| |
Job talk!
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
> > 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?
I think there's only one A^2. ;) He has his own firm--F. H. Herrmann & Assoc., I think, is still
its name.
> > 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!
For the subdivision my uncle built, people from the architectural firm had to physically be on-site
almost every day--checking in and raising hell if shortcuts were being taken (the worst infraction?
Raw materials--especially decorative items--were provided at a given quality, and the contractor was
apparently replacing it with inferior material and keeping the more valuable delivered items!). It
sounded absolutely maddening, and this was *with* a contractor selected carefully with this level of
supervision in mind. Paperwork--to undo the damage, or just in general? And is this paperwork for
the gov't or for GM's satisfaction? (I could believe either, coming out of a GM family.)
> > 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.
Especially if they separated the things that might be "objectionable" to some with walls rather than
open spaces--it could lead to some interesting designs, maybe sort of like a pie with sections
radiating out from the central business counter in a self-catered eating establishment? I do,
however, wonder what the insurance discount is if an establishment bans smoking of any kind.
> 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.
I understand that some new buildings do have such a room--but that's in the private sector. Public
buildings, however, are victims of this "smoking evil!" mentality whereby enclosing a space somehow
must change its legal character. Perhaps most opt not to have a room for above-mentioned insurance
reasons? I'm a non-smoker, I'm encouraging of others who want to get rid of an expensive and smelly
habit, but legislating people getting pneumonia (or heatstroke in other parts of the country) isn't
the answer. After all, my own mother smokes a pack and a half a day.
> 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!)
Heh. My brother-in-law works over at Ann Arbor Fire Protection, and speaks often of the glory of
hideous piping drawings. I guess that's the plumbing for a different sort of smoking, though. ;)
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Due Process
|
| Lindsay, (...) Yes, indeed! I am at AEI right now, working on a funky Auburn Hills public Safety building, it looks like a house, divided up into a police and fire station, on a 120 degree angle! (...) Hmmm... there are many...100 or so, ah here it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Due Process
|
| Lindsay, (...) Ann Arbor, MI? Which one? (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
