LocalCenters.com » Architecture

Building Codes Do Not Insure Quality Construction

LC — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:50:01 +0000

A local building department reviews a plan submittal. The plan is eventually approved and construction can begin. Does compliance with a building code mean a guaranteed level of quality during construction?

Not necessarily.

To see why, it is helpful to understand that a code is a minimum set of construction requirements primarily designed to address life/safety, accessibility, energy efficiency and other concerns the public sees as necessary for their collective well-being. To use the example of a roof, codes only specify it protect a building (structure) from water. This is a performance requirement. They do not specify on how this is to be accomplished. In contrast is an issue directly affecting life/safety, let’s say the roof’s sheathings, which must satisfy more stringent minimum requirements for sheathing material, nailing, spacing, etc. So while a leaky roof may eventually violate code performance requirements, it has not violated any prescriptive requirements (since there are none). The task remains, to provide a set of specific standards detailing how a roof membrane is to be constructed.

Those procedures and standards can be summed into three groups:

certification reports
industry group standards
individual manufacturer’s recommendations

The first is sometimes used in conjunction with permit drawings, to explain alternate methods of complying with code regulations. Most common are U/L certifications, ICC reports, and other independent testing laboratory agencies and evaluations. The second would include trade groups such as the SMA (Stucco Manufacturer’s Association), APA (The Engineered Woods Association) or the MFMA (Metal Framing Manufacturer’s Association). The third are installation and maintenance procedures a manufacturer (say USG) publishes that best insure a building product will perform as claimed. Within the last two groups, reports can account for regional differences requiring modifications to a more general protocol.

Again some of the above are part of an approval process and are tied to a section of code mandating a performance or as substitute for a prescriptive qualification – but many are not. For those, construction documents prepared by a skilled designer, fill many of the gaps between a performance mandated by code and the long term viability of a construction.

In conjunction with the knowledge and workmanship of the general contractor, these standards can go beyond requirements of a building code, to make a more trouble free building, a reality.

By Ernie Moore, AIA

The Architect’s Role in Strip Mall Development

LC — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:02:00 +0000

A Guest Article by Ernie Moore, AIA

The strip mall construction phase may be defined as the progressive transformation of an vision into a physical space in which people can function as intended. In strip mall development, that space is the point at which display and sale of goods, or the transaction of agreements or services can take place.

The major players on a strip mall building project are the developer, the architect, and the building contractor. Governmental authorities, consultants, community groups, attorneys, and others may have additional influence on the development, depending on the nature or scope of the project. Each has their own agenda, but these stakeholders share a common goal of seeing the process to an acceptable end.

The project architect refines and transforms the client’s concepts into a set of working drawings a contractor puts out for bids and later uses to direct actual construction. The architect’s prime goal is the satisfaction of various goals and directives that the client (in this case the developer) has ,at least in the client’s mind articulated.

These may include the look and feel of the final product, the building and spaces sizes, access to utilities, storage, and trash enclosures, public amenities, materials used in construction, and the general construction and materials quality.

In addition to client-driven goals, the architect must also incorporate various legal mandates, codes, and regulations into the project design. Particularly in commercial construction where publics are the prime users, the architect, under review by code officials, is the responsible party for insuring that development of those considerations is consistent with local codes, regulations, planning guidelines or other restrictions a local jurisdiction may have enacted. If a conflict exists between a client request and what a local code articulates, the code requirements prevail. Although it may be possible to argue or appeal a code official’s decision, appeals are expensive and time-consuming and require all parties to be well versed in the details of the arguments.

The architect’s knowledge of local, state, and federal codes, combined with a talent for mediation, can save the client weeks of time and thousands of needless expenditure dollars.

Besides the contractual role as the client’s agent and representative before the governing authority, it is often the unspoken but self-appointed role of the architect as the maker of aesthetics, the creator of the beautiful building. Although within the architectural community this role may be considered the architect’s main purpose in life, in reality this aesthetic factor fills the available spaces between the mandates of the client and governmental agendas. In an ideal world there would be no conflict; but in reality if a particular component of a space or building is “economically defective” or doesn’t make code, no matter how beautiful, it doesn’t get built. To avoid such conflicts, what “succeeds” as a design is what has been done before, and the architect’s role defaults to a previous body of “successful” work, either his or others’, on which to base their current design.

The architect’s role also envelopes various conceptual goals the architect may like to see furthered in the project. These could be sustainability, new urbanism, mixed use, community enhancement, or a particular style or theme of which the architect is fond and is trying to promote. These schematics would be discussed and evaluated as to viability early in the design process. Especially when a local jurisdiction is attempting to mandate a particular design, these underlying designs could be the reason a particular architect was engaged.

The sum of the architect’s functions places his role as an integral facilitator and resolver of the client’s objectives, an interpreter and executive of government regulations, and an overseer of the development of initial concepts into a set of drawings by which the entire construction process shall be driven.

Ernie Moore in the principal architect in the Sacramento, CA firm ArO. Ernie designed a building for us that was a finalist among four others out of approximately 300 entries in the Community Enhancement category. He may be reached at emoore@aro-dm.com or (916) 428-2351

New Urbanism in Suburbia–A Bad Idea

LC — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 06:27:35 +0000

New Urbanism for Small Suburban Shopping Centers-A Bad Idea

New Urbanism (NU), a component of Smart Growth, has been the mantra of choice for local governments nationwide for more than a decade. Originally developed by progressive architects and planners reacting to perceived housing sprawl, the elements comprising NU include mixed-use communities with walkability within and between employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, and nearby public transportation. Eschewing “big-box” unarticulated buildings, NU attempts to create “human scale” buildings catering to the nearby resident and worker. The purported benefits of NU include reductions in traffic congestion, air pollution, fuel consumption, and obesity; walkability is a key component of NU.

This paper shall challenge the viability of these elements of NU as they relate to the creation and success of small neighborhood shopping centers serving primarily residents and employees within walking distance.

NU Principle One: Sprawl Must Be Stopped

Addressing the Congress for a New Urbanism in 2000, NU pioneer, planner and architect Peter Calthorpe said, “Americans in general agree that urban sprawl is a problem.” He cited a study by the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, whose poll showed that “urban sprawl was the most important local issue in the country.” [1] Gordon and Richardson disagreed, stating,” while more than 70 percent of the 250 local growth management initiatives come out strongly in favor of high densities, but not for them and not in their neighborhood.”[2] Americans have moved to the suburbs to escape crime and density and have not shown a propensity toward high density in their suburbs and exurbs.

NU Principle Two: Public Transportation Nodes Near Centers Will Create Large Sales

That is a reasonable assumption if public transportation utilization were growing. Sadly, and in face of the new light-rail systems serving many suburbs and exurbs, utilization has declined 63 percent from 1960 to2000, and now stands at only five percent nationwide. Transit use has decreased in Europe as well; it is down to 16 percent. [3] Historically, the use of personal transportation has increased with the wealth of a nation. There is no trend indicating the reversal of this forty-year decline in the use of public transit.

NU Principle Three: Walkability is Key to the Flourishing of Small Centers and as such Must Be Incorporated into Residential and Commercial Developments

If population density through proximity to public transportation, or the much touted mixed-use offices and dwellings, known as live-work buildings, actually existed in the suburbs and exurbs, then walkability might be a strong contributing factor to small-center sales. As these attributes have not developed in these areas, we must then default to examining the potential sales from walkers from nearby residences.

Starbucks Coffee believes that the average consumer will walk no more than two blocks even for essential goods and services.[4] Accordingly, the company will space stores no closer than two blocks apart in very dense areas. Starbucks assumes no significant walking traffic in non-dense areas.

To illustrate the minor impact on shopping center sales from walkers, Figure A below represents an existing 30,000 square foot convenience shopping center in Elk Grove, California. Ironically, the center is located one mile south of a failed NU development designed by architect Peter Calthorpe. The large ring indicates the primary trade area population of approximately 15,000; the minimum population base for a convenience shopping center lacking a major grocery store. The small ring identifies the segment of that population that could potentially walk to the shopping center.

Expanding the Starbucks-stated maximum walking distance of two blocks to three, and assuming a walking time of between six and ten minutes, depending upon whether the walker is moving at a brisk rate or a stroll, we have a market potential of only about 2,250 within a maximum walking distance. Using the California average weekly grocery expenditure of $40 per person, and further factoring an unachievable100% patronage, grocery sales within the walkability zone would be a mere $90,000 per week, a sales figure supporting only a small convenience store. Those stores are now frequently located in gasoline stations.

The potential entertainment sales dollars are no better. Any restaurant that could provide a form of entertainment would require minimum daily sales of $2,500. Assuming an average sales check of $10 per visit for every man, woman, and child in the immediate trade area, one restaurant would require about 250 walking customers per day. With a finite walking population of just less than ten times that figure, the entire population would have to walk to the one restaurant every ten days. Such frequency coupled with an assumed 100 percent market share is unrealistic. Even with a relatively high suburban

density of nearly seven dwellings to the acre in this trade area, we can now see that the sales from walking customers are not significant and will not support a retail shopping center.

FIGURE A

Conclusion

Through examination of three factors which largely determine the retail sales potential of a convenience shopping center-trade area density, traffic, and convenient access-we can conclude that none of these factors are adequate to sustain a small shopping center in a NU environment.

Given a large vehicular traffic flow, high trade area density, and favorable convenience factors, convenience centers often defy a predictive sales model based on traveling distance and the attractiveness of the aggregation of stores to the consumer. The Retail Gravity Model concludes that when the travel distance is held constant, the larger the center and the more the offerings, the higher the sales will be in the center. Although ease of ingress and egress and high-identity storefronts and signage frequently act to make a convenience center more successful for convenience goods stores than a larger center lacking these positive characteristics, it is axiomatic that there be sufficient population, traffic flow, and convenient access to sustain the small shopping center.

Peter Calthorpe now agrees. In a 2005 address to the American Planning Commission, Calthorpe stated, “if it is to be successful, the New Urbanism must switch its emphasis away from neighborhoods and toward regional transportation systems and employment centers.