Talk Back

There are no comments posted for this article.

Post a comment

RSS Feed

Add BD&C Headlines to your
RSS Reader

Letters - January 2004

January 1, 2004

Building Design and Construction

Reliance on sprinklers a mistake

Many building codes, which establish fire safety standards for public and private buildings, are based upon the mistaken assumption that sprinklers virtually never fail and that fire-resistant construction materials can, therefore, be minimized or eliminated.

However, the National Fire Protection Association has data showing that sprinklers do not operate about 16% of the time. The figure is based on a 10-year study of more than 8,000 commercial and industrial fires in the U.S.

Despite the risk of failure, there is a trend for model codes to rely increasingly on sprinklers, while reducing requirements for fireproofing, fire-resistant doors, dampers, and other fire and smoke barriers. At the same time, municipalities are considering adopting codes that allow buildings to be constructed taller and wider, with more open, flexible space.

While many view fire barriers as costly excess, firefighters and other emergency responders see them as lifesavers: The more fire- and smoke-resistant construction products that are designed into a sprinklered structure, the less likely it is that it will collapse during a fire.

Those who doubt the need for fire-resistant construction need only look at the results of the World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which I oversaw in the aftermath of 9/11. While the WTC disaster involved impact trauma that the buildings’ designers never envisioned, the sprinklers were overwhelmed. However, the additional fire-resistant construction is believed to have helped reduce the death toll by delaying collapse of the twin towers.

Evidence of the vulnerability of sprinkler systems in more conventional fires can be seen in Buildings 5 and 7 of the WTC complex. Building 7 is not believed to have been seriously impacted by the collapse of the towers; Building 5 did have some severe damage from falling debris, but much of the building was undamaged. Both buildings had sprinkler systems. Yet Building 7 and a portion of Building 5 collapsed from burnout fires. The sprinklers in Building 5 were overwhelmed by the intensity of the fire; in Building 7, there was either no water supply or insufficient water to combat fire and prevent its collapse.

Based upon these findings, it is clear that the fire protection provided by the sprinkler systems alone did not stop the fires in these two buildings. However, the built-in fire protection delayed their collapse, thereby allowing occupants and emergency responders to evacuate both buildings.

Why is this important now? Two years after 9/11, New York City is gearing up to adopt the new International Building Code. Regrettably, the IBC relies even more extensively on sprinklers than previous model building codes at the expense of fire-resistant construction materials.

In fact, the IBC’s requirements for fire-resistant construction are drastically lower than what building codes required two to three decades ago. The IBC allows buildings to have more stories, more open space, narrower stairwells, longer distances to an exit, and fewer exits than is permissible under other codes. Unless the code is amended, it will place occupants, firefighters, and other emergency responders at greater risk than ever before.

This has implications well beyond New York. If history holds true, amendments made to the IBC in New York City will be carefully scrutinized by other jurisdictions across the country.

Fire safety cannot be an either/or proposition. Buildings for which sprinklers are appropriate should also have fire-resistant construction for better fire protection. Anything less puts occupants and emergency responders at risk and is unacceptable.

W. Gene Corley, PhD

The writer was team leader for the World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

‘Horrendous example’

Re: the McCormick Tribune Campus (BD&C, 12/03), I am appalled that such a flagrantly horrendous example of the built code environment would be featured in your magazine. This is the most egregious example of noncompliant stair and ramp construction I have seen in 18 years. This mocks every national model building code in existence. The architect should be censored, the code official fired, and you should print a retraction and apology for including and exhibiting such a hideous example of life safety as a paradigm of anything other than a code nightmare. This is an insult.

Henry Brunett

Director of Code Compliance

Hayes Large Architects

Next boycott?

Recently, in Austin, anti-growth activists have pressured the city into instituting a moratorium on construction of large retail buildings and forced “big-box” retailers into not building in the city. I would expect your 12/03 editorial to include this in your reasons to be “frightened” about the next boycott. This parallel makes transparent the hypocrisy of those that decry Mr. Danze's activism, but not that of the Left.

Wesley C. Griffin

Austin, Texas

Deciding money vs. principle

I normally look forward to BD&C editorials. However, you missed an opportunity to have a real discussion about ethics in your recent editorial. What if someone came to your firm and asked to have a museum built to honor Saddam Hussein. It is perfectly legal but would you do it? In every business we have to decide if money comes before principle. In San Antonio, Browning Construction Co. had to face this decision when they were asked to construct an abortion center in which innocent human life would be destroyed. I hope in the future you can be more factual and even-handed in your treatment of controversial issues.

Joe Rumler

Unfair to Muslims

It's unfair of you to compare the building of a mosque to the building of an abortion clinic. The building of a mosque, a place for Muslims who practice Islam, to worship God, is in no way comparable to the building of an abortion clinic, except maybe to people ignorant of the teachings of Islam.

The majority of Muslims in the world are law-abiding, peace-loving people, and it saddens us to have to constantly defend Islam. I would hope that in the future a little more responsibility is exercised in choosing your comparisons.

Sam Issa

Mechanical Engineer

How far to compromise

Mr. Danze’s actions certainly do raise questions about what we are willing to do to make money, what compromises we are willing to make, and how far we will go in rationalizing our efforts or looking the other way while atrocities take place. Mr. Danze and his supporters clearly decided there is something they won’t do for money, and that is to cooperate in the taking of innocent human life. At cost to their own businesses and with little expectation of succeeding, they chose not to lend support to this enterprise, and banded together to be more effective, which isn’t “undue harassment” and “illegal conspiracy.” If only the contractors who built the concentration camps in Nazi Germany had been as principled and courageous as Mr. Danze.

Martin Notzon, AIA

HOK

Houston, Texas

Making a statement

I believe businesses should take an active part in anything that affects our society, even the controversial items. We've had enough of being politically correct and keeping our personal views quiet because it's not the business thing to do.

Peter Hetherman

Hetherman Design Construction

Winter Garden, Fla.

Stick to the knitting, please

Your editorial was in very bad taste. Stick to building design and construction issues.

Stephen W. Heptig, AIA

Heptig Architects

Spring, Texas

Pricey accommodations

That must be some facility at $620 per SF ($6.2 million & 10,000 SF)!

Edgar L. Rapp, AIA

E. Lynn App Architects Inc.

Englewood, Ohio

Three thoughts on boycott

Three thoughts did cross my mind as I read your article. First, I found it interesting that a national magazine would seem to oppose the exercise of “free speech.” I saw no evidence in your editorial the opposition conveyed anything in the “telephone, letter-writing, and e-mail campaign” that was actually incorrect or untrue. Why were they wrong to express their views, but you are not wrong to express your thoughts?

Second, it also seemed disingenuous of you to imply that “conception counseling and HIV testing” were the primary purposes of the building when these services are already readily available in the area. It is clear these two are not the primary purposes for their business. Is it possible the reason the vast majority of people and contractors sided with the “boycott” (as you called it) was not because of any supposed financial pressure, but because they actually believe abortion is wrong?

Third, I am curious if you would feel the same way if the building construction being opposed were a meeting hall for the Ku Klux Klan, an adult bookstore, or a similar type of building involving a divisive use, instead of an abortion clinic? Would you have written an editorial defending the construction of these buildings?

The only thing your article effectively did was give ideas for opposing questionable buildings to thousands of people across America.

Tony Kinder, PE

Cleveland Surveying Company

Cleveland, TN

headline here

I greatly admire your willingness to take a stand on controversial issues within the architectural and construction sector, [but] our editorial leaves much to be desired.

First, Mr. Danze did not organize a campaign against Browning, as you stated. Rather, the “campaign” was against the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. The widespread unwillingness by subs and suppliers to become involved in the project inevitably affected Browning's ability to perform, and so they pulled out. I would liken that to collateral damage or secondary causes, a distinction which I feel is very important and will return to later.

Secondly, you seem to neglect the fact that this is a private project, and that the businesses involved are private enterprises. Mr. Danze is not obstructing something funded by the taxpayers or instituted by public referendum. This is an important distinction because you give the impression that some greater public good has been derailed and that one of our most cherished freedoms is under attack. While I want to unpack this later, I bring it up first as a clarification because of the tone set by your editorial.

Thirdly, I find it curious that you are concerned that Mr. Danze’s actions might constitute “harassment or even some form of illegal conspiracy” and yet are willing to concede that this very serious charge you raise would probably be a "moot point if the clinic gets built.” If Mr. Danze’s actions are indeed as serious as your speculations, then they are of concern whether the clinic gets built or not. You seem to be focused only on the ends, regardless of the means- let a guy do what he wants even if it's illegal, as long as we get what we want. Agree with his cause or not, we ought to admire Mr. Danze's willingness to stand for what he believed in regardless of the economic outcome for him. Your position, by contrast, seems to be "take a stand if it affects your pocketbook, otherwise look the other way". I find your pragmatic litmus test of whether there should be legal consequences troubling. This leads to my fourth problem with your editorial.

Your primary concern seems to be that a large contractor has come under pressure from a special interest group and that others in similar positions might be in danger. You drag out the overworked but still inflammatory "post-9/11 climate" worries about Islam-bashing. And in the midst of all this you casually mention that Planned Parenthood will be acting as its own GC. Are you not a promoter and defender of the professionals in the construction industry? Shouldn't the focus of your concern have been on whether this might become a trend and whether Planned Parenthood has the capabilities and experience to deliver a safe, code-compliant, professionally-built project? You seem curiously silent on this issue and whether Browning could have done more to keep the project alive or whether Planned Parenthood should be pressured to find another GC. Do we really want the trend of owner-builder to increase, regardless of the catalyst? If you want to be a modern Paul Revere (and I applaud you if you do) then please warn us of the real dangers to the construction industry.

I think that the way that you approached this issue was headed towards, but missed, a discussion of the tension between the exercise of free speech and the rights of business owners in our free enterprise system. Mr. Danze's opinion that abortion clinics are similar to concentration camps has been given much scientific and legal credence of late. The increasingly viability of early-term babies, the ability of new ultrasound technology to observe early development in the womb, the treatment of Connor Peterson (and others) as a murder victim, and the outrage towards mothers who kill their newborns has led the majority of Americans to conclude that the fetus is a person, not just a part of the mother's body. Therefore, a building which facilitates deliberate extermination of a specific people group (the unborn) is, in fact, accomplishing the same thing as a Nazi gas chamber, albeit in a different way and on a different scale as the Holocaust. I mean no disrespect to the survivors or the victims of that awful era, I am merely validating Mr. Danze's comparison.

Now, if Mr. Danze wants to express this view he is able to do so in many ways in America. The colonists started with the illegal vandalism of the Boston Tea Party, wrote certain protections of free speech into the constitution, and we still enjoy this right today. Occasionally, individuals of strong conviction have "put their money where their mouth is" and exercised (either individually or as an organized group) their freedom to speak economically through boycotts. The homosexual community even boycotted the whole state of Colorado, and civil rights activists the state of South Carolina! Did they "illegally conspire"? Did they create "frightening possibilities", in your words? So what is wrong with an unborn rights "activist" organizing a boycott? Or is it only the liberal causes that get a pass? If it's a conservative cause, suddenly it's a "frightening possibility". The only "frightening possibility" that I see Mr. Cassidy is when people such as you want to dictate who may and may not boycott something. Would you have written that editorial if the building in question was a Ku Klux Klan headquarters? Or, did the editorial stem less from a genuine concern for the contractor and the industry and more from your own personal feelings about abortion? At least have as much conviction as Mr. Danze and the courage to lay your cards on the table. I would rather have a concrete contractor who was a man of substance, courage, and conviction than an industry advocate who only warned us of issues that served as convenient disguises for personal feelings. I remain as respectful and grateful as ever of your journalistic passion; I implore you to self-examine your journalistic integrity. In any case, what a blessing to live in a country which allows us to even have these sorts of discussions. Happy New Year!

Robert Yanega

President, Hope Construction, Inc.

Cleveland, Ohio

I am writing to correct a misconception published in your White Paper and the White House Federal Commitment to Green Building Report concerning USGBC's Industry Trade Association Policy. This also confirms a phone discussion a while back with Charles Johnson in OFEE who I understand is responsible for that part of the White House Report.

On page three your report states: "8). The USGBC should reconsider the admission of trade associations. ... [T]rade associations, if granted membership, must ... ." The White House Report in Section VI states: "[T]rade associations are not allowed to become [USGBC] members ... ."

Trade associations have always been and still are allowed to participate as members in USGBC. Thus, it is inaccurate to say that trade associations can not join USGBC. Their membership can be in two ways. First, they can join through one or more of their members. For example, Exxon could join USGBC and represent Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute. Or API could be represented by Exxon and ChevronTexaco. Second, they can join through their IRC § 501(c)(3) charitable foundations as decided on a case by case basis by the USGBC Board.

The Board acted on this Policy a number of years ago at the request of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Foundation, and voted to allow the Foundation to join. I doubt the Foundation is still a member because NAHB is on record with a 2003 resolution of its members opposing USGBC and LEED.

The primary reason for establishing this Policy was based on experience we found highly detrimental to developing green building standards in ASTM. The ASTM Green Building Subcommittee was created in 1987 in response to the very strong national need and demand for leadership green building standards. The Subcommittee had about 200 members and was part of the ASTM Committee on Environmental Assessment which had about 1500 members with many successful important Standards including Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Risk-Based Corrective Action.

The Green Building Subcommittee worked for about three years in developing several draft standards, but they could not be submitted for initial ballot vote of the Subcommittee because of strong, unified opposition by industry trade associations and their "front" organizations. This was a critical part of the reason for establishing USGBC and the USGBC Industry Trade Association Policy.

I was asked to and did explain this at the September meeting with industry trade associations that you mention on page 44 of the Paper: "Interested 501(c)(6) entities were invited to express their views to the [USGBC Trade Association] Task Force in September."

Mike Italiano

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Italiano is a USGBC co-founder, first general counsel, author of the USGBC’s Industry Trade Association Policy, and a member of the USGBC Trade Association Task Force. He states that he is not writing on behalf of the USGBC.

Digg This | add to Del.icio.us

Talk Back

There are no comments posted for this article.

Related Articles

Talk Back

Letters - January 2004

January 1, 2004

Building Design and Construction

Talk Back

Please visit these other Reed Business sites