Brain-Twister

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 678 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 01:23 pm:    Have been challenged by some young colleagues; how would you help me answer the following-- On the design and documentation side, only, including specifications, what are the 10 most important changes [both positive and negative] that have occurred in professional practice the last 25-30 years? Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 122 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 01:37 pm:    Personal Computers - both word processing/excel and CAD drawings Construction Managers Lawsuits against Professionals from GC Much more litigation than 30 years ago more governmental regulations internet information available tighter budgets, creative financing electronic exchange of information and not being able to count.......(only 8 listed) Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 197 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 01:50 pm:    how about,, LEED / VOC Limitations Value Engineering BIM Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 635 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 02:04 pm:    One change can account for much of what has been listed already; the access to the internet/world wide web from personal computers. This single advance has resulted in exchange of information at an unheard of speed, which has led to tighter schedules and budgets, and more demands for production. In turn, these have led to more litigation and regulations. This one thing has also led to BIM, increased VE (more information available to everyone), and an increase in expectations. However, as I have been saying, more speed and accuracy in the tools that we use does not mean more speed and accuracy in ourselves. I have seen no data suggesting that our brains are faster or better. And I'm not the only one saying this: "People like to imagine that because all our mechanical equipment moves so much faster, that we are thinking faster, too." - Christopher Morley, writer (1890-1957) It ain't true. But it's expected. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 376 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 03:57 pm:    In no particular order but as they came to mind, although I rank the PC first for the obvious spinoffs. The PC (+) The fax machine (+) Spreadsheets (+) CAD (+) and (-). Not your "grandfathers working drawings" E-mail (+) Copiers/scanners (+) Internet (+) Partnering/teaming Design build (delegated design) More competition (-) Smaller fees (-) Shortened deadlines for deliverables (-) Fewer adequatley trained resources (-) Undisciplined drafting compounded by poor or no QA/QC methodologies (-) MasterFormat (+) Section Format/Page Format (+) SpecLink (+) BIM (+) Sustainability (+) PDF file format (+) That is a big 10 x 2, over and out John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 777 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 04:19 pm:    Looking at it from the perspective of the building itself, we have new systems that the architect now routinely includes in design, (for which we may not be getting additional compensation, I might add): Voice and data distribution systems. Building automation systems. Addressible fire alarm systems. Access control systems and electronic hardware. Electronic security systems; CCTV etc. More advanced fire protection systems, and more buildings that include them. Fire containment systems such as firestopping. Increased complexity of usages: advanced operating rooms, biolabs, cleanrooms, etc. Advanced HVAC systems including heat recovery, more ventilation, cogeneration. Daylighting, electronic lighting control, vast improvements in energy efficiency of lighting. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 06:23 pm:    Hey! How come nobody mentioned a bigger and better MasterFormat? ;-) Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 87 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 09:09 am:    Re Bunzick's No.7: We are already working to enhance firestopping to include smoke containment. It's interesting that all (is there an exception?) of the tests governing on firestop assemblies mention only fire. But we find, upon later observation, that many asemblies shrink and allow passage of smoke. Perhaps this is a new thread. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 623 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 04:13 pm:    I would also add: - fewer "hard bid" projects, and more negotiated work - projects issued in multiple packages and fast-track format - electronic equipment -- both as means of document production but also the accomodation of them in buildings (ie: much bigger "telecon" rooms and much smaller "file" rooms) - the increasing cost of money, hence the compression of schedules, the smaller contingencies, the tighter the negotiating price; the less allowance for changes - higher use of invented materials that are petroleum based -- for everything from structure to wall coverings - the increasing accuracy of structural calculations which means that fewer and fewer things are grossly oversized, which means that building systems wear out faster, and fatigue faster. - Joseph Berchenko (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 04:54 pm:    To Tom Heineman - Yes, this should be a different thread, but regards firestopping, it's the Code that governs, not the tests. 2006 IBC Section 712 does not require smoke resistance for all through-penetrations. The following is required: F- (fire-resistance) rating for fire-resistance-rated walls; F- (fire-resistance) and T- (thermal) ratings for horizontal assemblies; and L- (air-leakage) rating for smoke barriers. The L-rating is a measure of potential smoke leakage. Additionally for "smoke partitions" the IBC requires penetrations be filled with "an approved material." Tests for F- and T-ratings are according to ASTM E 814 and UL 1479. Underwriters Laboratories also includes an L rating as an optional test in UL 1479. This is not to say that smoke contamination from a penetration couldn't be a problem during a fire in some situations, but the Code just doesn't feel smoke leakage must always be regulated every place. However, I believe firestopped penetrations should not exhibit holes or gaps, except perhaps for some intumescent wraps or devices. It would at least be worth investigating why a hole or gap exists, by determining what sort of firestopping was used, then obtaining and reading the UL listing or manufacturer's literature for that product. To improve quality control generally, consider requiring that firestopping be installed by a qualified installer (FM Global and now UL have programs) or recommend that the Owner hire a testing and inspection agency to perform field-quality-control inspections per ASTM E 2174 "On-Site Inspection of Installed Fire Stops." Patrick Bandy Advanced Member Username: patrick_bandy Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:39 pm:    Back to the original thread, a few more points not yet stated: -larger scale projects -more abstract design (building configuration) -more products -more repetition of information on drawings (it is easy to copy details with CAD) -security concerns -color palette -less creativity in cities with design/review boards -death of post-modernism -the enormous amount of paper used to create a project from A/E proposal to final completion (especially if it is a LEED project) -more standards Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 227 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:45 am:    OK OK wait a minute: "the death of post modernism" is an important change in the profession? Like shoulder pads and many layered hairdos. The shallow fad that was post modernism faded away and is now only seen late night TV. No "style" (and that's all it was) has changed the profession nearly so much as the computer, and yes, security concerns to reiterate a few. Now if you want to talk architectural theory let’s start a new thread and begin with the French neoclassicists. Now there were some way-out guys. Let’s get Boullée’s “Cénotaphe a Newton” past a review board. Patrick Bandy Senior Member Username: patrick_bandy Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 02:57 pm:    Marc, as I stated at the beginning of the comment "a few more points NOT YET STATED:" The computer has been mentioned several times already (said once, said enough), and, yes, it has had a significant impact. I was merely adding other ideas. The original thread asked for comments about design and documentation in the last 25 to 30 years. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 106 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:03 am:    Post modernism is a philosophy and is not dead. The post modern "style" may have evolved, and maybe it is not as clearly expressed as previously, but post modernism is with us. You did not indicate positive or negative on that point. I would add: whole building design to include micro-design such as: · Air barriers and moisture control in wall design · Specialized products in interior environments, including the many wall boards and paints. · Wind design for roofs, walls and edges, etc. · Specialized glass products; visual, safety, security, and decorative. · The historic market growth including cleaners, patches, replacement materials Some things already mentioned, but the concept of micro-engineering/design is the focus.