New WA State Bill: Stock plans for sc...

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

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1344 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 03:20 pm:    This bill is so absurd that it is hard to comprehend what moron could have thought this up. It's a solution that does not work for a problem that does not exist! In a nutshell there is a bill to propose that school designs become property of Washington State. These plans will then be available for school districts to use to build future schools. Where is Sears Roebuck when you need them? http://aiawa.org/2014/01/10/hb-2132-strips-copyright-opens-liability-for-architects/ David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher www.localproductreps.com Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 426 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 03:44 pm:    In the 1990's I had CAD support on a hospital project from a recent emigre from Soviet Russia. She couldn't understand why we designed each room and space custom tailored to the clients needs. When she worked on Soviet Hospitals, there was a single CAD block for a surgery suite including the architecture, furnishings and equipment. You could rotate it, you could mirror image it, but that was the end of your customizing. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1741 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 04:09 pm:    So I guess the state is just one big flat land area with the same soils, and all schools have exactly the same site orientation, student requirements, teacher requirements, community involvement, etc., etc., and so on. Why not just build engineered metal buildings? Why involve design at all? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 686 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 04:14 pm:    This might be the only justification I've heard to date for not legalizing pot. The legislature is obviously smoking on the job. Let's take careful aim at our collective foot and pull the trigger. Scott McIntosh-Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 88 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 04:48 pm:    Steve: In Soviet Russia, building designs *you*! :-) George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 705 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 05:02 pm:    Absurd? How is it any different than McDonalds owning the design of their restaurants? To carry the analogy through: Students = Customers Education = Happy Meals Graduation = Drive Thru Window Before you know it, you have a billion served! Production line buildings, production line learning. What’s not to like? George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 05:54 pm:    Here in Virginia the state owns the rights to drawings for state buildings, and it hasn't led to wholesale copying of college or other building plans. Without copyrights, innovative ideas for classrooms or laboratories could be used elsewhere without worrying about an architect demanding a royalty to use what he claims were his ideas. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1553 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 01:59 pm:    In Massachusetts, the Commonwealth instituted the "model school" program, intended to save an design costs. The agency that provides funds to municipalities for school construction (we don't have unified school districts here, each town builds their own schools, with a few exceptions) selected several designs from recently completed projects. These became model school designs, that other design firms were allowed to use for their projects. Of course, site designs were entirely unique to each project. However, my observation is that a significant amount of customization of the building designs nevertheless occurred, whether "sanctioned" or not. I'm not sure the Commonwealth actually saved much money, given the necessary customization, and the small percentage design fees represent to the total cost of a project. Total costs also included a professional project management firm, a requirement for all municipal projects, except for fairly small ones. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 501 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 02:15 pm:    how is this different from all the chain stores that have "prototypes" or require architects to give up copyrights? I believe all the drugstores, office supply stores, many restaurants etc have similar clauses. I don't think it's a good idea to give up copyright and there needs to be some strong release of liability language along with this, but it's not unheard of. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1554 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2014 - 04:36 pm:    In the case I have described, I believe the architect of the original model school is not giving up the copyright, but they do have to allow the design to be used by others through contractual mechanism. It may seem like a fine shade, but it is not quite the same as forfeiting copyright. A municipality which is building a new school will select the design that they wish to use, and separately select an architect. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 234 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 09:42 am:    For retail stores, the prototype is part of their overall branding strategy. Every time you see a 'Robin's Store' it's building familiarity and reinforcing the overall brand. Retail store sites typically fall into two categories, inside a mall and at a flat strip mall location. For municipal schools, especially in Massachusetts, the prototype program was instituted to save money, period. It may also help some smaller towns who have little experience with commercial construction projects. Municipal expectations, site conditions, and orientations vary widely, so the modifications have been extensive. I doubt AE firms are getting adequate fees for the extra work. It has led to some of the ugliest schools I've ever seen. Natick HS looks like a large funeral home in suburban Atlanta. - ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 690 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 27, 2014 - 12:04 pm:    Couldn't happen to a better town. I did a year in Natick and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Massachusetts would be better off without them. Big difference between designing a Yankee Candle and a PS. Yankee Candle and other retail establishments have some idea of what they want and were probably involved in developing the prototype design being foisted on the new design firm. They tend to know what works for them and why certain design decisions were included in the prototype. Sometimes jurisdictions are too smart for their own good. This is just another instance of 'just because you can doesn't mean you have to.' Neither the school system or the new A/E have any idea what the thought process was behind the end product that is being reused. What may have worked for one project (and we all know how questionable that is) may be totally inappropriate for the next project. What do you do if the firm being copied was incompetent and the new firm is the best group of designers on the planet? You've just hamstrung the people who may have been able to pull you out of the muck. Brilliant. During my consulting days I had to explain to my clients that reusing documents from previous projects would cost extra. I still had to go through the holistic thought process and I had no way to know what the previous design team was basing their decisions on. Unless the client was going to provide me with a hold-harmless clause because the documents they forced to use were inadequate, I didn't want them for anything more than a baseline to see what certain preferences might have been. I still had to check with my client or with the project owner to see if the assumptions made in the previous documents were correct for the project I was working on. All around bad idea. Let designers do what they were trained to do. If you're trying to save money in design instead of in construction, shame on you anyway.