Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On-Line Course w/ MA Torres-MacDonald TA, Layne Scott
course material
readings, tips, & references
class page archives
-
▼
2010
(17)
- ► 05/02 - 05/09 (1)
- ► 04/25 - 05/02 (2)
- ► 04/11 - 04/18 (2)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (1)
- ► 03/07 - 03/14 (2)
- ► 02/21 - 02/28 (2)
- ► 02/07 - 02/14 (2)
- ► 01/31 - 02/07 (1)
- ► 01/24 - 01/31 (1)
Posts
What I found most intriguing about chapter 5, was the argument about who’s responsible for the application of the codes and standards our buildings are required to meet. This is not to question specifically, who the person is that creates the code, but out of what standard are they applying, and what from what measurements do they begin? Many of us are familiar with various codes that buildings must meet, but how do codes justifiably require certain safety elements, and who’s to say that those requirements are actually enough? This is the principle argument Spector makes, in which he poses the question that if the designer or engineer feels as though the code is not strict enough, is it then their responsibility to make the building perform to a higher standard than what is required minimally? What if by doing so the owner is likely to incur greater costs? But if this is true, who is protecting the users that aren’t personally paying for the initial costs but could potentially be harmed if they happen to occupy the building in the time of disaster?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that if the designer/ engineer or any other professional has reason to believe that the code is bellow par, they have the responsibility to address the issue to the client and make necessary adjustments. I do think the client has the right to know about these changes, and though the client may not fully understand the risks or dangers presented, the designer should make clear that their actions are being done in the best interest of both the client and its users.
Spector takes a modern, quite literal equivalent of firmitas and discusses its moral insecurities. Although thorough, his journey does not delve past firmness in the form of seismic codes. Being from an area with little seismic activity disallows my input to stem from personal experience. However, I do feel that Spector could have better addressed the issue of firmitas by devoting additional chapter space to longevity and atypical structural solutions that have proved successful. Yet he unfortunately relegates the entirety of the topic to the inherent discrepancies between professional and laymen, sure to abound in any field requiring some form of expertise.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to interpretation of code, I agree with Adrianna and fully believe it is up to the professional to, in the best interest of the client and safety, interpret whether a code exists as minimum, target, or maximum. I also believe that just nearly every other disclosable aspect of the design/building process, firmitas should be meticulously detailed to the client. Perhaps this could be best accomplished by employing “building longevity and integrity” as a competitive selling point. It has worked well for proponents of total masonry construction.
The last of Alberti’s three key components to successful architecture focuses much more on building codes and zoning ordinances as opposed to design. But just how all the others work, the building structure is greatly improved through successful use of the other two principles of function and beauty. While firmness tends to be the last thing in the mind of a design oriented architect, it could very likely be the most important part to a building. A building can be created without a beauty, and a building can be created with poor function. But a building can never be created if it cannot stand up. That being said, the architect has more work to do than to create a pretty and functional building that just stands up. It is the ethical duty of the designer to create a cost-effective structure that incorporates all of these elements in a way that considers the safety and well-being of the inhabitants inside and out of it. Much thought goes into building codes and zoning ordinances because of this, since the public welfare should always be top priority in the mind of the architect. However, this does not mean that the codes should be interpreted as a target or a maximum level to attain. According to Spector, this would mean that architects would have to justify to their clients why they committed to more than the law requires. All that is happens when an architect purposely does more than the code requires is the cost increases and the building becomes extremely but unnecessarily safe. Therefore, it seems only logical in everyone’s case that the codes be regarded as a minimum requirement, especially in an age where cost effectiveness usually takes priority over everything. In response to Adrianna, I think it would be very ethical for an architect to look out for the safety of the client if they think the code is below par. But if the architect would do this for one client, they will probably follow the same pattern for other clients. Also, it may be difficult to tell if the architect is doing it out of personal care for the public, or just simply to avoid any possible legal consequences that may result from a poor building design. But should a change be made, I agree that if it is consulted with the client with complete honesty and regard to necessity, it would be just fine.
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, Spector is seems to be justifying, almost obliging designers to use professional opinion and knowledge when deciding how much to exceed a building code; and seems to be encouraging designers to do so. “The designer must craft a personal attitude towards the building code.” Again, Spector goes with the grey area. He says that while the minimum is, obviously, good enough to follow code, the maximum is not always desirable nor cost effective. Therefore, somewhere in between is the logical solution. This in between spot is left up to the owner and designer. Here again, problems occur. Should the designer debate how much is necessary with a possibly uneducated client, or use his or her own judgment in the matter and chose what is best for the project? I regards to Spector’s near obsession with seismic design, I think the designer should present to the client a design with above minimum code, but inform the client of this and the benefits of having such a design, and let the client decide from there. Strong persuasion for the original design should be utilized. However, where exceeding the code could bring a large improvement to safety, it could at the same time reducing the delight, livability, attractiveness, or happiness of client or user, therefore the professional’s opinion is often sacrificed and the minimum requirements are implemented at the clients discretion.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed earlier in class, and as stated by Spector, “all moral decisions are not created equal.” Professionals have different opinions on what is morally and ethically good and bad in design. They are of course assisted in knowing what is good by codes of ethics. So at the end of the day, the in between spot in the code is left up to the designer; that spot, even for the same hypothetical project, would be in a different location on the scale to another designer. Until an absolute code is enforced, which, for seismic code, may happen (if the minimum is raised much higher and the standard by which designers follow that code is raised), but for normal building code will more than likely never happen, this battle of in between spots will continue.
I agree with Adrianna's second paragraph, which is more or less stated in my first paragraph.
In chapter five I think the conflict between the minimum and maximum with the numerous codes that design professions must deal with is an interesting topic. In every design project there is an obvious minimum that all designers must meet in order to be within the safe realms of the law. However, at what point does a designer make the executive and professional decision to go further beyond what is needed in order to provide safety and well being for the building’s occupants? Ultimately if the decision to up the amount of code enforcement within a building is made it will cause a rise in cost, which in turn will eventually be a decision solely based on the client. Another dilemma though is the level of knowledge that the client has. If the client does not have any prior knowledge about the codes or simply doesn’t understand the need for such change in the building, then it is the designer’s responsibility to educate the client to the best ability in order to ensure safety. If safety and well being isn’t strictly criticized early in a design process then it can only widen the margin of error later on in the building’s life. Enforcing a strict time limitation such as the northern California group did, is in my opinion a somewhat reasonable way of dealing with certain situations. If the people who write the codes and establish the way they must be followed come up with a way of more strictly enforcing the level of completion of the codes then in the end it wouldn’t come down to the people of the city, township, or client. Just as it says within the chapter, “the hazard to the public is perceived as sufficiently high… any hardship incurred by the building owners is given lower priority.”
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with both Adrianna and Phil, I feel that it is the designers sole responsibility to inform the client of what needs and has to be done. This is especially needed when the client is at a complete loss of knowledge in the situation. In the end this will ultimately ensure the safety of the client's building as well as the assurance that the risk factor of legal ramifications toward the designer later on will be lessened.
You all are making good points that are enriching the dialog about professional practice in this class. The comments about responsibility to those inside and outside the project are important because they engage the role of the architect with context. Spector presents his arguments not only as a statement of purpose and to challenge you in your thoughts about the broader understanding of an ethical responsibility. Grey is the word. Spector intends you to question him. He isn't attempting to say, "I'm right and you are wrong", rather to say, "What about this responsibility...here's how I think it can be presented...what do you think?" This type of book intends to provoke thinking. It is not often that we delve into the thinking of ethics within the context of archtitectural education. As one colleague said, "if you have to learn about ethics, doesn't it mean you have none?". Perhaps, but not likely. In this form, it is about exploring it within the context of practice and as a new form of query. Learning about viewing ethics in a manner that intends to present practice enriches the academic discussion.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Pace
ReplyDeleteMay 23, 2010
Reading: Chapter 5 Firmitas
In chapter 5, firmitas, Tom brings up a good point to how a professional should regard certain codes and regulations. I believe I would stand on the side of viewing codes as a certain “target” to reach with leeway on both sides of a particular target. In this view an architect rarely has to worry about a moral obligation towards meeting these codes regarding societies benefit since they are in general laid out for their safety and comfort. However, this stance must also be taken with a grain of salt, because while looking at the entirety of a project regarding it’s necessary codes one must judge for him/herself which codes must be strictly adhered to and which ones one may deviate from. Regarding more “specialized” codes, such as seismic, I believe that as an architect and designer we must trust in these codes, as they were written by specialists within that particular field. And as technologies and/or new building techniques grow, we as the architect must look into these fields and see if their a better, safer way that we may incorporate into our design and attempt to push the perspective client into a likeminded way of thinking. Within these decisions I believe that one must first look at the narrower notion of professional duty and then balance compare it with public interest. These deliberations then cannot be generalized but would become situational and each project would have to be analyzed through numerous factors before compromising between the aesthetic, functional and firmness of a building. The idea of retrofitting a possibly “dangerous” building, I believe is more of a moral one. This in turn must be looked at as case sensitive, and if you as the professional believe it to be a possible danger to society then you might look at passing on the commission or looking into alternative routes in which you may retrofit not only the design but also incorporate additional bracing into the structure so that it will adhere to the specifications that you would be comfortable working on, and in doing so “limiting your liability.” In certain instances, where no clear solution is in hand, you may want to outsource your designs to a specialist who might have a clearer understanding of the problem, and through this insight would free you of the responsibility and “transfer the risk.”
I also agree with Joel when dealing with the knowledge of a client. I believe that one must, within the initials interviews, get a feel for the knowledge that the client possess concerning design and construction and through this the professional may persuade the owner towards the right path that would eventually help both the project and society.
After reading Chapter 5, and thinking about the multitude of codes architects must design with in mind, I feel that architects have an opportunity to create buildings that allow for ultimate safety in mind. The question is does the architect only have to meet the standards or should the architect push the standards farther and go beyond? I believe that the decision is up to both the architect. This answer may be controversial, but I believe that the architect is the one that is makes a statement to the occupants that the building is safe enough for occupation. The client has no stake in the name behind the building, other than the fact that they are the name behind the building. I do believe that it is the Architects responsibility to inform the client of the different criteria, and why it is in place. If the Architect/designer is able to make his/her own decisions on how the codes and other enforcements are incorporated into the design, they can then put their seal on the documents without worry about the integrity of their design.
ReplyDeleteChapter 5, Firmitas, addresses some of the dilemmas that designers face when dealing with the Vitruvian value of firmitas. The interpretation of building codes and regulations can become a very complicated ethical dilemma for the designer. Whether he or she views a code as a target level, a minimum level, or a maximum level of public amenity it is in his professional realm to make that judgment. The architect and engineer’s job is to utilize their knowledge to interpret the codes and apply them to their design. Their decisions should reflect client’s needs and overall safety. I agree with several of the previous posts that it is the professionals place to interpret codes as he or she sees necessary. I think it is the designer’s ethical duty to address any issue of code requirements with the client. If a decision is made that affects the project, especially one with financial or safety implications, it should be addressed with the client. The client may not have the necessary knowledge base to fully understand why certain measures need to be taken but that is why the professional was hired. It is their responsibility to educate their client and make such judgment calls. Another important factor to remember is that the designer can also be held liable for any shortcomings or issues within their design. If morals aren’t enough to keep the professional open with their client then personal liability should.
ReplyDeleteAs many of the students who have posted before me have pointed out... It is the personal preference of every architect out there as to whether or not these codes and variances are actually the target and ideal level or the minimal level or even the max level that they have to design too. I think the best judge of these levels are made by architects with the most experience. These architects will have seen over time how the buildings that meet or exceed certain code requirements perform. Then based on these observations they will know if the code for a certain part over compensates and makes sure that it will never fail or if the code is the bare minimum and might fail if more strain than what is needed to be designed for is applied. Based on this knowledge they can then lobby for code changes in the right direction to create a code system that makes sure everyone is safe and even reduces some limitations that exceed what will ever be needed to reduce other costs and hopefully balance each other out over time. Also if the architect knows that something should be designed above code requirements than it is part of their ethical obligation, like Allison says, to tell the client so and refuse to build it to a lesser standard even if it means losing the job. I would much rather lose the job than to have a building out there that fails with my name on it. even if i wasn't going to be held liable because i met all the standards and adhered to the reasonable level i am accountable for I would much rather hold myself to a very high level and let the market know that I can be trusted to do something right and that i wont put my beliefs and safety of other aside for a paycheck.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing Spector’s idea to encourage designers that it is in their hands, based on their professional experience, to decide on how much they are able to exceed building codes. I feel that this is a reasonable solution to the design process because the building codes are set there for standards of safety based on many aspects such as region and building type, and sometimes the client doesn’t have a full understanding of the building codes and what it costs to reach code, so this dilemma becomes more situational on how deep the clients pockets are. So ultimately it is up to the designer to find a reasonable medium to which to design a project above code based on the funds that are available to them. Then moving onto to the next problem brought up is should these decisions be placed on the owner or the designer of the project. I find this decision to be entirely up to the architect because they are the one who must stamp the project and have their name and reputation at stake based on the “firmness” of their project, so again they must find a reasonable medium in which to design above code to based on the funds available. A well rounded designer will be able to build their structure above code while keeping all three elements of the triad intact; keeping it functional, beautiful, and firm.
ReplyDeleteLexie Lowers said:
ReplyDeleteI'd like to tie the reading in with our recent and upcoming discussion regarding IDP. Spector addresses interpreting the code and the architect's role when deciding if the code is a minimum standard, or a public amenity, but one thing is set in stone: The architect needs to know the code. Whether or not its contents are being questioned and/or interpreted, it is the architects responsibility to know where to look, and to be well versed in all aspects of the code. When I worked for a firm in Dallas, I was forced to study mostly the International Building Code. 120 IDP hours go towards code research and after I looked back on my record, I had 280 hours, so you can see that code research was quite a bit of what I did.
On the discussion of codes in association with chapter 5, I think a major issue is that even though the codes exist and have been decided upon through study and experimentation, there just isn't enough respect for them. Unfortunately in today's society, making money often comes before safety. Many construction companies will hide code imperfections from inspectors or use the cheapest materials and techniques to pass code inspections. Often though, the bare minimum isn't enough to prevent tragedy. Going above and beyond minimum code requirements is essential to provide the best quality and safest buildings we can. Architects many times will realize this and specify certain products and procedures to be used, but it is up to the client and the contractor whether or not those specifications are actually followed. Time and time again it has been proven that spending the money in initial construction saves in the long run with both safety and less maintenance and replacement.
ReplyDeleteI think over designing or even counting a code antiquated or obsolete is a hard thing to do. It is up to us as professionals to make suggestions to our code officials as to what we think might need revising, but to make changes in our buildings for reasons other than fact or codes already set in place is not the way to go. We have a lot of codes that are there for a reason and we need to respect the councils in place to keep them up to date.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter refers to the use of Building Codes. The author relates these codes to the ‘firmness’ because of the fact that they typically set a standard of performance for buildings construction. According to the author, these codes are considered the minimum requirements for building construction. The argument comes when designers, architects, and engineers treat the codes as the maximum or target for the project. For the author, when they do this they are “regarding building codes in a way that they were not meant to be interpreted.” However the author makes the argument that many “codes are written with generous factors of safety included in structural calculations, units of egress, and the like,” and that by adding more than is necessary that would “require designers to justify to their clients why they are committing to more than the law requires.”
ReplyDeleteOne of the questions brought up is what a designer and/or engineer should do in the event they were to feel that the codes are not the best way to protect against seismic occurrences. In my opinion, codes are put in place to provide the best possible protection and safety to the public. If a designer, even with the best intentions, were to be given the chance to ignore them and do something that may even be better for the public than a designer that wants to cut corners would have the same chance to ignore the codes. Codes are put in place to not only protect the public but also protect the architect from liability. In the case of standard codes that may not be the best way to protect the public, the designer would still be protect from becoming liable if something was to go wrong during an earthquake. I think the codes are decided upon in the best way possible and therefore should be followed regardless. However, if there is a solution that follows the codes and still goes above and beyond to protect the public than I would say go for it. Of course the protecting the public is what is the best but only in the case where codes are followed to the letter or beyond.
ReplyDelete