PageArchitectural/Hammurabi Archives - Page 3 of 15

David H. Zysman Hall

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.

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

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.
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.
Durability: Materials used should be durable and capable of withstanding frequent relocations if necessary.

Architectural Requirements

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.
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.
Insulation and Soundproofing: Adequate insulation for thermal comfort and soundproofing to minimize noise disruption is essential.

Fire Safety Requirements

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

Electrical Requirements

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

HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) Requirements

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

Lighting Requirements

Natural Light: Maximization of natural light through windows and skylights to create a pleasant learning environment.
Artificial Lighting: Sufficient artificial lighting with a focus on energy efficiency, typically using LED fixtures. Lighting should be evenly distributed and glare-free.
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.

Life Safety Code

National Electrical Code

ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard

Educational Facility Lighting

Occupancy Classification and Use

Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures

NOAA National Weather Service: Storm Total Maps and Verification

ASCE Codes & Standards Catalog

Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee

Code and Standards Open for Comment

Public Comment for ASCE/EWRI 78-XX Guidelines for the Physical Security of Water and Wastewater/Stormwater Utilities ~~(Comment Deadline 12/18/2023)~~

America’s Infrastructure Score: C-

Snow Load

CLICK IMAGE

St. Ann’s School

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.

Exorbitant Campus Construction Projects

Facility Services

A simple web search finds several articles and reports discussing how college and university presidents’ compensation (including base salary, bonuses, incentives, and total pay packages) can be linked—directly or indirectly—to success in building new facilities, capital projects, infrastructure development, or related fundraising/capital campaigns.

Nominally, while compensation may not be tied exclusively to constructing new buildings, many public and private institutions incorporate performance-based incentives (e.g., bonuses or deferred pay) connected to strategic goals like fundraising for capital campaigns, enrollment growth, research expansion, or completing major infrastructure initiatives. These often involve new facilities as key outcomes, since presidents frequently lead capital campaigns to fund buildings, renovations, or campus expansions. The topic comes up — tacitly — in annual compensation reviews .

Readings Pro & Con:

Mercer report: “Leading in turbulent times: The challenges, complexities and compensation of public university presidents” (recent analysis of public AAU institutions): Nearly 40% of these universities offer annual bonuses/incentives to presidents, with a median opportunity of ~30% of base salary. Incentives are increasingly tied to strategic goals, including fundraising, research growth, and student success—often encompassing capital projects and new facilities as part of institutional advancement. Deferred compensation (common at 80% of institutions) rewards long-term stability and growth initiatives like infrastructure.
Link: https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/total-rewards/executive-compensation/leading-in-turbulent-times-the-challenges-complexities-and-compensation-of-public-university-presidents
“Skin In The Game: Incentive pay and job performance in higher education” (2024 article/blog analyzing Big Ten peers): Discusses how some universities (e.g., Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers) include incentive pay in presidential performance reviews, tying portions of compensation to measurable goals. While not always explicit on facilities, it critiques the lack of such metrics at places like Penn State amid major projects (e.g., stadium renovations), implying fundraising and capital success should influence pay.
Link: https://barryfenchak.com/skin-in-the-game-incentive-pay-and-job-performance-in-higher-education
UCSD Guardian op-ed: “Exorbitant Campus Construction Projects, Administrative Compensation: It’s Time to Demand Accountability” (2023): Criticizes how university administrations are “rewarded” for launching expensive capital projects (e.g., new buildings costing billions), often at the expense of other priorities like faculty salaries or maintenance. It argues this ties executive rewards indirectly to prioritizing new facilities over core academic needs.
Link: https://ucsdguardian.org/2023/04/25/exorbitant-campus-construction-projects-administrative-compensation-its-time-to-demand-accountability
The Atlantic: “Tuition Increases as Universities Spend More On New Buildings as Old Facilities Fall Into Disrepair” (2016, still relevant context): Explores the “arms race” in campus construction, where presidents push for new amenities/facilities to attract students/faculty, often funded by tuition hikes or debt. It notes how this contributes to administrative bloat and high executive pay, though not always via explicit incentives.
Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-paradox-of-new-buildings-on-campus/492398
Inside Higher Ed: “Study: Investment in public university presidents doesn’t mean return in philanthropy or state funding” (2019): Finds no direct link between higher presidential pay and better fundraising/state appropriations outcomes, but notes boards often justify pay with macro goals like successful capital campaigns or enrollment/infrastructure improvements.
Link: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/29/study-investment-public-university-presidents-doesnt-mean-return-philanthropy-or

Overall, explicit ties to “building new facilities” are more common indirectly—through fundraising targets, capital campaign success, or strategic growth metrics—rather than line-item bonuses for specific construction projects. Critics argue this can incentivize flashy new builds over maintenance or academics, while proponents see it as aligning pay with institutional advancement. Compensation data often comes from sources like the Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual surveys or CUPA-HR reports.

Our coverage:

UNC-Chapel Hill announces plans to develop campus extension in Carolina North

The Vertical Density of Urban Apartments Is Catastrophic for Fertility

Could Bigger Apartments Reverse America’s Birth Decline?

Beauty in a World of Ugliness

Homophily Michigan

Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963

Integrated Planning Glossary

Ædificare & Utilization

Architectural Billings

Global Consistency in Presenting Construction & Life Cycle Costs

Carnegie Classifications

Occupancy Classification and Use

Gallery: School Bond Referenda

Means of Egress

Complete Monograph: 2024 Group A Proposed Changes (2658 pages)

International Building Code Chapter 30: Elevators and Conveying Systems

2024/2025/2026 ICC CODE DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE

IBC Electrical (Outdoor Lighting)

Integrated Planning Glossary

Michigan Central | Michigan Based ANSI Accredited Standards Developers*

§

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.

Integrated Planning Glossary

Connections, learnings, and expanded conversations #SCUPNC2022 in #chicago 👍🌟 pic.twitter.com/enPtA7YJsX

— SCUP (@Plan4HigherEd) October 18, 2022

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.

Whole Building Design Guide

“The Ideal City” (c. 1480) / Fra Carnevale

§

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:

Whole Building Design Guide

National BIM Standard V3

United States National CAD Standard

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.

Issue: [15-317]

Category: Architectural, Management & Finance

Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Richard Robben

Representative School, College & University Construction Contract General Conditions

More

2021 NIBS Report to the President of the United States

Monograph: Guide to Architectural Design Phases

Myron Hunt Architect

Your 2026 Rose Bowl Champion Indiana Hoosiers. pic.twitter.com/ULms8vwhy5

— Indiana Football (@IndianaFootball) January 2, 2026

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.