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.
The National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) is a non-profit, non-governmental organization bringing together representatives of government, the professions, industry, labor and consumer interests to focus on the identification and resolution of problems and potential problems that hamper the construction of safe, affordable structures for housing, commerce and industry throughout the United States. The National Institute of Building Sciences was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383.
As the largest non-residential building construction market in the United States — and one that is largely financed with public money — the education industry is a major stakeholder in NIBS leading practice discovery and promulgation. Best practice in education facility construction is informed by best practices in other federal agencies with significant construction spend
We track development and commenting opportunities on NIBS consensus products linked below:
It is remarkable how much standards action happens in the drearier (boilerplate) — General Conditions — part of a construction contract. Admittedly, you must have an interest in the fine points of the building construction disciplines.
As of today’s posting we do not find any NIBS titles released for public consultation in the Federal Register. We do, however, keep NIBS products on our periodic Ædificare c0lloquium; open to everyone. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Myron Hubbard Hunt (February 27, 1868 – May 26, 1952) was an American architect whose numerous projects include many noted landmarks in Southern California; most notably, the Rose Bowl Stadium, where the University of Michigan Football team appears routinely on New Year’s Day. Hunt was elected a Fellow in the American Institute of Architects in 1908.
Research from the World Economic Forum has shown that improvements in the design and construction process can be achieved by using international standards like ICMS to gain comparable and consistent data. ICMS provides a high-level structure and format for classifying, defining, measuring, recording, analysing and presenting construction and other life-cycle costs.
The development of this standard is coordinated with the ICC Group A Codes. We have tracked concepts in it previous revisions; available in the link below.
As always, we encourage our colleagues with workpoint experience to participate directly in the ICC Code Development process. CLICK HERE to get started.
Issue: [15-283]
Category: Athletics & Recreation, Architectural, Public Safety
Contact: Mike Anthony, Jack Janveja, Richard Robben
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.
Chapter 8 of the International Building Code contains the performance requirements for controlling fire growth and smoke propagation within buildings by restricting interior finish and decorative materials. A great deal of interior square footage presents fire hazard; even bulletin boards and decorations; as a simple web search will reveal. We are respectful of the competing requirements of safety and ambience and try to assist in a reconciliation of these two objectives.
Free access to the current edition of the relevant section is linked below:
The public input period of the Group A Codes — which includes the International Fire Code; which contains parent requirements for this chapter — closed in July 2nd. Search on the word “interior”, or “school” or “classroom “in the document linked below for a sample of the ideas in play.
Most of the ICC bibliography lies at the foundation of the safety and sustainability agenda of education communities everywhere so we follow development continuously; setting priorities according to our resources. We keep the issues in this chapter on the standing agenda of our Interiors colloquium. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
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:
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.
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
