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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today we amble through the literature providing policy templates informing school district, college and university-affiliated transportation and parking facilities and systems. Starting 2024 we will break up our coverage thus:
Mobility 100 (Survey of both ground and air transportation instructional and research facilities)
Mobility 200 (Ground Transportation)
Mobility 300 (Air Transportation)
Mobility 400 (Reserved for zoning, parking space allocation and enforcement, and issues related to one of the most troublesome conditions in educational settlements)
June 26, 2024
This will be the last session during which time we will cover both land and air transportation codes, standards, guidelines and the regulations that depend upon all them.
Public consultation originates from the following organizations:
Like many SDO’s the SAE makes it very easy to purchase a standard but makes it very difficulty to find a draft standard open for public review. It is not an open process; one must apply to comment on a draft standard. Moreover, its programmers persist in playing “keep away” with landing pages.
The public school bus system in the United States is the largest public transit system in the United States. According to the American School Bus Council, approximately 25 million students in the United States ride school buses to and from school each day, which is more than twice the number of passengers that use all other forms of public transportation combined.
The school bus system is considered a public transit system because it is operated by public schools and school districts, and provides a form of transportation that is funded by taxpayers and available to the general public. The school bus system also plays a critical role in ensuring that students have access to education, particularly in rural and low-income areas where transportation options may be limited.
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
National School Transportation Association
School Bus Manufacturers Association
…and 50-state spinoffs of the foregoing. (See our ABOUT for further discussion of education industry non-profit associations)
There are several ad hoc consortia in this domain also; which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Charging specifications are at least temporarily “stable”; though who should pay for the charging infrastructure in the long run is a debate we have tracked for several revision cycles in building and fire codes.
Because incumbents are leading the electromobility transformation, and incumbents have deep pockets for market-making despite the “jankiness” of the US power grid, we can track some (not all) legislation action, and prospective public comment opportunities. For example:
Keep in mind that even though proposed legislation is sun-setted in a previous (116th) Congress, the concepts may be carried forward into the following Congress (117th).
Public consultations on mobility technologies relevant to the education facility industry are also covered by the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which meets 4 times monthly in European and American time zones.
This topic is growing rapidly and it may well be that we will have to break it up into more manageable pieces. For the moment, today’s colloquium is open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Artist: Syd Mead | Photo Credit: United States Steel
We find town-gown political functionaries working to accommodate students traveling on micro-scooters. Several non-profit trade associations compete for “ownership” of some part of the economic activity associated with micromobility. One of several domain incumbents is SAE International. Here is how SAE International describes the micromobility transformation:
“…Emerging and innovative personal mobility devices, sometimes referred to as micromobility, are proliferating in cities around the world. These technologies have the potential to expand mobility options for a variety of people. Some of these technologies fall outside traditional definitions, standards, and regulations. This committee will initially focus on low-speed micromobility devices and the technology and systems that support them that are not normally subject to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or similar regulations. These may be device-propelled or have propulsion assistance. They are low-speed devices that have a maximum device-propelled speed of 30 mph. They are personal transportation vehicles designed to transport three or fewer people. They are consumer products but may be owned by shared- or rental-fleet operators. This committee is concerned with the eventual utilization and operational characteristics of these devices, and how they may be safely incorporated in the transportation infrastructure. This committee will develop and maintain SAE Standards, Recommended Practices, and Information Reports within this classification of mobility. The first task of the committee will be to develop a taxonomy of low-speed micromobility devices and technologies. Currently, many of these terms are not consistently named, defined, or used in literature and practice. This task will also help refine the scope of the committee and highlight future work….”
Micromobility standards development requires sensitivity to political developments in nearly every dimension we can imagine.
This Recommended Practice provides a taxonomy and definitions for terms related to micromobility devices. The technical report covers low-speed micromobility devices (with a maximum device-propelled speed of 30 mph) and the technology and systems that support them that are not normally subject to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or similar regulations. These devices may be device-propelled or have propulsion assistance. Micromobility devices are personal transportation vehicles designed to transport three or fewer people. They are consumer products but may be owned by shared- or rental-fleet operators. This Recommended Practice does not provide specifications or otherwise impose requirements of micromobility devices.
SAE standards action appears on the pages linked below:
SAE International is proud to announce the release of SAE J3400™ North American Charging Standard (NACS) Electric Vehicle Coupler Technical Information Report.
Apart from the rising level of discussion on vehicle-to-grid technologies (which we track more closely with the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee) there is no product at the moment that business units in the education industry can comment upon. Many relevant SAE titles remain “Works in Progress”. When a public commenting opportunity on a candidate standard presents itself we will post it here.
We host periodic Mobility colloquia; SAE titles standing items on the agenda. See our CALENDAR for the next online session; open to everyone.
Abstract: We address the problem of predicting whether a driver facing the yellow-light-dilemma will cross the intersection with the red light. Based on driving simulator data, we propose a stochastic hybrid system model for driver behavior. Using this model combined with Gaussian process estimation and Monte Carlo simulations, we obtain an upper bound for the probability of crossing with the red light. This upper bound has a prescribed confidence level and can be calculated quickly on-line in a recursive fashion as more data become available. Calculating also a lower bound we can show that the upper bound is on average less than 3% higher than the true probability. Moreover, tests on driving simulator data show that 99% of the actual red light violations, are predicted to cross on red with probability greater than 0.95 while less than 5% of the compliant trajectories are predicted to have an equally high probability of crossing. Determining the probability of crossing with the red light will be important for the development of warning systems that prevent red light violations.
Abstract: One of the most common questions in the early stages of designing a new facility is whether the normal utility supply to a fire pump is reliable enough to “tap ahead of the main” or whether the fire pump supply is so unreliable that it must have an emergency power source, typically an on-site generator. Apart from the obligation to meet life safety objectives, it is not uncommon that capital on the order of 100000to1 million is at stake for a fire pump backup source. Until now, that decision has only been answered with intuition – using a combination of utility outage history and anecdotes about what has worked before. There are processes for making the decision about whether a facility needs a second source of power using quantitative analysis. Fault tree analysis and reliability block diagram are two quantitative methods used in reliability engineering for assessing risk. This paper will use a simple one line for the power to a fire pump to show how each of these techniques can be used to calculate the reliability of electric power to a fire pump. This paper will also discuss the strengths and weakness of the two methods. The hope is that these methods will begin tracking in the National Fire Protection Association documents that deal with fire pump power sources and can be used as another tool to inform design engineers and authorities having jurisdiction about public safety and property protection. These methods will enlighten decisions about the relative cost of risk control with quantitative information about the incremental cost of additional 9’s of operational availability.
As of the date of this post, no proposed revisions to the ASHRAE 90.4 have been released for public consultation. Keep in mind that its normative reference — ASHRAE Standard 90.1: Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings — is continually under revision; frequently appearing in electrical engineering design guidelines, construction specifications, commissioning and O&M titles in our industry and others.
ASHRAE 90.4 defines an alternate compliance path, specific to data centers, while the compliance requirements for “non-data center” components are contained in ASHRAE 90.1 . The 90.4 structure also streamlines the ongoing maintenance process as well ensures that Standards 90.1 and 90.4 stay in their respective lanes to avoid any overlap and redundancies relating to the technical and administrative boundaries. Updates to ASHRAE 90.1 will still include the alternate compliance path defined in ASHRAE 90.4. Conversely the 2022 Edition of 90.4-2022 refers to ASHRAE 90.1-2022; cross-referencing one another synchronously
Links to noteworthy coverage from expert agencies on the 2022 revisions:
This title resides on the standing agenda of our Infotech 400 colloquium; hosted several times per year and as close coupled with the annual meetings of ASHRAE International as possible. Technical committees generally meet during these meetings make decisions about the ASHRAE catalog. The next all committee conference will be hostedJanuary 20-24, 2024 in Chicago. As always we encourage education industry facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals to participate directly in the ASHRAE consensus standard development process. It is one of the better facilities out there.
Proposed Addendum g makes changes to definitions were modified in section 3 and mandatory language in Section 6 to support the regulation of process heat and process ventilation was moved in the section for clarity. Other changes are added based on comments from the first public review including changes to informative notes.
Consultation closes June 4th
Update: February 10, 2023
The most actively managed consensus standard for data center energy supply operating in education communities (and most others) is not published by the IEEE but rather by ASHRAE International — ASHRAE 90.4 Energy Standard for Data Centers (2019). It is not required to be a free access title although anyone may participate in its development. It is copyrighted and ready for purchase but, for our purpose here, we need only examine its scope and purpose. A superceded version of 90.4 is available in the link below:
It is likely that the technical committee charged with updating this standard are already at work preparing an updated version that will supercede the 2019 Edition. CLICK HERE for a listing of Project Committee Interim Meetings.
We maintain many titles from the ASHRAE catalog on the standing agenda of our Mechanical, Energy 200/400, Data and Cloud teleconferences. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Originally posted Summer 2020.
ASHRAE International has released four new addenda to its energy conservation consensus document ASHRAE 90.4-2016 Energy Standard for Data Centers. This document establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements of data centers for design and construction, for the creation of a plan for operation and maintenance and for utilization of on-site or off-site renewable energy resources.
It is a relatively new document more fully explained in an article published by ASHRAE in 2016 (Click here). The addenda described briefly:
Addendum a – clarifies existing requirements in Section 6.5 as well as introduce new provisions to encourage heat recovery within data centers.
Addendum b – clarifies existing requirements in Sections 6 and 11 and to provide guidance for taking credit for renewable energy systems.
Addendum d – a response to a Request for Interpretation on the 90.4 consideration of DieselRotary UPS Systems (DRUPS) and the corresponding accounting of these systems in the Electrical Loss Component (ELC). In crafting the IC, the committee also identified several marginal changes to 90.4 definitions and passages in Section 8 that would add further clarity to the issue. This addendum contains the proposed changes for that aim as well as other minor changes to correct spelling or text errors, incorporate the latest ELC values into Section 11, and to refresh information in the Normative Reference.
Addendum e adds language to Section 11 intended to clarify how compliance with Standard 90.4 can be achieved through the use of shared systems.
Comments are due September 6th. Until this deadline you may review the changes and comment upon them by by CLICKING HERE
Education facility managers, energy conservation workgroups and sustainability professionals are encouraged to participate directly in the ASHRAE standard development process. Start at ASHRAE’s public commenting facility:
The ASHRAE catalog is a priority title in our practice. This title appears on the standing agenda of our Infotech sessions. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Starting 2023 we will break down our coverage of laboratory standards thus:
Laboratories 100 will cover a broad overview of the safety and sustainability standards setting catalogs; emphasis on titles incorporated by reference into public safety laws.
Laboratories 200 will cover laboratory occupancies primarily for teaching and healthcare clinical delivery.
Laboratories 400 will cover laboratories for scientific research.
Laboratories 500 is broken out as a separate but related topic and will cover conformity and case studies that resulted in litigation. Both Laboratories 200 and 400 will refer to the cases but not given a separate colloquium unless needed.
At the usual time. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
“Evaluating the Efficacy of Laboratory Hazard Assessment Tools for Risk Management in Academic Research Laboratories” – This study from 2021 evaluated the effectiveness of various laboratory hazard assessment tools in academic research laboratories, and found that a combination of tools and approaches may be most effective for managing risks.
“A Framework for Assessing Laboratory Safety Culture in Academic Research Institutions” – This 2020 study developed a framework for assessing laboratory safety culture in academic research institutions, which can help identify areas for improvement and promote a culture of safety.
“Enhancing Laboratory Safety Culture Through Peer-to-Peer Feedback and Coaching” – This 2020 study found that peer-to-peer feedback and coaching can be an effective way to enhance laboratory safety culture, as it encourages open communication and feedback among colleagues.
“Assessing the Effectiveness of Laboratory Safety Training Programs for Graduate Students” – This 2019 study evaluated the effectiveness of laboratory safety training programs for graduate students, and found that interactive and hands-on training was more effective than traditional lecture-based training.
“Improving Laboratory Safety Through the Use of Safety Climate Surveys” – This 2018 study found that safety climate surveys can be an effective way to improve laboratory safety, as they provide insight into employee perceptions of safety culture and identify areas for improvement.
These recent research findings suggest that laboratory safety culture can be improved through a variety of approaches, including hazard assessment tools, peer-to-peer feedback and coaching, interactive training, and safety climate surveys. Some of these findings will likely set the standard of care we will see in safety standards incorporated by reference into public safety regulations.
Related:
November 29, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. We will drill into the International Code Council Group A titles which are receiving public input until January 10, 2022.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
The original University of Michigan Workspace for [Issue 13-28] in which we advocate for risk-informed eyewash and emergency shower testing intervals has been upgraded to the new Google Sites platform: CLICK HERE
Related:
September 20, 2021
Today we break down the literature setting the standard of care for the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; and with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world.
Join us by clicking the Daily Colloquia link at the upper right of our home page.
May 10, 2021
Today we will poke through a few proposals for the 2021/222 revision of the International Code Council’s Group A Codes. For example:
IFC § 202 et. al | F175-21| Healthcare Laboratory Definition
IBC § 202 et. al | E7-21| Collaboration Room
IBC § 1110.3 et. al | E143-21| Medical scrub sinks, art sinks, laboratory sinks
. . .
IFGC § 403, etl al| G1-21| Accessibility of fuel gas shut off valves
IBC § 307 Tables | G36-21| For hazardous materials in Group B higher education laboratory occupancies
IBC § 302.1 et. al | G121-21| Separation from other nonlaboratory areas for higher education laboratories
And about 20 others we discussed during the Group A Hearings ended last week. We will have until July 2nd to respond. The electrotechnology proposals will be referred to the IEEE Education & Healthcare Facilities Committee which is now preparing responses to this compilation by Kimberly Paarlberg.
March 15, 2021
Today we break down action in the literature governing the safety and sustainability of instruction and research laboratories in the United States specifically; but also with sensitivity to similar enterprises in research universities elsewhere in the world. “Everyone” has an iron in this fire:
…and ISEA, AWWA, AIHA, BIFMA, CLSI, LIA, IAPMO, NSF, UL etc. among ANSI accredited standards developing organizations…
..and addition to NIST, Federal code of Regulations Title 29, NIH, CDC, FEMA, OSHA etc
…and state level public health regulations; some of them adapted from OSHA safety plans
Classroom and offices are far simpler. Laboratories are technically complicated and sensitive area of concern for education communities not only responsible for the safety of instructional laboratories but also global communities with faculty and staff that must simultaneously collaborate and compete. We have been tip-toeing through the technical and political minefields for nearly 20 years now and have had some modest success that contributes to higher safety and lower costs for the US education community.
Colloquium open to everyone. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
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
