Today during our usual hour we sweep through standards action in building glazing, entrances and means of egress. The word fenestration (Latin: fenestra) has become a term of art for the design, construction, and placement of openings in a building, including windows, doors, skylights, and other glazed elements. While the word has sparse use in the International Code Council and National Fire Protection Association catalog it is widely used by the Construction Specifications Institute in its MasterFormat system for organizing construction standards, guidelines and building contracts.
The percentage of a building envelope “skin” that is comprised of doors and windows varies depending on the specific building design, function, and location. However, a commonly cited range is between 15% to 25% of the total building envelope. The actual percentage will depend on several factors such as the building’s purpose, orientation, local climate, and energy performance goals. Buildings that require more natural light or ventilation, such as schools, hospitals, and offices, may have a higher percentage of windows and doors in their envelope. In contrast, buildings with lower lighting and ventilation requirements, such as warehouses, may have a smaller percentage of windows and doors.
Fenestration presents elevated risk to facility managers. The education facility industry is a large target and a pattern of settling out of court. For example:
In 2013, a former student at Yale University sued the school over a broken window in her dorm room. The student alleged that the university was negligent in failing to repair the window, which allowed a burglar to enter her room and sexually assault her. The case was settled out of court in 2015 for an undisclosed amount.
In 2019, a student at the University of California, Los Angeles sued the school over a broken window in her apartment. The student alleged that the university was negligent in failing to repair the window, which allowed a swarm of bees to enter her apartment and sting her. The case was settled out of court for $4.5 million.
In 2020, a group of students at Harvard University sued the school over its decision to require them to move out of their dorms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The students alleged that the university breached its contract with them by failing to provide suitable alternative housing, including functioning windows and doors. (The case is ongoing; best we can tell as of the date of this post).
These cases illustrate that colleges and universities can face legal action related to doors and windows, either due to alleged negligence in maintaining or repairing them, or due to issues related to student housing and accommodations.
Our inquiry breaks down into two modules at the moment:
BOMA International sets the standard for measuring buildings. In 1915, BOMA published its first office standard, Standard Method of Floor Measurement. Throughout the years, the standard has been revised to reflect the changing needs of the real estate market and the evolution of office building design.
BOMA International is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) secretariat for a suite of area measurement standards.
The BOMA catalog remains active, with recent revisions reflecting changes in building use, energy accounting and increasingly complicated mixed-use occupancies.
Government capital aid for schools is usually capped by classified building type and measured area. States sort facilities by grade band (elementary, middle, high school) and program (special education, CTE), then apply published gross-square-foot-per-student allowances.
.
Eligible size is typically gross area to the exterior walls; circulation, walls, and mechanical space are included via net-to-gross markups. Only that baseline is state-funded; extra square footage is a local cost. Misclassification or a different measurement method (net vs. gross, interior vs. exterior) changes the funded envelope and can cut or inflate aid.
.
Higher-education inventories often use FICM assignable-versus-gross rules for similar reporting and reimbursement. K-12 inventories take into account stairs, voids, mechanical rooms, portables, and renovations. So classification plus the chosen measurement method can change what is eligible for public money.
At the moment all titles in this catalog seem to be stabilized. Largely because a sizeable portion of square footage in every school district, college, university and university-affiliated healthcare research and clinical delivery system derives at least part of its funding from governments at all levels there are workgroups devoted to measuring square footage and documenting its use. For example:
Getting square-footage right is essential for securing an organization’s sustainability and “green” claims for example. The links in previous posts provide for information about future public consultations.
We maintain the BOMA catalog on the agenda of our Space Planning, Hammurabi and Architectural colloquia, hosted 6 to 8 times annually. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting, open to everyone.
We drill into the specifics commonly found in education communities: sub-lease of space to private industry in publicly-owned facilities. The Building Owners and Managers Association International is an ANSI-accredited consensus standard developer and revised its standard — BOMA Z65.5 Retail Properties: Standard Method of Measurement. Measuring the area of a retail building can quickly become complex when variables must be considered such as ancillary space, mezzanines and storefront lease lines. Many large research universities have long since leased space within many of their building envelopes for private industry to service their communities — student unions, hospitals, dormitories and athletic venues, for example. From the project prospectus:
Z65.5 is intended exclusively for retail properties and their associated structures and may be applied to single-tenant, multi-tenant or multi-building configurations. It features a single method of measurement, with two levels of measurement data, known as Partial Measurement and Overall Measurement for retail properties. It does not measure sidewalks, surface parking, drainage structures, or other ancillary site improvements. This standard is chiefly designed to generate Gross Leasable Area figures, a key metric in retail leasing; however, it also produces area figures which may be of interest to those examining space utilization, valuation, benchmarking, and the allocation of building expenses to various cost centers. The scope of this standard is not intended to be submitted for consideration as an ISO, IEC, or ISO/IEC JTC-1 standard.
Public consultation is open until February 8th.
You may obtain an electronic copy from: floorstandards@boma.org. Send comments (with optional copy to psa@ansi.org) to: floorstandards@boma.org. We encourage user-interest subject matter experts in education facility management to participate directly in the BOMA standards development process by communicating directly with Tanner Johnson at BOMA (tjohnston@boma.org) or 202-326-6357 for more information.
We keep the BOMA catalog on the standing agenda of our colloquia devoted to building construction best practice. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
– To promote an unambiguous framework for determining the areas of Industrial Buildings with a strong focus on Rentable Area calculations;
– To facilitate transparency and clear communication of building measurement concepts among all participants in the commercial real estate
industry;
– To allow a comparison of values on the basis of a clearly understood and generally agreed upon method of measurement; and
– To align concepts and measurement methodologies with the International Property Measurement Standards: Industrial Buildings (January 2018)
document.
Send comments (with optional copy to psa@ansi.org) to: tjohnston@boma.org
Standards Michigan follows, but d0es not advocate in most of the BOMA standards suite for the following reasons:
Educational facility occupancies are fairly well accounted for in existing federal and state regulations
Advocacy in energy-related best practice titles are a better use of resources at the moment.
We encourage user-interest subject matter experts in education facility management to participate directly in the BOMA standards development process by communicating directly with Tanner Johnson at BOMA (tjohnston@boma.org) or 202-326-6357 for more information.
We maintain the entire BOMA suite on our periodic Model Building Code colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [15-200]
Category: Architectural, Space Plaaning, Facility Asset Management
We collect a sample of cameras that follow construction from start to finish. Fixed on rooftops, poles, or nearby buildings, they record the work as it unfolds—foundations poured, steel raised, façades closed in, interiors finished. They do not interrupt the site. They simply keep a clear, continuous record.
.
Their role is practical: project teams check daily conditions, facilities staff document milestones, and the campus community can see a building take shape over months that would otherwise pass unseen. Time-lapse footage turns a long construction schedule into a fun, brief story of how a new building joins the campus.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
Two redlines that run close coupled with the International Building Code are open for public consultation until September 14 and October 15, respectively:
Our engagement with ASCE standards dates to the founding of Standards Michigan, when we challenged legacy live-load requirements for university armories whose contemporary use no longer resembled the military occupancy from which the requirements arose.
Important 2024 IEBC Changes Affecting College & University Facilities
Code Change
Campus Impact
1. Occupiable Roofs
New provisions coordinate rooftop occupancy requirements with the 2024 IBC. Universities converting roofs into terraces, student gathering areas, dining spaces, green roofs, or observation decks must evaluate structural capacity, means of egress, accessibility, guardrails, and fire protection.
2. Risk Category Clarification for Additions
Provides clearer guidance when additions have a different occupancy than the existing building. This is particularly important for laboratory expansions, medical research buildings, student health facilities, and emergency operations centers.
3. Storm Shelter Coordination
Storm shelter provisions now coordinate directly with IBC Section 423 and ICC 500. Campus projects in tornado-prone regions should verify shelter requirements early during planning.
4. Smoke Compartment Requirements
Certain renovations involving healthcare occupancies, student medical clinics, and assisted-living facilities may require additional smoke compartmentation during major alterations.
5. Adult Changing Stations
Projects adding toilet facilities may now require adult changing stations in certain accessible family or assisted-use restrooms. This primarily affects stadiums, arenas, student unions, libraries, and performing arts centers.
6. Exterior Wall Renovations on High-Rise Buildings
Installation of combustible exterior wall coverings or envelope systems on existing high-rise buildings may trigger automatic sprinkler requirements. This should be evaluated during residence hall and research tower renovations.
7. Existing Automatic Sprinkler Systems
New provisions establish conditions under which certain non-required sprinkler systems may be removed following occupancy changes. Campus owners should review this carefully before renovation projects.
8. Temporary Emergency Building Uses
New Appendix E provides guidance for temporary emergency use of existing buildings. Universities can incorporate these concepts into emergency operations planning during natural disasters or public health emergencies.
9. Construction Site Safety Planning
New owner responsibilities emphasize development of site safety plans and designation of responsible personnel during construction. This is especially valuable on occupied campuses where construction occurs adjacent to classrooms, residence halls, hospitals, and pedestrian routes.
10. Better Coordination with the 2024 IBC
Many provisions have been reorganized or updated to improve consistency between the IEBC and the current International Building Code. Campus design teams can expect fewer conflicts between existing-building and new-construction requirements during modernization projects.
Facilities Most Likely to be Affected
Research laboratories
Residence halls
Athletic stadiums and arenas
Libraries
Student unions
Classroom buildings
Central utility plants
Medical schools and student health clinics
Performing arts centers
High-rise academic buildings
“`
November 30, 2021
Every month we direct our colleagues in the education industry to the US Census Department’s monthly construction report to make a point: at an average annual clip of about $75 billion, the education industry is the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States. A large part of that construction involves infrastructure upgrades of existing buildings that contribute to sustainability goals but may not make flashy architectural statements for philanthropists.
The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) is a model code in the International Code Council family of codes intended to provide requirements for repair and alternative approaches for alterations and additions to existing buildings (LEARN MORE). A large number of existing buildings and structures do not comply with the current building code requirements for new construction. Although many of these buildings are potentially salvageable, rehabilitation is often cost-prohibitive because compliance with all the new requirements for new construction could require extensive changes that go well beyond the value of building or the original scope of the alteration.
Education facility planners, architects and managers: Sound familiar?
ICC administered workgroups have been convening with considerable frequency over the past several months to pull together a number of relevant concepts for the next (2019 Group B) revision. For the purpose of providing some perspective on the complexity and subtlety of the issues in play, a partial overview of working group activity is available in the links below. Keep in mind that there are many other proposals being developed by our ICC working group and others.
It is a large document — 2919 pages — so keep that in mind when accessing it. There are many issues affecting #TotalCostofOwnership of the education facility industry so we will get cracking on it again next week. See our CALENDAR for the next online teleconference. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Finally, we persist in encouraging education industry facility managers (especially those with operations and maintenance data) to participate in the ICC code development process. You may do so by CLICKING HERE. Real asset managers for school districts, colleges, universities and technical schools in the Albuquerque region should take advantage of the opportunity to observe the ICC code-development process. The Group B Hearings are usually webcast — and we will signal the link to the 10-day webcast when it becomes available — but the experience of seeing how building codes are determined is enlightening when you can watch it live and on site.
Issue: [16-169]
Category: Architectural, Facility Asset Management, Space Planning
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
The Society of College and University Planning was founded in 1965 at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor during an informal gathering of campus planners frustrated with the lack of professional exchange in their emerging field. Rapid postwar enrollment growth and massive campus expansion projects had created urgent needs for long-range physical planning, yet few institutions had dedicated planners or shared knowledge.
A small group, led by University of Michigan planners George J. Bruha and Frederick W Mayer met in Ann Arbor to discuss common challenges facing other State of Michigan settlements; joined by Stanford, Ohio State and the University of Illinois. They decided to create a formal organization to foster collaboration, research, and professional development. In 1966, with Michigan’s support, SCUP was officially established as a nonprofit with its first office on the Ann Arbor campus. Its founding principle—integrated planning linking academics, finances, and facilities—remains central today.
Early operations benefited from administrative support (aegis) provided by the University of Michigan, including office space and resources in Ann Arbor. This arrangement persisted until a financial crisis in the late 1970s (1976–1980), during which SCUP relocated to New York.
The decoupling—marking full operational and administrative independence from the University of Michigan—occurred in 1980, when SCUP returned to Ann Arbor as a self-sustaining nonprofit headquartered at a separate location –1330 Eisenhower Place — less than a mile walk from Standards Michigan‘s front door at 455 East Eisenhower.
* Of the 220 ANSI Accredited Standards Developers, the State of Michigan ranks 3rd in the ranking of U.S. states with the most ANSI-accredited standards developers (ASDs) headquartered there; behind the Regulatory Hegemons of California and ChicagoLand and excluding the expected cluster foxtrot of non-profits domiciled in the Washington-New York Deep State Megalopolis. Much of Michigan’s presence in the private consensus standards space originates from its industrial ascendency through most of the 1900’s.
Okay. Can you tell me more about the inspiration for the Cherokee gothic architecture there
Yes. The interesting thing is that “Cherokee Gothic” wasn’t originally the name of a formal architectural movement. Frank Lloyd Wright coined the phrase after visiting OU—apparently in 1946—to describe what he saw already happening there: recognizable Collegiate Gothic forms combined with patterns and details understood as deriving from Oklahoma’s Native American traditions. The Library of Congress describes essentially that combination.
The underlying story begins earlier. After OU’s original university building burned in 1903, English professor Vernon Louis Parrington devised a campus plan. Much of it was never built, but his conception produced the North and South Ovals that still organize the settlement. The Gothic buildings subsequently placed around those spaces gave OU the collegiate vocabulary familiar from eastern universities—but in Oklahoma it evolved differently.
The distinctive visual effect comes from brickwork and light stone rather than the heavy gray masonry we associate with Princeton, Yale or Oxford. You’ll see pointed arches, buttresses, towers and Gothic massing, but also patterned brickwork and geometric ornament. One architect involved with OU’s later residential colleges described the contrasting red brick and pale limestone as making the buildings appear lighter and more animated than conventional Collegiate Gothic. He also recounts the explanation that Wright saw something reminiscent of the rhythmic patterns of Native American blankets.
6
Bizzell Memorial Library is probably the mature expression to study. Built in 1929, its brick surfaces, pale stone tracery and vertical Gothic forms are recognizably collegiate, but the ornament and color make it very different from an imported English quadrangle. OU itself describes Native American influence as having been present in the university’s architecture since its territorial beginnings.
There’s another wrinkle you might enjoy for STDMi: Bruce Goff later made OU one of the most unconventional architecture schools in America. That isn’t the same thing as Cherokee Gothic. Under Goff, students were actively discouraged from simply copying European historical styles and were encouraged to draw from the Oklahoma landscape, ordinary objects, unusual materials and Native American design. In other words, the campus already embodied the question Goff’s school later pursued much more radically: what should architecture in Oklahoma look like if it isn’t simply architecture imported from somewhere else?
That may be the most useful hook for your post. Cherokee Gothic isn’t especially interesting because someone mixed two decorative styles. It’s interesting because OU was trying to make the familiar American university Gothic belong to Oklahoma.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
_Mauritshuis_171.jpg)
