Improving Project Delivery.” Good construction documents are achievable, but you can’t produce them unless you understand building technology and the principles of construction documentation. If you want to start building your own knowledge about how to produce good construction documents, check out CSI. http://www.csinet.org

New directions for architects may be necessary. But basic obligations of architects are not being fulfilled. We must master the basics before we can move in new directions.

Perpetuating a Misconception

Do we have an obligation to stop perpetuating a misconception that we know is out there?  Or is it ok to keep it going, because it’s easier to gloss over it, instead of stopping conversation to correct the misconception?

Nope, I’m not talking about the girlfriend of a certain football player from my alma mater.  I’m talking about the misconception that someone who has a degree from an architecture school and designs buildings is an architect.

Now, there’s a difference between cocktail party conversation and written articles that reach a wide audience.  There are social skills and then there are conversation stoppers; there are manners on one hand and truth in journalism on the other hand.

I recently emailed with a newspaper writer.  He had written an article about the beautiful remodel of a home, and in it, he referred to the “architect” several times.  The designer of the remodel appears to be in the middle of taking his licensing exams, but does not appear to be a licensed architect.

I wrote to the writer that I felt compelled to inform him that a design professional cannot be called an “architect” in Colorado unless he or she is actually licensed as an architect in Colorado, and that although a licensed architect is not required for design work on a house, only a licensed architect is allowed, by law, to call him- or her- self an “architect.”

The writer wrote back that he knew all that, but in his mind, and in the mind of almost all readers, since the design professional has a degree in architecture, he’s an architect.    

What is the writer’s obligation as a journalist?  Accuracy, or an article that flows like a cocktail party conversation?

What is my obligation as a licensed architect?  I have been told by the Colorado arm of the American Institute of Architects that it is my “duty as a licensed architect to report anyone that is using the term architect and is not licensed to the state licensing board, per the licensing law.”

The architecture profession does a great job of letting the profession know that intern architects shouldn’t call themselves “architect” until they’re licensed.  But the architecture profession doesn’t do a good job of getting the word out to the general public.  And I believe that this can cause problems for consumers.

Here are a couple of recent posts of mine about this issue:

“’Sunset Review’ of Licensure for Architects”: 
http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/sunset-review-of-licensure-for-architects/
 and

“Really?!? ‘Who Cares Who’s a Licensed Architect?’” 
http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/really-who-cares-whos-a-licensed-architect/

If anyone (besides Manti Te’o) has suggestions for me, about how to continue to correct misconceptions, while continuing to practice good manners, please let me know.  I’m really at a loss, here.

Right, or Not Wrong… or Just Plain Wrong

The gist of David Stutzman’s August 2010 blog post, “’Right’ or ‘Not Wrong’ – Choose Your Specs Wisely,” has remained in my head since I first read it.  “Right” or “not wrong” is something that I think about as I make my way through the preparation of project specifications in an early design phase of a project.  For progress sets in Design Development Phase and early Construction Documents Phase, I always shoot for “right” or “with-lots-of-notes-to-architect.”

In that post, Dave wrote:

“Specifications can be written so they are “right” or so they are “not wrong.”   These two are very different.

“Sometimes specifiers are forced to write a “not wrong” spec. This usually occurs when the design schedule is short, when the specifier is asked to start near project completion, when little documentation of product selections exists, or any combination of these. The “not wrong” spec is generic, non-specific. It lists basic products and materials, but does little to address project specific conditions. The detail of terminations and interfaces with adjacent materials – issues that can easily lead to failures – are glossed over or not even mentioned.  This lack of specificity can lead to unnecessary, expensive change orders. Processing these change orders increases construction administration costs, and can result in budgetary disaster on a project.

“To produce a spec that is “right,” the specifier must understand the project and the design intent.” ~ David Stutzman

When “not wrong” specs are further edited to be project-specific, and therefore “right,” they can save time and money for the contractor, owner, and architect.  “Not wrong” specs tend to push design decisions into the construction phase.  Design decisions cost less money when they’re made in the design phases, and specs that are “right” are issued.

Now, from the “Things I Shouldn’t Even Have To Say” file:

“Not wrong” specs are not great, but sometimes I see “just plain wrong” specs.  Sometimes such specs actually contain mentions of the wrong owner, the wrong building, or the wrong city.  (If the spec section is for an engineering discipline, or audio-visual systems, or kitchen equipment, this is often the only way I, an architect, know it’s wrong.)  This is an embarrassment to the entire design team.

I think this happens because of a combination of two factors:

First, in early design, people figure, “oh, we’ll do it like that one project, except for this, and that…” and they think it’s ok to issue, as part of a progress set, the finished specifications from that old project, to make the set look more complete.  It’s not ok.  Every project is different.  If you need a “placeholder,” then consider issuing a complete Table of Contents for the Project Manual, naming all the spec sections that will be included in the final issue, and indicating which sections are not included in this progress issue, but will be included in the next.  Do not issue something that is wrong.

Second, many design professionals simply do not understand the importance of specifications.  Specs are much more than just a “deliverable” due to the owner.  Specifications are an inextricable component of the construction documents, even in early design phases.  If someone is estimating the cost of the project (and someone almost always is, even in early design phases) that person is using the issued progress set specs to help to determine what is supposed to be in the project, and therefore, how much the project will cost.  Don’t issue a spec section if it doesn’t say what you want it to say.  Hint – you must read it before you can know whether it says what you want it to say or not.

“Not wrong” specs can lead an estimator down the correct path, just not quite far enough.  “Just plain wrong” specs usually lead that estimator all the way down the wrong path, wasting time and money for everyone.

If you’re not finished preparing your specs when your deadline comes, issue something less, issue something smaller, but don’t ever issue something that’s just plain wrong.

A Holiday Tale About [Construction] Communication

Some dear relatives-by-marriage of mine hosted us for the Thanksgiving weekend in a warm place.

For Thanksgiving dinner, in addition to my husband, kids, and me, they invited some friends. Twice during the day Thursday, I asked what time people were coming over. The first time, I didn’t get an answer. The second time, I was told that the turkey should come out of the oven at 5:30, so we’d probably eat at 6:30, and that the guests would come over “whenever we tell them to.”

I went for a run, came back to an empty house, and took a shower.

So at 5:00, I was in the kitchen slicing crudités, in strange comfy clothes, with wet hair half up on my head, and wearing no mascara. My husband was still at the beach with the children, one of the hosts was on the lanai, smoking and still wearing golf clothes, and the other was in the shower…

… and the guests walked in.  

They’d been told several days earlier to arrive at 5:00 on Thanksgiving. They could tell that we weren’t ready, and they appeared to be quite uncomfortable. Of the 6 adults involved in dinner, only half of us seemed to be bothered by this mixup, failure-to-communicate, lack-of-modification-of-original-instructions, whatever it was.

Surely an unusual situation, right? And those of us who were unsettled should maybe just lighten up?

Well, no. One story, two messages:

The first message: This kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME in construction communications, and in… well, let’s put my personal life aside. It shouldn’t be happening. Construction documents must communicate clearly.

Sometimes, the Instructions to Bidders document will list one time, date, or location for the bid opening, and another procurement document will indicate another. (Oh, well, it was a typo, no big deal, right? WRONG! These are legal documents! Seemingly tiny conflicts like this could cause a project to have to be bid all over again, or worse! Architects or Owners must check for consistency before issuing documents like this!)

Sometimes, General Notes on the drawings might indicate different window treatments than the rest of the drawings and the specifications show. (Oh, but we talked to the Construction-Manager-as-Contractor about the roller shades; he knows we don’t want those horizontal blinds that the General Notes mention, so it’s ok to just leave that note, right? NOOoooooo! Of course it’s not! It’s not ok to knowingly issue documents with conflicts in them! How are the bidding subcontractors supposed to know what the design team wants? What if they only see the General Notes, and not the drawing notes where what is actually desired is called out? Architects must make sure General Notes on the drawings are relevant and correct.)

Sometimes, drawings will call out storefront, but the specs have a section for curtain wall instead. (But the bidders will figure it out, right? NO!!! Storefront and curtain wall are different things. Architects have to make the documents clear, so as not to waste the bidders’ time, and their own time, during bidding, answering the inevitable question. Architects must ensure that the drawings and the specs are coordinated.)

The entity who is responsible for sending out communications needs to communicate clearly, completely, unambiguously, and in a way that the entity who is receiving the communications can understand. The communicator is responsible for getting the message across.

The dinner guests were not able to divine that, although they had been told to arrive at 5, they should actually show up an hour later, because the host got distracted by family fun at the beach, changed her mind about what time she wanted to receive guests, and failed to tell them to come later than previously indicated.

Bidders, or the constructor, will not be able to know what’s in the sketches or project notebook on the architect’s desk at the office, or what conversations the architect had with the owner two months ago. All that the bidders have to go by is the construction documents. These have to tell the whole story. This is not just to be nice. This is the architect’s legal duty to the owner.

Yes, bidders have to look at the entire set of contract documents, but if a window treatment sub is getting a whole story by looking at just part of the documents, he’ll save himself some time, and stop after reading those General Notes. In the case above, he may have gotten the wrong whole story, because of the architect’s failure to communicate correctly.

The second message: If you, the architect, can’t get it right for the sake of getting it right, remember the guests, er… bidders. Think about how they’ll feel while trying to solve the mysteries of what you were thinking when you drew something that directly conflicted with other documents. Keep in mind that if you make them feel uncomfortable, or if you cause them to waste precious time during bidding, they will remember you for it!

The whole point of dining etiquette is not about using the right fork – it’s about making sure guests are at ease. We have commonly-accepted guidelines about using the correct silverware so that we are starting on the same page, as much as possible, and so that it’ll be easier for everyone to be comfortable, and have a good time.

Do this construction communication thing right. Issue clear, complete, concise, and correct construction documents, and make everyone comfortable. Bidding will go more smoothly, construction will go more smoothly, and your “guests” will be happy to be invited the next time.

Cor-Ten: Why Does It Look Like Rusty Metal?

Ever seen a gorgeous surface that looked like rusty metal?  Well, if it’s weathering steel, often called by a brand name, Cor-Ten, it looks like rusty metal because it IS rusty metal.

This material is really striking, has a great texture, has an interesting color, and is loved by architects.

However, it has some extremely problematic negative aspects… but we might be able to get around some of those.

Check out my latest technical article, published on the website of the Denver Chapter of the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), “COR-TEN and Other Weathering Steel Alloys in Architectural Applications” .