| |
Lindsay,
Mr L F Braun wrote:
>
> "Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
>
> > To All,
> >
> > I read a fascinating article in Design Systems about how restaurants
> > handle smoking / non smoking areas. Since I work in the Architectural /
> > Mechanical Engineering realm, most engineers design for certain CFM's
> > for certain areas, the smoking areas would naturally have more drawn out
> > for the smoke. However, once the contractor gets the prints, this is one
> > of the cost downs most contractors go for, the additional cost of the
> > smoking ductwork and exhaust. I guess in Liberatopia, a restaurant would
> > want to make sure the smoking and non smoking areas stay clear of each
> > other, and also have enough negative pressure to suck out the smoke.
>
> I've always wondered if this was something that was implemented in the design phase or after
> the fact--it's interesting to hear the reality. My uncle is an architect in A^2
Ann Arbor, MI? Which one?
> and has
> built or remodeled private residences and public buildings since the 1970s, and he's > talked
> about some of the shortcuts contractors may take in materials or techniques. I had no > idea,
> however, that this was something the contractor could change unilaterally. Is it > unilateral?
It depends on the contractor, some are good, some are bad, just like
anything else. I know some of the projects here at AEI, we ran into
problems with contractors short cutting. The process of building
buildings is a tedious one, with tons of paperwork, arguments,
redesigns, etc. Most of the time, the contractors do submit a shop
drawing or a DCR (Document Clarification Request), but some don't, and
the customer is the one who suffers. When you, as an engineering firm,
can work with the contractors, and the vendors, you can usually come to
getting a really good building. If not, it is not good. We are doing two
buildings at the GM Milford Proving Grounds, B#16 and B#24, and 16 is
going well, but 24 is a disaster. Two different contractors, one good,
and one terrible. And the paperwork, ugh!
> Hmm...in a Libertopia, wouldn't we then have to contend with additional categories of
> "smoke-friendliness" in places of business, given decriminilization and deregulation of > other
> oft-smoked substances? It's an interesting thought to roll around. (Imagining, while typing
> this, the ventilation equivalent of the Get Smart "cone of silence" descending over the
> "marijuana section"...) In Amsterdam, it seems to be handled with a place being either
> pot-friendly or not depending on its own declaration, but the places that are also appear to
> rely upon that as the claim-to-fame for their business, so it may not provide an accurate
> measure with respect to the hypothetical scenario. (I've never gone into one, so I can't
> speak to the ventilation issue in practice.)
It isn't too big of deal, but I think Marijuana sections would need
increased negative zones for added exhaust, simply because of the effect
of the exhaled smoke. (I don't know, I never inhaled, or anything else
for that matter, just smelled it a couple of times at the beach!) I
would think architects could design different sections, separated by
walls, to minimalize the other sections. Having walls is often easier to
design for, in terms of HVAC design, than completely open spaces. Also,
the client would have a big part in determining what, if any, substances
can be smoked. A smart businessman would make it so that all people
could come to the establishment and use it's facilities, and make sure
the people who want to be smoke free stay as well. It may cost a few
more bucks initially, but the added customer base will overcome it.
While we are on this subject, I really can't understand why the
anti-smoking establishment can't at least have one room in a building
with smokers, so they don't have to be out in the elements and snow and
the like. It is just an exhaust fan up to the exhaust ductwork, and
maybe a closed door. It is very perplexing, because I know how simple
the engineering can be for that.
Thanks! (Ha, I thought I might never be able to talk about my work on
Lugnet, now I have! :) - Now, back to hideous piping drawings!)
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Due Process
|
| Job talk! (...) I think there's only one A^2. ;) He has his own firm--F. H. Herrmann & Assoc., I think, is still its name. (...) For the subdivision my uncle built, people from the architectural firm had to physically be on-site almost every (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Due Process
|
| (...) I've always wondered if this was something that was implemented in the design phase or after the fact--it's interesting to hear the reality. My uncle is an architect in A^2 and has built or remodeled private residences and public buildings (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
