Category Archives: Architectural/Hammurabi

Loading
loading...

Stata Center

Financials and Endowment 2024: Investments returned 8.9 percent 2024; endowment $24.6 billion

Named after its major donor — co-founder of Analog Devices — this Frank Gehry designed holds the top spot for highest absolute cost per square foot of any US university research — just shy of $500 million in today’s dollars.

The project replaced a “temporary” structure from World War II known for fostering innovation, particularly through the MIT Radiation Laboratory. The new center was intended to continue this legacy by housing the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), and the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, while promoting interdisciplinary collaboration through its innovative design.


The donations were driven by MIT’s goal to consolidate its computer science, electrical engineering, and artificial intelligence departments into a state-of-the-art facility to encourage the exchange of ideas and technology. The project, completed in 2004, faced challenges, including cost overruns and a subsequent lawsuit against Gehry and contractor Skanska USA for alleged design and construction flaws, such as leaks and drainage issues. This lawsuit was amicably resolved in 2010. Despite these issues, the Stata Center remains a landmark of MIT’s campus, celebrated for its bold architecture and role in fostering innovation.

 

Other major contributors:

  • Bill Gates, who donated $20 million through the William H. Gates Foundation, resulting in one of the center’s towers being named the Gates Tower.
  • Alexander W. Dreyfoos Jr. (MIT class of 1954), who gave $15 million, leading to the naming of the Dreyfoos Tower.
  • Morris Chang of TSMC and Charles Thomas “E.B.” Pritchard Hintze (an MIT graduate associated with JD Edwards, now Oracle), who also provided significant funds.
  • Steven Kirsch, founder of Infoseek, who contributed $2.5 million specifically for the construction of the center’s auditorium.

Modular Classrooms

Complete Monograph International Building Code

Note the following proposed changes in the transcript above: E59-24, F62-24, Section 323

Modular classrooms, often used as temporary or semi-permanent solutions for additional educational space, have specific requirements in various aspects to ensure they are safe, functional, and comfortable for occupants.  Today we will examine best practice literature for structural, architectural, fire safety, electrical, HVAC, and lighting requirements.  Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

Structural Requirements

  1. Foundation and Stability: Modular classrooms require a stable and level foundation. This can be achieved using piers, slabs, or crawl spaces. The foundation must support the building’s weight and withstand environmental forces like wind and seismic activity.
  2. Frame and Load-Bearing Capacity: The frame, usually made of steel or wood, must support the load of the classroom, including the roof, walls, and occupants. Structural integrity must comply with local building codes.
  3. Durability: Materials used should be durable and capable of withstanding frequent relocations if necessary.

Architectural Requirements

  1. Design and Layout: Modular classrooms should be designed to maximize space efficiency while meeting educational needs. This includes appropriate classroom sizes, storage areas, and accessibility features.
  2. Accessibility: Must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or other relevant regulations, ensuring accessibility for all students and staff, including ramps, wide doorways, and accessible restrooms.
  3. Insulation and Soundproofing: Adequate insulation for thermal comfort and soundproofing to minimize noise disruption is essential.

Fire Safety Requirements

  1. Fire-Resistant Materials: Use fire-resistant materials for construction, including fire-rated walls, ceilings, and floors.
  2. Sprinkler Systems: Installation of automatic sprinkler systems as per local fire codes.
  3. Smoke Detectors and Alarms: Smoke detectors and fire alarms must be installed and regularly maintained.
  4. Emergency Exits: Clearly marked emergency exits, including doorways and windows, with unobstructed access paths.

Electrical Requirements

  1. Electrical Load Capacity: Sufficient electrical capacity to support lighting, HVAC systems, and educational equipment like computers and projectors.
  2. Wiring Standards: Compliance with National Electrical Code (NEC) or local electrical codes, including proper grounding and circuit protection.
  3. Outlets and Switches: Adequate number of electrical outlets and switches, placed conveniently for classroom use.

HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) Requirements

  1. Heating and Cooling Systems: Properly sized HVAC systems to ensure comfortable temperatures year-round.
  2. Ventilation: Adequate ventilation to provide fresh air and control humidity levels, including exhaust fans in restrooms and possibly kitchens.
  3. Air Quality: Use of air filters and regular maintenance to ensure good indoor air quality.

Lighting Requirements

  1. Natural Light: Maximization of natural light through windows and skylights to create a pleasant learning environment.
  2. Artificial Lighting: Sufficient artificial lighting with a focus on energy efficiency, typically using LED fixtures. Lighting should be evenly distributed and glare-free.
  3. Emergency Lighting: Battery-operated emergency lighting for use during power outages.

By adhering to these requirements, modular classrooms can provide safe, functional, and comfortable educational spaces that meet the needs of students and staff while complying with local regulations and standards.

Related:

Related:

Occupancy Classification and Use

Indoor Air Quality Design Tools for Schools

About Portable Classrooms

From a school district’s perspective, the two advantages of portable classrooms are low initial cost and short time between specification and occupancy. They are intended to provide flexibility to school districts, enabling quick response to demographic changes and providing the ability to be moved from one school to another as demographics change. In reality, portable classrooms are seldom moved and become permanent fixtures of the school.

Creating a Healthy School Environment

A Modular Control Lab Equipment and Virtual Simulations for Engineering Education

A Modular Control Lab Equipment and Virtual Simulations for Engineering Education

Vanessa Young, et. al | Kennesaw State University Department of Mechanical Engineering

Abstract: Hands-on experiences in engineering education are highly valued by students. However, the high cost, large size, and non-portable nature of commercially available laboratory equipment often confine these experiences to lab courses, separating practical demonstrations from classroom teaching. Consequently, mechanical engineering students may experience a delay in practical engagement as lab sessions typically follow theoretical courses in subsequent semesters, a sequence that differs from mechatronics, electrical, and computer engineering programs. This study details the design and development of portable and cost-effective control lab equipment that enables in-class demonstrations of a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller for the trajectory and speed control of a DC motor using MATLAB Simulink, as well as disturbance control. The equipment, composed of a DC motor, beam, gears, crank, a mass, and propellers, introduces disturbances using either propellers or a rotating unbalanced mass. All parts of the equipment are 3D printed from polylactic acid (PLA). Furthermore, the beam holding the propellers can be attached to Quanser Qube lab equipment, which is widely used in control laboratories. The lab equipment we present is adaptable for demonstrations, classroom projects, or as an integral part of lab activities in various engineering disciplines.

Standards Georgia

 

American Vitruvius

University of Michigan North Quad

Robert A. M. Stern is an American architect, educator, and author known for his contributions to the field of architecture, urbanism, and design. Stern has been particularly influential in shaping the aesthetics of educational campuses through his architectural practice and academic involvement. Here are some key aspects of his approach to the aesthetics of educational campuses that attract philanthropic legacies:

  1. Pedagogical Ideals:
    • Stern’s designs for educational campuses often reflect his understanding of pedagogical ideals. He considers the spatial organization and layout of buildings in relation to the educational mission of the institution.
    • Spaces are designed to foster a sense of community, encourage interaction, and support the overall educational experience.
  2. Traditional and Classical Influences:
    • Stern is known for his commitment to classical and traditional architectural styles. He often draws inspiration from historical architectural forms and traditional design principles.
    • His work reflects a belief in the enduring value of classical architecture and its ability to create a sense of timelessness and continuity.
  3. Contextual Design:
    • Stern emphasizes the importance of contextual design, taking into consideration the existing architectural context and the cultural or historical characteristics of the surrounding area.
    • When designing educational campuses, he often seeks to integrate new buildings harmoniously into the existing campus fabric.
  4. Attention to Detail:
    • Stern is known for his meticulous attention to detail. His designs often feature carefully crafted elements, including ornamental details, materials, and proportions.
    • This focus on detail contributes to the creation of visually rich and aesthetically pleasing environments.
  5. Adaptation of Historical Forms:
    • While Stern’s work is firmly rooted in traditional and classical architecture, he also demonstrates an ability to adapt historical forms to contemporary needs. His designs often feature a synthesis of timeless architectural elements with modern functionality.

Hammurabi

Group A Model Building Codes

Cambridge Center for Smart Infrastructure & Construction

“No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river banks,

except those who from of old are legally bound to do so.”

— Magna Cara Clause 23 (Limiting forced labor for infrastructure) 

“Clare Hall and King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, from the Banks of the River Cam” / Joseph Mallord William Turner (1793)

 

Smart Infrastructure: Getting More From Strategic Assets

Dr Jennifer Schooling, Director of CSIC

Dr Ajith Parlikad, CSIC Co-Investigator and Senior Lecturer

Mark Enzer, Global Water Sector Leader

Mott MacDonald; Keith Bowers, Principal Tunnel Engineer, London Underground

Ross Dentten, Asset Information and Configuration Manager, Crossrail

Matt Edwards, Asset Maintenance and Information Manager, Anglian Water Services

Jerry England, Group Digital Railway Director, Network Rail

Volker Buscher, Director, Arup Digital

 

Smart Infrastructure is a global opportunity worth £2trn-4.8trn. The world is experiencing a fourth industrial revolution due to the rapid development of technologies and digital abundance.

Smart Infrastructure involves applying this to economic infrastructure for the benefit of all stakeholders. It will allow owners and operators to get more out of what they already have, increasing capacity, efficiency and resilience and improving services.

It brings better performance at lower cost. Gaining more from existing assets is the key to enhancing service provision despite constrained finance and growing resource scarcity. It will often be more cost-effective to add to the overall value of mature infrastructure via digital enhancements than by physical enhancements – physical enhancements add `more of the same’, whereas digital enhancements can transform the existing as well.

Smart Infrastructure will shape a better future. Greater understanding of the performance of our infrastructure will allow new infrastructure to be designed and delivered more efficiently and to provide better whole-life value.

Data is the key – the ownership of it and the ability to understand and act on it. Industry, organisations and professionals need to be ready to adjust in order to take advantage of the emerging opportunities. Early adopters stand to gain the most benefit. Everyone in the infrastructure sector has a choice as to how fast they respond to the changes that Smart Infrastructure will bring. But everyone will be affected.

Change is inevitable. Progress is optional. Now is the time for the infrastructure industry to choose to be Smart.

 

LEARN MORE:

Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction


Perspective: Since this paper is general in its recommendations, we provide examples of specific campus infrastructure data points that are difficult, if not impossible, to identify and “make smart” — either willfully, for lack of funding, for lack of consensus, for lack of understanding or leadership:

    1. Maintenance of the digital location of fire dampers in legacy buildings or even new buildings mapped with BIM.  Doors and ceiling plenums are continually being modified and the As-Built information is usually not accurate.  This leads to fire hazard and complicates air flow and assuring occupant temperature preferences (i.e. uncontrollable hot and cold spots) 
    2. Ampere readings of feeder breakers downstream from the electric service main.  The power chain between the service substation and the end-use equipment is a “no-man’s land” in research facilities that everyone wants to meter but few ever recover the cost of the additional metering.
    3. Optimal air flow rates in hospitals and commercial kitchens that satisfies both environmental air hazards and compartmentalized air pressure zones for fire safety.
    4. Identification of students, staff and faculty directly affiliated with the campus versus visitors to the campus.
    5. Standpipe pressure variations in municipal water systems
    6. Pinch points in municipal sewer systems in order to avoid building flooding.
    7. How much of university data center cost should be a shared (gateway) cost, and how much should be charged to individual academic and business units?
    8. Should “net-zero” energy buildings be charged for power generated at the university central heating and electric generation plant?
    9. How much staff parking should be allocated to academic faculty versus staff that supports the healthcare delivery enterprises; which in many cases provides more revenue to the university than the academic units?
    10. Finally, a classical conundrum in facility management spreadsheets: Can we distinguish between maintenance cost (which should be covered under an O&M budget) and capital improvement cost (which can be financed by investors)

 

 

Places of Worship

“The Church is not a gallery for the exhibition of eminent Christians,

but a school for the education of imperfect ones.”

— Henry Ward Beecher

WEBCAST Committee Action Hearings, Group A #2

 

2024 International Building Code: Chapter 3 Occupancy Classification and Use

In the International Code Council catalog of best practice literature we find the first principles for safety in places of worship tracking in the following sections of the International Building Code (IBC):

Section 303 Assembly Group A

“303.1.4:  Accessory religious educational rooms and religious auditoriums with occupant loads less than 100 per room or space are not considered separate occupancies.”   This informs how fire protection systems are designed.

Section 305 Educational Group E

“305.2.1: Rooms and spaces within places of worship proving such day care during religious functions shall be classified as part of the primary occupancy.”  This group includes building and structures or portions thereof occupied by more than five children older than 2-1/2 years of age who receive educational, supervision or personal care services for fewer than 24 hours per day.

Section 308 Institutional Group I

“308.5.2: Rooms and spaces within places of religious worship providing [Group I-4 Day Care Facilities] during religious functions shall be classified as part of the primary occupancy.   When [Group I-4 Day Care Facilities] includes buildings and structures occupied by more than five persons of any age who receive custodial care for fewer than 24 hours per day by persons other than parents or guardians, relatives by blood, marriage or adoption, and in a place other than the home of the person cared for.

Tricky stuff — and we haven’t even included conditions under which university-affiliated places of worship may expected to be used as community storm shelters.

"This We'll Defend."

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

Public response to Committee Actions taken in Orlando in April will be received until July 8th.

Because standard development tends to be a backward-looking domain it is enlightening to understand the concepts in play in previous editions.  The complete monograph of proposals for new building safety concepts for places of worship for the current revision cycle is linked below:

 2021/2022 Code Development: Group B

A simple search on the word “worship” will reveal what ideas are in play.  With the Group B Public Comment Hearings now complete ICC administered committees are now curating the results for the Online Governmental Consensus Vote milestone in the ICC process that was completed December 6th.   Status reports are linked below:

2018/2019 Code Development: Group B

Note that a number of proposals that passed the governmental vote are being challenged by a number of stakeholders in a follow-on appeals process:

2019 Group B Appeals

A quick review of the appeals statements reveals some concern over process, administration and technical matters but none of them directly affect how leading practice for places of worship is asserted.

We are happy to get down in the weeds with facility professionals on other technical issues regarding other occupancy classes that are present in educational communities.   See our CALENDAR for next Construction (Ædificare) colloquium open to everyone.

Issue: [17-353]

Category: Chapels

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Larry Spielvogel


More

General Conditions of the Construction Contract

International Code Council: Current Code Development Cycle 2024-2026

International Building Code: Chapter 1 Scope and Administration

There are five key components needed to address in each construction contract as a protection against litigation in an industry that is rich in possibilities.
  • Scope of the project. …
  • Total cost and payment requirements. …
  • Project timeline. …
  • Lien law protection. …
  • Dispute resolution.

Today at the usual hour we examine a few representative contracts:

List of all current AIA Contract Documents

University of Michigan Standard General Conditions

Wayne State University Supplementary Conditions of Construction

Princeton University: General Terms & Conditions for Construction Contracts

Universities Wisconsin: General Conditions of the Contract for Construction

The cost of compliance with general conditions in a typical construction project can vary widely depending on factors like project size, complexity, location, and specific requirements. General conditions refer to the indirect costs that support the project—things like project management, temporary facilities, safety measures, and administrative expenses—not the direct costs of labor, materials, or equipment tied to physical construction.

In percentage terms, general conditions typically account for 5% to 15% of the total project cost, with most projects falling in the 5% to 10% range for standard residential or commercial builds. Smaller projects might see percentages closer to or exceeding 10% because fixed costs (like a site trailer or a project manager’s time) don’t scale down as much as direct costs. Larger, more complex projects—like industrial or infrastructure work—might trend toward the lower end (5% or less) since direct costs dominate, diluting the relative impact of general conditions. For example, a $300,000 residential project might allocate $15,000 to $30,000 (5% to 10%) for general conditions, while a $10 million commercial project could see $500,000 or less (5%) if efficiencies kick in.

Related:

Methods of Building Measurement

Global Consistency in Presenting Construction & Life Cycle Costs

Higher Education Estates Management Report 2023

Modular Classrooms

Planning, Design & Construction Team

Architecture and Aesthetic Education

How Blockchain Will Change Construction

Carnegie Classifications

Design Age Institute

Layout mode
Predefined Skins
Custom Colors
Choose your skin color
Patterns Background
Images Background
error: Content is protected !!
Skip to content