May 2024
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Year 2011

Entries 10 Total

Infographic: Atmospheric Carbon

Dec 20, ’11 6:00 AM

A multi-dimensional database of atmospheric carbon, tracked by season and location across time. It will be helpful to unpack the contents a bit before viewing:

  1. On the left is the latitude chart – reporting measured carbon in PPM for each tracking station – animated to show change over time. Blue dot = south pole. Red dot = Mauna Loa. Gray dots = others.
  2. On the top right, below the chart title: a key to the data sources, changing as each is incorporated into the dataset.
  3. Below that is a world map showing tracking station locations as each comes on-line.
  4. Below that, a clock with one hand for the year and the season.
  5. Below that, a chart reporting the south pole and Mauna Loa data, measuring carbon PPM over time.

Fascinating. Full-screen it for clarity in the details.

Teaser: there is a remarkable moment at the two-minute mark.

Climate scientists believe 350 PPM is the line above which runaway climate change is inevitable. We passed the 350 PPM mark in 1989.

What does it mean, this spectacular rise in global CO2? There are thousands of examples pointing toward a meaning, I am sure. Here is one: in the last century the temperature in western North America increased less than 2 degrees F, but as a result, beginning mostly in the last decade, the great native lodgepole pine forests in western North America are dying at an extraordinary rate. Eighty percent of British Columbia’s mature lodgepole pine trees will be lost before 2013. In Colorado over 80,000 square miles of mature lodgepole pine forest have been lost. All this with less than 2 degrees of warming. Before the predicted 3 to 8 degrees of warming by the end of this century.

The temperature is not killing the trees directly – a beetle is, now that winters are warm enough not to keep the beetles in check. What happens to the other creatures populating a complex forest ecosystem when the trees are gone? What happens when a carbon-negative forest dies and becomes a carbon-positive emitter as is currently happening in western North America?

Buildings consume half of all energy produced in the United States. And therefore, at least indirectly, architects are complicit participants in the transfer of ancient carbon out of the earth and into the atmosphere. By the same token, this puts architects in a powerful position to do something about the problem. How should day-to-day practitioners of Architecture respond?

While we ponder that, time is wasting. 2010 marked the largest increase in atmospheric carbon in history – about 6% – a staggering jump by any measure, and rendering every national and international mitigation goal moot – because none of them remain within reach. Bill McKibben says we’re living on a different planet now… he may be right.

For more about the earth’s carbon cycle jump to the informative NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory CarbonTracker pages.

Comments (1)

Ten Rules of Roof Design

Dec 19, ’11 6:00 AM

A roofer’s perspective: the Ten Rules of Roof Design from GBA.com.

  1. Avoid valleys
  2. Just say no to dormers and skylights
  3. An unconditioned vented attic is better than an insulated roof
  4. The best roof shape is a simple gable or hipped roof
  5. Don’t reduce the slope of your roof halfway between the ridge and the eave
  6. Asphalt felt makes more sense than synthetic roofing underlayment
  7. Plumbing vent pipes should penetrate the roof near the ridge
  8. Choose metal roofing or asphalt shingles
  9. Get flashing details right
  10. Anticipate ice dams

The most amusing part of the post at GBA.com is the author’s “preemptive comment directed at indignant designers.”

Link

Comments (0)

The Poet on Glass Architecture

Nov 20, ’11 6:00 AM

Billy Collins, US Poet Laureate, speaking about the beautiful Poetry Foundation in Chicago, takes a moment to make a general point:

A lot has been said about poetry and architecture, but usually that’s just a metaphor; it means architecture is like poetry in the same way as you’d say something is poetry in motion. [The Architect of the Poetry Foundation] did say that he wanted to construct this building as a kind of a parallel to a poetic experience. One thing about the building is that it’s basically glass, and you might say there are two kinds of poetry: One is stained glass, and one is clear glass. Stained glass poetry wants to be very decorative and colorful and have a brilliant surface, and the poetry I prefer is the poetry of glass, which is clear and makes you want to see through it to something vital. It’s true that as you walk through the building you get many angles from which to look at the interior of the building. So if you walk 25 or 30 feet in some direction and turn around, you are seeing an entire reconfiguration, and that is actually a quite accurate physical representation of what a poem does.

John Ronan, the architect, has delivered quite a nice job: the perforated screen changes color in the sun, special aggregates warm up the sandblasted concrete, the layers of onion-skin architecture work together well, you feel the presence of a well-thought-through syntax. This is an interesting project for a historically struggling starving-artist nonprofit as it grapples with what to do with a huge philanthropic gift, one of the results of which is this building.

This work is as much about the veil, as it is the glass, which makes me think the Audubon Society would approve.

More on John Ronan and the building, and the Poetry Foundation. This page has a link to renderings by the designers and photographs of the opening reception.

Comments (0)

Ruins of Detroit

Nov 17, ’11 6:00 AM

We’re surrounded by an embarrassment of rich photography.

Continue Reading… Comments (1)

Framing Plans: General

Nov 16, ’11 6:00 AM

Rules for framing plans.

A framing plan shows the following:

  1. The framing for the floor of the current story
  2. The load paths of the current story, in black (load-bearing walls, columns, etc).
  3. Supporting walls below the current story
  4. Partitions of the current story, in gray
  5. Plumbing, mechanical, and electrical fixtures that need to be coordinated with the structure, in gray
  6. Dimensions associated with the framing
  7. Layout lines, grid lines, and work lines (a structural grid if you’re using one, otherwise centerlines and alignments communicating design intent).
  8. Detail cross-references to framing and foundation details, and building sections.

Method

  1. Beams and girders. Model them on layer S-frmg.
  2. Joists and rafters. Represent them on the framing plan with 2-d fill 06 | Framing 16 and related fills, on layer S-frmg-2. If you need other spacings, just make another fill. Repetitive members of a floor or roof can be modeled for other reasons, (3d framing diagrams, sections and details) but we don’t typically use the modeled joists and rafters for the framing plan. Why? Because it is far easier and faster to symbolically indicate repetitive framing than to model it accurately enough for use in a floor plan.
  3. Dimensions: Indicate control points – where to start 16″ o.c. spacings.
  4. Partitions. No fill, separators shown.
  5. Bearing Walls. To show a bearing wall, draw a fill on top of it. This is a non-associated, additional element on layer +S-note.
  6. Annotations.
    1. All annotations should go on the layer +S-note.
    2. If you want an annotation to show in the foundation plan simultaneously, use +S-note-all.
    3. Use a background of pen 91 on text blocks to make them readable when placed on fills.
    4. Structure Notes. General notes such as loads, criteria, etc. are part of the General Notes PDF. Specific notes are added to the plans using text blocks.
Comments (0)

Truth or Fiction

Nov 15, ’11 6:00 AM

A meditation on the architectural image: photograph? rendering? You decide.

In the nineties I remember the minor kerfuffle involving an image of the interior of the not-yet-open-to-the-public MOMA in San Francisco by Mario Botta, until it was revealed that the image was not the illicit pre-grand-opening photograph captured by a ninja photographer people thought it was, but rather a digital model rendered with great care. I couldn’t find a specific link to verify my memory, but the images of SFMOMA here certainly fit the “is it real?” meme.

There are exceptions, but almost every photorealistic rendering I look at seems to lack a point other than “hey look at me and my shallow command of texture map and lighting effect.” The technology amazes, but let’s remember why Avatar was not such a good movie, and why Pixar seems incapable of making a bad one, and what architecture is for, and the reason we’ve decided to spend our lifetimes making buildings. Stealing the conceit from the Avatar link above: a CGI image is distracting like incredibly good-looking people are (the stereotypical fashion model) until you realize how vapid and self-centered and boring it is. And like incredibly good-looking people who mange to also be interesting, smart, and compassionate – CGI that *does* jump the gap between documentation and art has an uphill fight to prove its worth.

These are the same issues photography faces as an art form.

There’s a point to be made here that I’ll cite with reference to Robert Bringhurst, the typographer, poet and writer: this visual material is at its best when it self-effacingly serves the (architectural) content.

Referencing what the poet said: a rendering should be window, opening a view through to something vital.

So what’s that point again? I don’t know… perhaps it is to say that just because one can, does not mean one should. Or better: if you can, don’t forget to ask yourself why and to what effect?

Vermeer is still the gold standard.

Comments (0)

Lighting Design

Oct 26, ’11 9:04 AM

Le Corbusier said:

“Architecture is the masterly, correct and magnificent play of masses brought together in light.”

One might infer from this famous utterance that with the absence of light architecture is not possible.

Continue Reading… Comments (0)

Without a Technical Foundation, Design is on Shaky Ground

Oct 14, ’11 8:49 AM

Fun with metaphors.

Three legs of a tripod: Drawings, Specifications, and the Construction Agreement, these organize the construction process of a building. Unless all three legs are there and functioning the whole operation collapses. A good tripod holds the camera steady and helps the photographer maintain focus on her intended subject.

Another: the construction phase is a symphony in concert. The conductor is the GC. The sections of the orchestra are the trades. The various musicians are the skilled subcontractors. The architect is the composer. The owner hopes the operation remains solvent.

Here’s the point: a good orchestral score requires technical proficiency. And an orchestral score, like the architect’s construction documents, needs to be well-organized, accurate, and coordinated. It needs a central idea that will move an audience. We hardly ever think of a score as a “deliverable”, but I’m sure composers fret over the quality of their deliverable as much as we do.

Back to the tripod: Our public commissions stand on three very stout versions of these three legs. Our design service agreements with public agencies, coupled with our own professional standards, obligate us to pay close attention to each of them. By contrast, our private commissions stand on stronger or weaker versions of the same three legs depending on the particular requirements of the project or the client. But keep in mind that each leg, whether feeble or stout, acknowledged or not, is always there. Whether you can trust testing it with any weight is another matter.

Another metaphor: good design is supported on a solid technical foundation. In support of this view, we reprint here with permission, Walter R. Scarborough’s recent piece from Durability+Design.

Specifying Mediocrity?
Without a Technical Foundation, Design is on Shaky Ground

The architectural profession has settled for specification mediocrity.

Allow me to explain.

My thesis is this: if the architectural profession treated the creative design process in the same way as specifications are treated, the built environment would be ugly, ugly, ugly. The profession would never abuse the creative design process in the same way they do specifications.

Specifications are supposed to be complementary to the drawings.
They ought to be the necessary technical information supporting the design intent expressed as a graphic representation of the project in the drawings.
They ought to include information that is important to the administration of the construction contract, as well as a variety of other things such as submittal requirements, performance provisions and quality requirements.

They ought to be of the same importance as the creative design process.

They ought to…

OK, you catch my drift.

The Reality

Unfortunately, the reality of specifications is nowhere near what it should be. The architectural profession has collectively decided specifications are not important and will only be provided because “something” is expected to be delivered.

Specifications have been abandoned by the profession. Many architects treat specifications flippantly and will only produce them as if an afterthought. Subcontractors and product suppliers believe well-written specifications are crucial to their financial success and essential because they directly influence the bid that is rendered for particular aspects of the work and the quality of the work to be constructed. Nevertheless, specifications are not given the same significance and level of necessity by the architectural profession.

Many firms are not hesitant to have an IT person or “BIM expert” on staff, yet at the same time they do not believe a specifier would be an asset to their work.

Think about it: an investment will be made to keep the computers running, but an investment will not be made to produce the specifications for the designs and drawings that are produced on those computers. Some firms will employ experienced specifiers on staff, but other firms will assign the responsibility for producing specifications to those individuals the leadership does not know what else to do with. Specifications occupy the lowest-value position in far too many firms.

But does the building function?

Many architects will study a design detail at great length, but will give very little time to properly specifying the products that comprise the detail being studied. The profession routinely invests time and human resources in developing the aesthetics of a project, but will ignore the technical competency necessary to get the design built. It’s more about the design than it is about delivering a properly functioning building.

Rightfully so, architects will scrutinize and seek counsel before signing a contract, but will compromise on the quality of one of the two construction documents they are obligated by that contract to deliver. Most talented and experienced specifiers will make every effort to tailor the specifications to the aesthetic design and drawings, but far too many architects are satisfied as long as something is cobbled together that can be called the specifications.

If you don’t believe this indictment, seek out the opinions and beliefs of product suppliers, the majority of whom will support the claims made in this blog space and will tell you that a lot of bad specifications are out there.

Specifications are yet another aspect of architecture that the architectural profession has neglected, the implications of which are that the constructors and product suppliers just work around them by “finishing” the documents—a position in which they do not like to be. Many product suppliers are frustrated that they are asked to bid incomplete or poorly produced documents.

Contract Documents

At the same time, the quality of drawings has declined over the last several decades, but that will be the subject of a future discussion.

Far too many architects entirely miss the point of specifications. The point is more than just the construction of the building, it’s about the following.

  • The design intent and drawings are complemented with technical and administrative information.
  • Procedures are established for the project delivery process.
  • The roles and responsibilities are established for the administration of the contract.
  • The quality of products and execution is established.
  • Competition is facilitated so that the owner’s money is spent efficiently.

A risky paradigm shift

While many will disagree with these assertions, it is this commentator’s opinion that the architectural profession is in the midst of a paradigm shift toward irrelevance that has been taking place for at least a decade. Weak construction documents, the proliferation of consultants that are replacing the services of architects, the expanding role of the contractor, declining technical competency, and a profession that is focused elsewhere are converging to a point in which the architectural profession may not recover.

If the current direction continues, in a decade or so the architectural profession will be only be a small part of a bigger process that is directed, managed and administered by others, many of whom do not understand how to build buildings. The profession is moving in the direction of generalizing itself right out of existence.

When and how did it happen that specifications were determined to be unimportant and that very little effort would be put forth to produce the best possible construction documents? The architectural profession should regain a position of technical competency and ought to begin by giving specifiers and specifications the attention an owner and the construction process deserves.

About the blogger

Walter R. Scarborough, CSI, SCIP, AIA, is a contributing editor of Durability + Design, and is a registered architect and specifier with more than 30 years of technical experience with many building types. He was director of specifications for 10 of his 22 years with one of the largest architecture firms in the world.

Scarborough is revision author for CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide; co-author of the college textbook Building Construction, Principles, Materials and Systems; has written articles for periodicals; has taught college courses; has given presentations at local, state, regional, and national conferences; is active in the Construction Specifications Institute at national and chapter levels; is a past president of the Dallas CSI chapter; is a member of the Institute Education Committee; has CDT, CCS, and CCCA certifications from CSI; received CSI’s J. Norman Hunter Memorial Award in 2008; and is an ARCOM MasterSpec Architectural Review Committee member.

Comment from Robert Wagner, (10/3/2011, 10:39 AM)

Mr. Scarborough accurately describes what I have been seeing from the contractor side. I would like to add that even small improvements by architects in the coordination between drawings and specification, for example, would contribute significantly to constructibility, cost efficiencies and owner value.

Comment from John Williams, (10/3/2011, 1:12 PM)

Unfortunately, Walter is correct in many of his comments. The issue runs very deep in many firms – even those which have committed to quality specifications. The commitment has to be firm-wide and embraced by every Project Architect and Project Manager. Relegating specifications to the end of the project with extremely limited budgets is a recipe for disaster – or at least for a large number of RFI’s through the construction phase. Specifiers have to be more active in promoting themselves and the technical excellence that they can bring to the project. We are all in this together. And, we all need to promote the position of specifier to younger architects who would perhaps prefer something other than design as a career path.

Comment from Liz O’Sullivan, (10/5/2011, 3:12 PM)

Walter Scarborough’s blog hits the nail on the head regarding the declining relevance of architecture as a profession. And this situation is NOT okay. Architects need to be the people practicing architecture. But in order to continue doing that competently and effectively, architects need to be focusing more on technical building knowledge. I agree that architects as a profession are losing ground in the area of technical competency. Sometimes, it seems as if architects are trying to make up for that by relying on construction managers to fill in the technical gaps, but we’re the ones who are better suited to be doing that. We need to do our own technical research, first, and then, WE need to be the ones seeking out the advice of product reps and subcontractors. We shouldn’t hand that job over to a general contractor. Construction management delivery cannot be a replacement for lack of technical competency on the part of the architect. (We still have the professional liability for the technical aspects of those designs. If you don’t believe me, just ask the lawyers.) I fear irrelevance – not for myself – for the profession of architecture in general. I think that the AIA is barking up the wrong tree – emphasizing things like IPD and focusing on the designs of star designers instead of promoting the importance of technical competence for architects, and the importance of licensure for architects. Walter Scarborough’s blog post focuses on specs, but I see lots of drawings that are inadequate technically, too. Codes are mysterious to many architects – some don’t seem to realize that it’s their job to interpret the codes and turn them into designs, instead of putting notations on drawings that say things like “insulation thickness as required by applicable codes.” I would like to increase awareness of the importance of technical building knowledge for architects. If anyone has any tips for how to reach the people who need to hear it, let me know! I’m pretty sure I’m preaching to the choir, right here.

Comments (0)

Exterior Foam Primer

Oct 5, ’11 6:00 AM

After lots of back-and-forth, attempts, and unsuccessful attempts in our office to specify exterior foam for energy-tight exterior envelopes in our office this post is timely:

How to Install Rigid Foam Sheathing: A Primer

Comments (0)

Pens update

Sep 21, ’11 6:00 AM

The pen set concept is a powerful one. Let’s talk about how to use pens, and pen sets, effectively.

Continue Reading… Comments (0)