Transportation & Parking Facilities

Detroit’s Michigan Central Station, centerpiece of innovation hub, opens

dbarista — Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:53:37 +0000

Detroit’s Michigan Central Station, centerpiece of innovation hub, opens

dbarista Fri, 07/12/2024 - 09:53

The recently opened Michigan Central Station in Detroit is the centerpiece of a 30-acre technology and cultural hub that will include development of urban transportation solutions. The six-year adaptive reuse project of the 640,000 sf historic station, created by the same architect as New York’s Grand Central Station, is the latest sign of a reinvigorating Detroit.

Peter Fabris, Contributing Editor

The adaptive reuse project anchors a 30-acre site.

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

The building is the key structure within the 30-acre Michigan Central district, totaling over 1.2 million sf of office, community, and retail space. Michigan Central Station was the main inter-city passenger rail depot in Detroit. Built for the Michigan Central Railroad, it was rushed into service early due to a fire at the city’s existing depot on December 26, 1913, and remained open until 1988. The train depot included a 13-story office tower with a roof height of 230 feet, making it the world’s tallest rail station when constructed. Current owner, Ford Motor Company, acquired the building in 2018.

The project’s engineering and planning services by Buro Happold included daylighting analysis and solutions, building energy performance modeling, and front-end studies using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), to deliver an energy-efficient building.

“The reopening of Michigan Central Station represents a next chapter for Detroit. As initial tenants begin moving into revitalized spaces over the coming months, The Station will become an innovation hub and vibrant destination for all to enjoy, featuring ample retail, restaurants, and hospitality offerings,” says Craig Schwitter, senior partner and chair of the global board of Buro Happold. Buro Happold also provided mobility planning, multimodal streets design, traffic modeling and approvals, e-mobility planning, pedestrian modeling, equity planning, and business case formation. The firm also supported future-of-mobility consulting and planning for “smart city” implementation, such as communication networks and Internet-connected solutions that improve urban living.

Ford and Michigan Central hosted “Michigan Central OPEN,” an 11-day celebration that began June 6 with an outdoor concert featuring iconic Detroit artists. The following 10 days provided the public with a chance to see the revitalized station with an open house before the building’s first commercial occupants begin moving in this fall.

Here is the full press release from Buro Happold:
Following the restoration by Ford Motor Company, the once-abandoned train station will reopen its doors for a first look as the centerpiece of Michigan Central’s 30-acre innovation district.

From June 6-16, “Michigan Central OPEN” welcomes the public to celebrate this major milestone with an opening night concert featuring iconic Detroit performers and a 10-day open house for the public to see the first floor of the revitalized Station.

Registration for free events and tours opens to general public on May 21.

Following a six-year restoration by Ford Motor Company, the iconic Michigan Central Station will begin a new chapter, allowing the public inside for a look at the landmark’s glorious return during a multi-week celebration in June.

Ford acquired the building in 2018 and after extensive restoration and design efforts, Michigan Central Station will become a vibrant destination for Detroiters and all who visit the city, serving as the centerpiece of the Michigan Central technology and cultural hub that spans 30 acres.

Photo courtesy Buro Happold

To recognize this long-awaited milestone with the community, Ford and Michigan Central will host “Michigan Central OPEN,” an 11-day celebration beginning June 6 with an outdoor concert featuring iconic Detroit artists. The following 10 days will give the public a chance to see the revitalized Station with an open house before the building’s first commercial occupants begin moving in this fall. Visitors will be invited to tour the renovated Station, learn about the rich history of the landmark, the city, and its people, and get a sneak peek into Michigan Central’s bright future.

“I am truly excited to share the historic Michigan Central Station restoration with the entire Detroit community and beyond,” said Bill Ford, executive chair of Ford. “This is a milestone we can all celebrate. Michigan Central Station was once a symbol of Detroit’s decline, and now it is going to represent its renewal and bright future. This monumental project has taken more than 1.7 million hours of work and reflects Ford’s dedication to the community, Detroit’s role in shaping the future of mobility, and the opportunities that our city, state, and region continue to offer.”

On June 6, Michigan Central will kick off the festivities with Michigan Central OPEN Live, a 90-minute outdoor concert in front of The Station headlined by well-known Detroit musical artists. The show will feature short films, appearances by local leaders, and creators telling stories of innovation and culture from around the city and the region.

From June 7-16, Michigan Central will host its OPEN House, offering a first look inside the Station’s historic ground floor through a range of exhibits, entertainment, art, and more. Michigan Central’s art program will also bring art installations, including a new iteration of Reddymade’s me + you, a critically acclaimed interactive sculpture specifically for Michigan Central.

Registration for OPEN Live and OPEN House will begin online at Michigan Central on May 17 for neighbors surrounding The Station, and on May 21 for the general public.

After its reopening event in June, The Station will begin a phased reactivation of the building over the next several months and years as restaurant, retail, and other commercial and community-focused partners take up residency. The first floor will be open to the public for tours on Fridays and Saturdays through August. Expanded hours will be announced for fall, when the first phase of commercial activations opens to the public. More information on the Michigan Central OPEN festivities, including how to register for tickets, can be found at Michigan Central .

A bygone transit depot transformed into a global mobility innovation

First opened in 1913, Michigan Central Station was considered to be one of the grandest train depots in the United States and served more than 4,000 passengers a day at its peak. However, as preferences and technology changed in regards to travel, The Station was closed in 1988 and remained vacant until Ford’s acquisition of the property in 2018, with a vision by Bill Ford to propel Detroit forward with a one-of-kind mobility innovation hub, Michigan Central.

During the past six years, more than 3,100 skilled-trade workers have dedicated over 1.7 million combined hours to meticulously restore it to its original Beaux-Arts glory and create a new institution to welcome future generations starting this June.

The Station’s opening is the next step for Michigan Central’s innovation ecosystem dedicated to pioneering the future of mobility, fueling economic development, and re-establishing Detroit as a leader in innovation. When complete, The Station will include 640,000 square feet of retail, hospitality, community, and office spaces supporting the Michigan Central ecosystem by accommodating larger tenants and established companies, attracting more technology talent, drawing in diverse businesses, and providing a range of collaboration-oriented amenities. Michigan Central will also be a destination on Detroit’s greenway plan, uniting dozens of local neighborhoods across the city to create a more connected Detroit.

“At Michigan Central, we’re harnessing Detroit’s long-standing leadership in mobility and economic innovation to create a thriving, global destination for accelerating bold ideas and new solutions that shape our shared future,” said Joshua Sirefman, CEO of Michigan Central. “At the heart of this is The Station, an iconic building that now serves not just as a reminder of our city’s history, but a powerful catalyst for growth and opportunity.”

In April 2023, the long-vacant former Book Depository building reopened as the home of Newlab at Michigan Central, which serves as the epicenter of the startup and early-stage companies within the Michigan Central ecosystem. Now home to almost 600 employees from more than 90 companies and startups, Newlab at Michigan Central has rapidly grown into a diverse community of entrepreneurs, inventors, designers, and others from all over the world committed to developing new mobility technologies in and for real-world settings. Roughly 40 percent of startups at Newlab originated outside of Michigan, and over half of the startups have at least one founder who is a woman, a person of color, or comes from an otherwise underrepresented background.

Michigan Central has also made it a priority to support residents, businesses, and community-focused organizations with direct investments and high-quality, credentialed education and training programs. Through skills-training programs, Michigan Central seeks to address early barriers in Detroit’s talent pipeline, promote equitable outcomes, and offer accessible pathways for upskilling into well-paying careers of the future.

The opening of the reimagined Station marks the next chapter for the historic building itself, as well as Michigan Central as its ecosystem continues to gain momentum as Detroit’s newest anchor institution and a global destination.

Photo courtesy Buro Happold

Historic Fresno train depot to be renovated for California high speed rail station project

dbarista — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:29:37 +0000

Historic Fresno train depot to be renovated for California high speed rail station project

dbarista Wed, 07/10/2024 - 14:29

Transit Facilities

A long-shuttered rail station in Fresno, Calif., will be renovated to serve as the city’s high speed rail (HSR) station as part of the California High-Speed Rail Authority system, the nation’s first high speed rail project. California’s HSR system will eventually link more than 800 miles of rail, served by up to 24 stations.

Peter Fabris, Contributing Editor

Work includes upgrades for accessibility, fire and life-safety, and seismic standards

Transit Facilities

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

Design firm Page & Turnbull will work on the historic station, with a focus on accessibility updates, upgrades to meet modern fire and life-safety codes and structural and seismic standards, and the rehabilitation of key architectural features of the historic Queen Anne-style depot, built of red brick with a slate bellcast hip-roof and cupolas. Foster + Partners will design a new intermodal station at the site.

The new HSR hub will connect the historic transit depot’s former passenger and freight train stations, as realized through extensive, preliminary site surveys and 3D modeling. Attention to strengthening the buildings’ structural and seismic integrity is a priority, potentially through discrete structural approaches that will preserve the buildings’ original brick walls, such as the integration of obscured concrete columns.

The historic train depot is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It opened in 1872 as the Central Pacific Railroad station and was later developed into the Southern Pacific Depot, whose service ceased in the early 1970s. The site includes the historic passenger depot, freight depot/railway express agency building, and Pullman Shed.

As a part of the Phase 1, 119-mile Central Valley segment of the California HSR system that also includes Northern and Southern California segments, the 65-mile project section between Merced and Fresno link the Central Valley and Silicon Valley with stations in downtown Fresno and downtown Merced. The Central Valley segment will connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours, with service expected to begin in 2027.

When complete, the 800-mile system from Sacramento to San Diego, will include an anticipated 24 HSR stations, with arriving and departing trains travelling at some 200 miles per hour. Phase 1’s 520-mile segment consists of the San Francisco/Merced to Los Angeles/Anaheim section.

Owner and/or developer: California High-Speed Rail Authority
Architect of record for intermodal station: Foster + Partners
Architect of record for historic station: Page & Turnbull
Engineers for intermodal station: Arup

Courtesy California High-Speed Rail Authority

Healthcare design: How to improve the parking experience for patients and families

dbarista — Tue, 28 May 2024 19:26:32 +0000

Healthcare design: How to improve the parking experience for patients and families

dbarista Tue, 05/28/2024 - 14:26

Healthcare Facilities

Parking is likely a patient’s—and their families—first and last touch with a healthcare facility. As such, the arrival and departure parking experience can have a profound impact on their experience with the healthcare facility, writes Beth Bryan, PE, PTOE, PTP, STP2, Principal, Project Manager, Walter P Moore.

Beth Bryan, PE, PTOE, PTP, STP2, Principal, Project Manager, Walter P Moore

Healthcare Facilities

Hospital Design Trends

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

Architects, engineers, and building owners often ask themselves, Why does parking matter in healthcare facilities design?

To answer that question, we can use recent experience designing parking facilities at the Virginia Commonwealth University Health (VCU Health) Outpatient Pavilion Garage in Richmond, Va., Cone Health in Greensboro, N.C., and Wake Forest Baptist East Tower in Winston-Salem, N.C., as examples.

What can healthcare facilities do to ensure to enhance their visitor’s parking experience? First, provide ample parking and ensure that the facilities are easy to navigate. Second, keep the walking distance between the parking and healthcare facility short and brief. Finally, and most importantly, offer the option for visitors to opt for front door valet services as well as providing designated drop-off and pick-up areas for family members and services such as Uber/Lyft and taxis.

Healthcare design advice for valet service and drop-off/pick-up areas

Valet services at healthcare facilities provide front door access for visitors in addition to shorter walking distances for the mobility impaired. This option can significantly reduce the stress associated with navigating a parking garage while concurrently reducing the time and distance from vehicle to the destination within a healthcare facility.

Designated drop-off and pick-up areas offer flexibility for patients, family, and caregivers. They also provide healthcare facilities with a transportation network for Ubers/Lyft’s, taxis, and medical transportation services.

Both services also provide healthcare facilities flexibility for the future as it pertains to self-driving vehicles and centralized parking facilities.

Parking facility design for healthcare settings

At Walter P Moore, we use PTV Vissim, a multi-modal traffic simulation software that allows us to provide a 3D microsimulation of transportation facilities. The software digitally represents all road users—vehicles, pedestrians, buses, bicycles, trucks, trains, etc.—in a network.

The software was used when designing the parking facility at the VCU Adult Outpatient Pavilion, a 615,000-sf structure that combined several existing services into a new building. This included over 1,000 parking spaces and entry to the parking facility was provided on two different levels due to the sloping grade on the site.

There were several concerns regarding the new facility. Chief among them were the potential for vehicle queuing backing up on the street and the potential for a high number of pedestrians crossing pick-up lanes to access the main entry.

Unlike traditional traffic studies that look at the AM and PM peak periods, when traffic volumes on the roadways are highest, for healthcare projects we often use projected volumes for the midday peak period because in healthcare facilities, that is when you have the largest number of people coming and going to the facility.

Using volumes for existing facilities VCU Health and growing them to reflect the new program, it was estimated that the following volumes would be trying to utilize the new building: Massey Cancer Center Valet (76 entering, 51 exiting); Clinic Valet (93 entering, 84 exiting); Drop-off/Pick-up (24 entering, 14 exiting); and Self-Parking (220 entering, 128 exiting). We also studied dwell times at VCU Health’s exiting valet services and found the average dwell times for type of patient served. For the Massey Cancer Center, it took approximately 120 seconds to drop-off a vehicle and 90 seconds to pick-up a vehicle. At the Clinic Valet it takes approximately 120 seconds to drop-off and 60 seconds to pick-up. Patients that were not valeting and just dropping-off or picking-up take approximately 20 seconds.

Using this data, both levels with drop-off and pick-up activities were models to show that even during the busiest peak periods, all operations would occur on the site and not spill out onto adjacent streets and block traffic in the busy downtown Richmond area. The 3D models allowed the VCU Health administration and City officials alike to feel comfortable that this solution would work for the foreseeable future.

Is there enough space?

At Cone Health, administrators and providers were concerned about queuing for the valet and pick-up/drop-off area as well as the overall patient experience for their new Heart and Vascular Center. Walter P Moore gathered data from their existing clinics, scaled the data to the new facility, and modeled different scenarios to ensure Cone Health and their providers that there was enough space for parking and valet services and that patient experience would be prioritized.

Two different scenarios were studied regarding dwell times for valet and transport vehicle drop-off, valet pick-ups, and the self-parking exit route. The dwell times were consistent with observed times at other hospital facilities across the US. The study revealed that with a few minor adjustments to the design, there would be ample space for curbside operations and that by providing a direct exit for visitors from the garage—so they can avoid the valet zone entirely—the number vehicles circulating thru the drive could be minimized, thus further reducing congestion. This also ensures that if there was a back-up at the drop-off/pick-up area, vehicles could still exit the garage without having to wait.

Furthermore, the study recommended that if valet spaces were reserved on the ground floor of the garage it would allow valet vehicles to exit more quickly, keeping valet wait times down—while concurrently minimizing staffing needs. The design of the structure allowed self-parkers to proceed directly to the upper levels without passing all of the valet spaces, keeping these functions separate.

During the study, there were concerns about some of the transport vehicles that may need to stop for longer than 3-5 minutes to load or unload, potentially blocking the drive. Designated parking spaces on the ground level were added to provide a space for vehicles out of the main vehicular patterns, thus eliminating this concern.

Make sure to stress test healthcare parking designs

The Wake Forest Baptist East Tower project erected a new care tower to provide improved facilities for existing services. An existing parking deck was replaced by the new tower, which limited the options to create new valet or drop-off/pick-up zones. Furthermore, the existing horseshoe that served as the main drop-off/pick-up area was already severely congested.

Walter P Moore analyzed the horseshoe area using existing counts from August 2022 as well as valet volumes to determine the flows and locations for different activities to maximize the capacity of the area while improving the patient experience by making it easier to navigate. To account for the fact that there were COVID visitor restrictions in place when the counts were performed, the system was stress tested by growing the volumes to determine the capacity for growth.

Based upon the analysis, it was determined that there was capacity for growth of approximately 10 percent in the valet area. With this knowledge, the hospital system can monitor valet volumes in the future with the knowledge that as volumes increase closer to the 10%, they should start to study alternative locations for valet services in order to maintain the best level of service for all of their patients and visitors.

While parking is not the most important part of a patient’s experience at a healthcare facility, as the first and last touch with the facility, it has the potential to leave a lasting impression. Using micro-simulation modeling allows healthcare facilities to better understand and make improvements to their operations both for existing and proposed facilities so that their patients and visitors have a better experience and enjoy coming to their facilities instead of dreading it.

How could your operations be improved of you could test them before building?

About the Author
Beth Bryan, PE, PTOE, PTP, STP2, is a Principal and Project Manager in Walter P Moore’s Parking Group. She can be reached at bbryan@walterpmoore.com.

Top 55 Parking Structure Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:26:34 +0000

Top 55 Parking Structure Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista Tue, 01/23/2024 - 14:26

Giants 400

PCL Construction Enterprises, Swinerton, Bomel Construction, McCarthy Holdings, and Alberici-Flintco top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest parking structure general contractors and construction management (CM) firms for 2023, as reported in the 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Giants 400

Top 55 Parking Structure Construction Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	PCL Construction Enterprises	$251,424,820
2	Swinerton	$221,432,887
3	Bomel Construction	$205,590,498
4	McCarthy Holdings	$133,335,009
5	Alberici-Flintco	$101,593,905
6	Hensel Phelps	$80,051,186
7	Messer Construction	$68,311,104
8	Brasfield & Gorrie	$46,670,321
9	Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, The	$41,122,206
10	Level 10 Construction	$35,597,189
11	Balfour Beatty US	$34,231,154
12	Gilbane Building Company	$33,626,000
13	Howard Shockey & Sons	$23,995,276
14	Kaufman Lynn Construction	$23,410,047
15	Robins & Morton	$17,889,951
16	Manhattan Construction	$17,312,154
17	JE Dunn Construction	$15,768,903
18	Suffolk Construction	$15,200,000
19	Breeden Construction	$15,000,000
20	DPR Construction	$14,960,000
21	Nabholz	$14,133,395
22	Holt Construction	$13,159,922
23	Mortenson	$12,201,000
24	Walsh Group, The	$12,018,081
25	W.E. O'Neil Construction	$11,009,572
26	LeChase Construction Services	$10,929,104
27	Hoar Construction	$10,365,000
28	Benchmark Construction	$10,233,557
29	Clancy & Theys Construction	$9,896,283
30	Sundt Construction	$9,302,008
31	Adolfson & Peterson Construction	$8,723,727
32	CG Schmidt	$8,390,315
33	EW Howell Construction Group	$7,531,000
34	McCownGordon Construction	$7,452,000
35	Rogers-O'Brien Construction	$6,473,959
36	Rodgers Builders	$5,710,293
37	Hagerman Group, The	$5,100,000
38	Choate Construction	$4,861,713
39	Findorff	$4,271,853
40	Ryan Companies US	$2,753,639
41	DonahueFavret Contractors	$2,643,523
42	Batson-Cook Construction	$2,429,378
43	Kraus-Anderson	$1,985,300
44	HITT Contracting	$1,664,928
45	Hill & Wilkinson General Contractors	$1,448,141
46	Fortis Construction	$1,402,947
47	Barton Malow	$1,291,743
48	TW Constructors	$1,250,000
49	Skanska USA	$881,899
50	AOA	$848,697
51	Austin Industries	$619,627
52	McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP)	$362,047
53	Saunders Construction	$354,000
54	W.M. Jordan Company	$343,238
55	Miron Construction	$300,000
56	Yates Companies, The	$212,000
57	VCC	$102,099
58	Hill International	$24,149
59	JLL	$5,537

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

A. Top 175 Architecture Firms
B. Top 115 Architecture/Engineering (AE) Firms
C. Top 75 Engineering Firms
D. Top 35 Engineering/Architecture (EA) Firms
E. Top 150 Contractors
F. Top 80 Construction Management Firms

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

01. Airport Terminals
• Top 65 Airport Terminal Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 65 Airport Terminal Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 60 Airport Terminal Contractors and CM Firms

02. Convention Centers/Conference Centers
• Top 40 Convention Center Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 30 Convention Center Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 20 Convention Center Contractors + CM Firms

03. Cultural Facilities – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 110 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 60 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 65 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work

04. Cultural Facilities – Museums and Galleries
• Top 70 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Museums and Galleries
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Museums and Galleries
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Museums and Galleries

05. Cultural Facilities – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 60 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 35 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues

06. Cultural Facilities – Public Libraries
• Top 50 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Public Libraries
• Top 30 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Public Libraries
• Top 20 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Public Libraries

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

09. Government - All Government Buildings Work
• Top 170 Government Sector Architecture + AE Firms - All Government Work
• Top 90 Government Sector Engineering + EA Firms - All Government Work
• Top 100 Government Sector Contractors + CM Firms - All Government Work

10. Government - Federal Civilian Government
• Top 70 Federal Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 60 Federal Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 50 Federal Government Contractors + CM Firms

11. Government - Local Government Buildings
• Top 150 Local Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 80 Local Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 80 Local Government Contractors + CM Firms

12. Government - State Government Buildings
• Top 90 State Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 State Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 50 State Government Contractors + CM Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

14. Government - Veterans Administration Facilities
• Top 35 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 20 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 15 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Contractors + CM Firms

15. Healthcare – All Healthcare Facilities Work
• Top 175 Healthcare Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Healthcare Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 115 Healthcare Sector Contractors and CM Firms

16. Healthcare – Hospitals
• Top 130 Hospital Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 Hospital Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 90 Hospital Facility Contractors and CM Firms

17. Healthcare – Medical Office Buildings, Dental Offices
• Top 110 Medical Office Building Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Medical Office Building Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 70 Medical Office Building Contractors and CM Firms

18. Healthcare – Outpatient Facilities
• Top 100 Outpatient Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 40 Outpatient Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 60 Outpatient Facility Contractors and CM Firms

19. Hospitality – All Hospitality Facilities Work (Hotels, Resorts, Casinos)
• Top 130 Hospitality Facility Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 75 Hospitality Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Hospitality Facility Contractors and CM Firms

20. Hospitality — Hotel, Resorts
• Top 120 Hotel Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Hotel and Resort Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Hotel and Resort Contractors and CM Firms

21. Hospitality — Casinos
• Top 10 Casino Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 25 Casino Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 25 Casino Contractors and CM Firms

22. Industrial Buildings — Manufacturing Plants, Warehouses
• Top 100 Industrial Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Industrial Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 Industrial Facility Contractors and CM Firms

23. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
• Top 20 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Construction Firms

24. Multifamily — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 190 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 75 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 115 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work

25. Multifamily — Apartments, Condominiums
Top 160 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work
Top 70 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work
Top 100 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work

26. Multifamily — Senior Living Facilities
Top 80 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Senior Living Facilities
Top 40 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Senior Living Facilities
Top 60 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Senior Living Facilities

27. Multifamily — Student Housing Facilities
Top 90 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Student Housing Facilities
Top 30 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Student Housing Facilities
Top 40 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Student Housing Facilities

28. Office — All Office Building Work
• Top 200 Office Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Office Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 120 Office Sector Contractors and CM Firms

29. Office — Buildings/Core+Shell
• Top 140 Office Building Core+Shell Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 80 Office Building Core+Shell Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 100 Office Building Core+Shell Contractors and CM Firms

30. Office — Workplace/Interior Fitouts
• Top 160 Workplace/Interior Fitout Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Workplace/Interior Fitout Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Workplace/Interior Fitout Contractors and CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

32. Public Safety/Justice Facilities
• Top 90 Justice Facility/Public Safety Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Justice Facility/Public Safety Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Justice Facility/Public Safety Contractors + CM Firms

33. Reconstruction Work
• Top 200 Reconstruction Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Reconstruction Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 140 Reconstruction Sector Contractors + CM Firms

34. Religious Structures/Places of Worship
• Top 80 Religious Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Religious Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 40 Religious Facility Contractors + CM Firms

35. Retail — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 140 Retail Sector Architecture and AE Firms — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 75 Retail Sector Engineering and EA Firms — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 80 Retail Sector Contractors and CM Firms — All Retail Buildings Work

36. Retail — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 30 Retail Architecture and AE Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 40 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 40 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks

37. Retail — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 90 Retail Architecture and AE Firms - Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 60 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 60 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers

38. Retail — Restaurants
• Top 90 Retail Architecture and AE Firms — Restaurants
• Top 40 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Restaurants
• Top 40 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Restaurants

39. Science & Technology (S+T) Facilities - All S+T Buildings Work
• Top 100 Science + Technology Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Science + Technology Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top of 80 Science + Technology Facility Contractors and CM Firms

40. Science & Technology — Laboratories
• Top 100 Laboratory Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Laboratory Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Laboratory Facility Contractors and CM Firms

41. Schools — PK-12, Public, Private, Charter, Military
• Top 170 K-12 School Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 K-12 School Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 K-12 School Sector Contractors and CM Firms

42. Sports Facilities/Stadiums/Recreation Facilities
• Top 130 Sports Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Sports Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 70 Sports Facility Contractors and CM Firms

43. Telecommunications Buildings
• Top 10 Telecommunications Facility Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 25 Telecommunications Facility Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 10 Telecommunications Facilities Contractors + CM Firms

44. Transit Facilities — Bus/Rail Terminals and Stations
• Top 40 Transit Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 40 Transit Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 25 Transit Facilities Contractors + CM Firms

45. University / College Facilities
• Top 170 University Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 University Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 University Sector Contractors and CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:26:34 +0000

Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista Tue, 01/23/2024 - 14:26

Giants 400

Walker Consultants, Kimley-Horn, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, KPFF Consulting Engineers, and Walter P Moore head BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest parking structure engineering and engineering/architecture (EA) firms for 2023, as reported in the 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Engineers

Giants 400

Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Walker Consultants	$61,783,087
2	Kimley-Horn	$11,000,000
3	Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates	$8,625,000
4	KPFF Consulting Engineers	$6,911,192
5	Walter P Moore	$6,182,852
6	EXP	$6,116,000
7	Thornton Tomasetti	$5,595,476
8	CDM Smith	$3,179,515
9	Martin/Martin	$2,878,190
10	IMEG	$2,234,800
11	Alfa Tech Consulting Engineers	$2,160,000
12	Langan	$2,000,000
13	BKF Engineers	$1,564,991
14	Syska Hennessy Group	$1,167,994
15	GRAEF	$1,162,804
16	Osborn Engineering	$900,000
17	WSP	$864,000
18	TLC Engineering Solutions	$636,352
19	I.C. Thomasson Associates	$500,000
--	Dunham Associates	$500,000
--	Wallace Design Collective	$500,000
22	JQ Engineering	$411,329
23	DLZ Corporation	$344,550
24	PCS Structural Solutions	$337,526
25	Bennett & Pless	$337,432
26	Magnusson Klemencic Associates	$314,508
27	Highland Associates	$300,000
28	Arora Engineers	$276,868
29	PBS Engineers	$200,000
30	Schaefer	$189,603
31	NV5 Global	$176,820
32	Smith Seckman Reid (SSR)	$174,202
33	DeSimone Consulting Engineering	$173,155
34	EVstudio	$150,000
35	CMTA	$141,363
36	Teecom	$124,021
37	French & Parrello Associates	$123,972
38	Tetra Tech High Performance Buildings Group	$107,663
39	raSmith	$103,237
40	Newcomb & Boyd	$99,475
41	Affiliated Engineers	$97,976
42	Jordan & Skala Engineers	$75,361
43	Kohler Ronan	$68,343
44	Shive-Hattery	$60,399
45	Kohrs Lonnemann Heil Engineers (KLH)	$35,825
46	Heapy	$35,478
47	Halff	$30,000
48	Burns & McDonnell	$28,452
49	Vanderweil Engineers	$23,400
50	Davis, Bowen & Friedel	$13,295

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture Firms for 2023

dbarista — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:26:28 +0000

Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture Firms for 2023

dbarista Tue, 01/23/2024 - 14:26

Giants 400

Choate Parking Consultants, Page Southerland Page, Gensler, AO, and Elkus Manfredi Architects top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest parking structure architecture and architecture engineering (AE) firms for 2023, as reported in the 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Designers

Architects

Giants 400

Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Choate Parking Consultants	$8,182,000
2	Page Southerland Page	$7,745,400
3	Gensler	$6,687,777
4	AO	$3,000,000
5	Elkus Manfredi Architects	$2,970,084
6	Solomon Cordwell Buenz (SCB)	$2,363,027
7	HMC Architects	$2,202,175
8	Cooper Carry	$2,034,657
9	Gresham Smith	$2,016,026
10	Kirksey Architecture	$1,517,397
11	Moody Nolan	$1,316,684
12	HGA	$1,311,185
13	HOK	$1,089,152
14	LS3P Associates	$1,045,009
15	EUA	$915,000
16	HuntonBrady Architects	$913,644
17	Rule Joy Trammell Rubio	$768,000
18	TreanorHL	$729,841
19	LHB	$686,222
20	LRK	$520,000
21	WDG	$481,000
22	Stantec	$428,848
23	CPL Architecture, Engineering, Planning	$403,548
24	RS&H	$400,000
25	Guidon	$379,100
26	CSO	$369,683
27	Little Diversified Architectural Consulting	$300,000
28	Perkins&Will	$296,521
29	RSP Architects	$294,000
30	Legat Architects	$284,000
31	RATIO Design	$234,337
32	Urbahn Architects	$230,000
33	Crawford Architects	$222,600
34	Ayers Saint Gross	$220,847
35	Champlin Architecture	$193,999
36	Ware Malcomb	$193,031
37	Smallwood	$182,499
38	MA Design	$171,868
39	Álvarez-Díaz & Villalón	$155,000
40	ZGF	$152,772
41	bKL Architecture	$140,000
42	Thriven Design	$138,356
43	Goodwyn Mills Cawood	$117,509
44	Cuningham	$110,317
45	McMillan Pazdan Smith	$108,244
46	FitzGerald	$102,000
47	ATA Beilharz Architects	$100,339
48	Curtis + Ginsberg Architects	$100,000
49	Ryan Companies US	$98,000
50	Reztark Design Studio	$92,724
51	DAG Architects	$81,291
52	Parkhill	$68,735
53	Bailey Edward Design	$67,900
54	Becker Morgan Group	$67,396
55	Cushing Terrell	$60,720
56	Method Architecture	$53,483
57	FSB Architects + Engineers	$37,991
58	Rossetti	$24,724
59	Cromwell Architects Engineers	$24,065
60	Fennick McCredie Architecture	$19,850
61	Huntsman Architectural Group	$18,400
62	McKinley Architecture and Engineering	$17,400
63	CO Architects	$17,370
64	Kohn Pedersen Fox	$11,447
65	Greenberg Farrow	$8,600

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Waterproofing deep foundations for new construction

dbarista — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:21:32 +0000

Waterproofing deep foundations for new construction

Amos Chan, P.E., BECxP, CxA+BE, Walter P Moore

dbarista Wed, 01/17/2024 - 15:21

This course covers design considerations for below-grade waterproofing for new construction, the types of below-grade systems available, and specific concerns associated with waterproofing deep foundations.

Below-grade waterproofing systems can be critical features of building enclosure design, particularly when the structure has a deep foundation. As the foundation goes deeper, there is a greater likelihood that it will encounter the groundwater table and hydrostatic conditions, which makes choosing the right below-grade waterproofing system even more important.

When selecting and designing a below-grade waterproofing system, the primary factors to consider include the type of foundation system, the project’s site conditions, product performance properties, and construction sequencing. The design specifications for a building’s foundation are influenced by the building size and structural system, as well as the site’s soil and geological composition.

Foundation systems are typically either categorized as shallow foundations or deep foundations. Shallow foundations are used when the structural loads can be adequately distributed to a relatively shallow level of soil. Examples include structural slab-on-grade foundations, footings, and grade beams. Deep foundations are used when there are more significant loads that need to be transferred to deeper soil or bedrock. These types include piles, caissons, and drilled shafts, among others.

While the structural engineer is responsible for the foundation design, the waterproofing consultant needs to understand the type of foundation being used to anticipate the various interfaces and conditions the below-grade waterproofing design will need to reflect. The proximity of the foundation to the groundwater table and potential presence of soil contaminants are critical factors to evaluate, and they can substantially influence decisions about the type of waterproofing membrane to select for the foundation elements.

To obtain a general idea of how high the groundwater table can be at the project site, one should review the geotechnical investigations report. These investigations are typically performed at the early stages of the project and can involve various subsurface and soil assessment methods, including borings. The report may document whether groundwater was encountered in any of the borings, and it may identify the historic high-water-table elevation or provide a recommended design groundwater table elevation. This elevation should be compared with the building’s foundation elevation, as well as the lowest of any foundation elements—such as the grade beam, footing, elevator pit, or sump—to ascertain whether hydrostatic conditions should be assumed for the project.

When reviewing the geotechnical investigations report, one should stay cognizant of the fluctuating nature of groundwater elevations and understand that the geotechnical investigations typically capture one specific moment in time. While the report can provide good insights, it does not always paint the full picture of the site’s hydrogeology. The geotechnical investigations report can also provide insight into past uses of the site, and whether contaminated soils are present. For example, former gas stations and auto repair shops are likely to have petroleum or methane contaminants in the soil. Other contaminants can include acid and alkaline water, insecticides, and fertilizers.

In coastal regions, subsurface saltwater is another consideration; the presence of subsurface saltwater may warrant the use of specific versions of waterproofing membranes designed for these conditions.

When selecting the appropriate below-grade waterproofing system for the project, one should also consider the owner’s budget and what they consider to be a level of acceptable risk. This information will inform your decisions and recommendations regarding certain waterproofing product features, such as whether membranes are fully welded, adhered, or taped. Construction sequencing may influence items like backfilling and soil retention systems, and by understanding the construction project’s timeline, you can guide the selection of waterproofing products with application methods appropriate for the sequencing.

Below-Grade Waterproofing Membrane Systems

Before diving into the different below-grade waterproofing product options, it is necessary to understand the difference between damp-proofing and full waterproofing membranes. Damp-proofing is defined as “the treatment of a of a surface or structure to block the passage of water in the absence of hydrostatic pressure.”

Some vapor retarders are considered a form of damp-proofing. In below-grade applications, vapor retarders are most commonly thinner sheets of polyethylene plastic intended to prevent the transmission of moisture vapor. Vapor retarders offer varying degrees of protection from vapor transmission, depending on the material’s vapor permeability. Vapor retarders with the lowest range of permeability are often referred to as vapor barriers, with vapor permeance values of 0.1 perm or less.

Installation of post-applied waterproofing membrane. Photo: Walter P Moore

ASTM E1745, Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs, provides three classes for vapor retarders, all of which share a maximum water vapor permeance of 0.1 perm but have different levels of tensile strength and puncture resistance.

The 2021 International Building Code (IBC) specifies under-slab damp-proofing to be polyethylene sheets of a minimum thickness of 6 mil with joints lapped a minimum of 6-in.These vapor retarders are typically recommended in non-hydrostatic conditions where there is a low probability of direct contact with groundwater. Per the IBC, the parameters of hydrostatic conditions occur when the “existing groundwater table is above or within 5 feet below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished ground level adjacent to the foundation.”

Seams between sheets of vapor retarder are usually taped. Flashing at penetrations and terminations may use accessory tape, mastics, and/or termination bars. Below-grade waterproofing membranes are intended to protect the foundation elements from groundwater intrusion, especially in hydrostatic conditions. While waterproofing membranes can be vapor retarders or even vapor barriers, vapor retarders may not always act as waterproofing membranes capable of resisting water migration.

Most below-grade waterproofing membranes can be classified in the following categories: bentonite, thermoplastic, composite, self-adhering, or fluid applied. For sheet waterproofing membranes, the membrane seams may be taped, adhered, hot air welded, or torch applied, depending on the product technology.

The membrane manufacturers typically have specific accessory products to be used with the waterproofing membrane to form a complete below-grade waterproofing system. The IBC requires under-slab waterproofing membranes to be either “rubberized asphalt, butyl rubber, fully adhered/fully bonded high-density polyethylene (HDPE), or polyolefin composite membrane or not less than 6-mil polyvinyl chloride.”

IBC requires that waterproofing on below-grade walls extend a minimum of 12 in. above the maximum elevation of groundwater table. In most cases, the 2021 IBC requires as a minimum a 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder under concrete floor slabs where hydrostatic conditions do not occur. Hydrostatic conditions are considered when the groundwater table is above or within 5 feet below the lowest subsurface floor elevation. Waterproofing is required per the IBC when the geotechnical investigation indicates hydrostatic conditions, and a groundwater control system is not provided in the project design.

For shallow foundations in non-hydrostatic conditions, a vapor retarder may be all that is needed. For deep foundations, there is a greater likelihood that hydrostatic conditions can be encountered, and full waterproofing membrane systems would therefore need to be used. Even in deep foundations with non-hydrostatic conditions, it may be prudent to include waterproofing membrane on vertical foundation elements such as walls, as most polyethylene vapor retarder products are primarily intended for horizontal under-slab applications.

In new construction projects, below-grade waterproofing membranes can be installed before foundation elements are constructed; these systems are referred to as pre-applied or blindside applications. Alternatively, the below-grade waterproofing membranes can be installed after foundations are in the ground; these systems are called post-applied systems. When choosing between pre-applied and post-applied membranes, the decision is usually driven by construction logistics, site constraints, and foundation construction methods. Installation of post-applied membranes requires soil excavation to keep foundation elements exposed after the concrete has been cast. That may be a reason to choose pre-applied membranes for some sites because deeper foundations would require a wider footprint of soil excavation if post-applied membranes were to be used. If shotcrete is being used on foundation elements in contact with the below-grade waterproofing membrane, pre-applied membrane systems are the only option.

Pre-applied Below-Grade Waterproofing Membranes

There are several types of pre-applied (blindside) waterproofing membranes, including bentonite, thermoplastic, and composite. Bentonite membranes typically consist of sodium montmorillonite clay granules integrated into geotextiles. Some products include an HDPE layer and a polypropylene layer for additional waterproofing protection. A distinguishing feature of bentonite membranes is that bentonite swells when it comes into contact with water, creating a monolithic barrier against the foundation. Bentonite can swell up to 15 times its original dry volume, and it has the ability to repeatedly re-swell when dried and hydrated again. To be fully effective, bentonite waterproofing membranes must be compressed against the concrete foundation elements to form a mechanical bond.

Seams can be mechanically fastened, or adhered using adhesive or mastic products, depending on the manufacturer. Thermoplastic waterproofing membranes for foundations are made from materials similar to those used in thermoplastic roofing products. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ketone ethylene ether (KEE), and thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) along with reinforcing fabrics are key components of the waterproofing membranes.

The below-grade thermoplastic membranes tend to be in thicker forms than their roofing counterparts. Supplemental layers such as polymers or butyl adhesives provide the bonding mechanism that allows the membrane to integrally bond with the concrete foundation cast against it. Some thermoplastic membranes may also use HDPE. Seams are either heat welded or taped. Composite membranes consist of several layers combined in one membrane, typically including an HDPE layer, a protective coating layer, and an adhesive layer. Seams are self-adhered together. While each layer serves an intended purpose in the waterproofing membrane, there is a possibility of delamination between the individual layers, as the component in contact with the foundation is the only one fully bonded to the concrete.

Other pre-applied below-grade waterproofing products include modified bitumen-based membranes, such as styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) polymer, often with a polyester or fiberglass reinforcing layer. These tend to be thicker membranes, and their seams are heat welded.

Post-applied Below-Grade Waterproofing Membranes

Post-applied waterproofing membranes can be either self-adhered or fluid applied onto the foundation. Because the waterproofing system is usually designed to be continuous around the foundation, installers may need full access to the exterior surfaces, and achieving that access may involve a significant amount of excavation.

Self-adhering waterproofing membranes designed for below-grade applications typically consist of rubberized asphalt with an HDPE film. When using self-adhering membranes, primers may still be required to achieve proper adhesion to the concrete. Membranes should be kept clean and free of dust and debris, particularly at laps, as the waterproofing system relies on strong membrane-to-membrane bonding at seams to maintain full effectiveness.

Fluid-applied waterproofing designed for foundations can be trowel grade or formulated for spray applications, and they are asphalt emulsion based and polymer modified. Because these products form monolithic waterproofing layers during installation, fluid-applied systems do not share the risk of seam failure that sheet membranes inherently possess. Maintaining a consistent, uniform thickness throughout the application process is the primary challenge with fluid-applied waterproofing membranes.

Deep Foundation Challenges

When site conditions and project design warrant the use of deep foundation systems, the structural components that the design team chooses may increase the complexity of the below-grade waterproofing design. Soil retention systems and any related elements that may disrupt the continuity of the waterproofing should be addressed and detailed during the design phase. Even supplementary items, such as concrete protection slabs, should be accounted for in the overall waterproofing strategy and discussed with the waterproofing manufacturer to ensure all items with which the membranes come into contact have been comprehensively reviewed and approved.

The following sections review elements that can be sources of deviations from an even and consistent substrate for the waterproofing membranes. Manufacturers will typically have system-specific guidelines and accessory products for these conditions, but it is still recommended to verify with their technical representatives whether the correct approach is being pursued on your project as the manufacturer will likely have specific warranty requirements.

Lagging Walls for waterproofing foundations

A lagging walls system is a common method of soil retention. The lagging walls consist of steel H-member soldier piles with infill material—either precast concrete, steel boards, or, most commonly, wood planks or boards—stacked between the steel flanges to prevent soil from entering adjacent excavated areas. These systems can be front lagged, which means the wood planks are positioned at the front of the soldier piles in the direction of the excavated area, or they may be middle lagged—with the wood planks positioned in the center of the soldier piles—or back lagged—with wood planks positioned in the back.

For the purposes of below-grade waterproofing installation, front lagging is the most preferable of the three options because it provides the most even and continuous surface for the waterproofing system. Middle or back lagging introduces gaps between the outer face of the wood planks and the soldier pile’s outer flange. Some waterproofing manufacturers may not allow gaps in the substrate over a certain width for the waterproofing membrane or drainage board—if being used—and infill such as spray foam insulation may be needed to reduce the gap widths.

Foundation Piles

Pile foundations are often used when larger loads must be transferred to a deeper level of soil or rock. When designing the below-grade waterproofing system around piles, it is important to consider the following questions:

What is the pile material? Concrete and steel piles tend to be the most common. Verify with the waterproofing membrane manufacturer which substrates are acceptable to them.
Will the pile be composed of more than one material? For example, concrete piles in a steel casing can present different risks than piles made of concrete alone. Waterproofing consultants may need to coordinate between the waterproofing manufacturer and the structural engineer to determine whether the risks can be avoided with a pile flashing detail that is acceptable to all project stakeholders.
Will the piles connect to pile caps? The shape of pile caps—in section—can have implications on the waterproofing membrane installation. A minimum dimension for the pile embedment into the pile cap will be required by the engineer for proper load transfer, but there should also be sufficient pile height for the waterproofing membrane under the pile cap to lap and flash onto the pile surface, as required by the waterproofing manufacturer. Between these two considerations, the greater dimension should be used.

These items can sometimes require several rounds of discussion and coordination involving the waterproofing manufacturer, structural engineer, and pile designer or engineer—if included—to satisfy each party’s requirements and to consider alternative design approaches. It is best to start these discussions early to prevent costly change orders or delays in the schedule.

Ground Anchors And Soil Nail Walls

Both ground anchors—also referred to as tiebacks—and soil nail walls are examples of soil retention systems that use steel elements—rods, bars, etc.—inserted into the ground and acting in tension. Ground anchors are prestressed before installation, whereas soil nails are not. Most of the steel rod or bar length does not interface with the waterproofing, but both systems typically have an exposed head of the steel elements with a bearing plate that faces the site excavation.

Waterproofing manufacturers may have a prefabricated cover to be installed over each anchor head, and the prefabricated cover is then integrated with the below-grade waterproofing membrane. If the specific conditions of the ground anchors or soil nails do not permit the use of the prefabricated covers, it is advisable to consult with the waterproofing manufacturer as it will likely be necessary to generate custom or project-specific details and accessories.

Internal Bracing

When tiebacks cannot be used due to property line or site constraints, alternative options for supporting the shoring wall, such as internal bracing, may need to be pursued. Bracing within the excavated site can involve rakers and/or struts. Rakers are diagonal components placed vertically against the shoring wall and on the ground, whereas struts are placed horizontally at excavation corners bracing two sides of the shoring walls.

If the foundation walls are poured around the raker and strut penetrations, the concrete and the below-grade waterproofing system will need to be patched once the bracing is removed. The waterproofing membrane patch should be integral with the rest of the below-grade waterproofing as indicated in the manufacturer’s instructions. Before the concrete patches are poured, water stops should be installed continuously along the perimeter of the patch, as each bracing penetration would have a cold joint with the rest of the concrete wall.

Shotcrete Walls for waterproofing foundations

Shotcrete presents several challenges for effective below-grade waterproofing that stem from the nature of the application process. These issues primarily arise from overspray of the shotcrete as well as the potential for more voids and cold joints than would occur in cast-in-place concrete construction.

Experienced shotcrete applicators and contractors are essential, as excessive overspray can affect the overall adhesion between the shotcrete and the waterproofing membrane. Shotcrete is typically installed vertically in “lifts,” which may introduce more cold joints than traditional cast-in-place concrete. Additionally, in blindside applications, the shotcrete applicators should take extra care in ensuring full coverage around reinforcing steel to minimize the amount of voids between the foundation and waterproofing membrane.

The positioning and frequency of reinforcing steel can occasionally block shotcrete from reaching and bonding to the waterproofing membrane, which could create weak points in the below-grade waterproofing system. Some waterproofing manufacturers have blindside membrane products specifically designed for shotcrete applications and specify that these products must be used on the shotcrete portions of the foundation. These topics should be thoroughly discussed with the design and construction teams, with the available options for waterproofing the shotcrete portions of the foundation evaluated against the owner’s risk tolerance.

Supplemental Concrete Slabs

In addition to the concrete slab-on-grade foundation, contractors may also propose providing a rat slab or protection slab. Rat slabs, also referred to as mud slabs, are placed over the excavated soil, often to provide a uniform surface for the waterproofing membrane installation. While the use of rat slabs can be an alternative to meeting the grading and compaction requirements specified by the waterproofing manufacturer, it is important to ensure that the rat slabs are smooth and free from surface inconsistencies that can puncture the membrane.

The manufacturer may also have concrete surface profile requirements for the exposed face of the rat slab that serves as the membrane substrate. Protection slabs are placed over the waterproofing membrane and are intended to protect the membrane from construction traffic and other potential damage before the slab-on-grade foundation is poured. In this case, the waterproofing membrane would become directly bonded to the protection slab instead of the structural slab-on-grade foundation, which is the more important component to be waterproofed. A cold joint would now exist between the protection slab and the structural slab-on-grade foundation.

For protection slabs to be effective instead of a potential liability, they should be properly designed with sufficient thickness, reinforcing, and cover. If the protection slab is too thin, it may be especially susceptible to cracking, which could compromise the waterproofing membrane’s performance. It is recommended to provide an additional layer of blindside waterproofing membrane over the protection slab, with this layer to be fully bonded to the structural slab-on-grade foundation, particularly in hydrostatic conditions.

Reinforcing Bar Considerations for waterproofing foundations

As concrete foundations go deeper, more reinforcing steel is installed. To keep the reinforcement in the correct position, reinforcing bar ties, which connect to metal clips, are often used. Each clip is a penetration through the waterproofing membrane and must be addressed in a method approved by the manufacturer.

Another risk is that reinforcing bars are too close to the waterproofing membrane. That could pose structural issues, such as insufficient cover on the concrete foundation element, as well as waterproofing issues since the waterproofing membrane should be in direct contact with concrete to achieve proper adhesion. Dobie blocks, which are small concrete cubes with metal ties, can be used as a simple way to position the reinforcing bars a standard distance away from the waterproofing membrane.

Conclusion

With any foundation, whether shallow or deep, it is critical to properly design and install the below-grade waterproofing system as the system will be exponentially more difficult to access or repair as construction progresses. Although deep foundations are more challenging to waterproof, early discussions and collaboration with the design team and engineers can be beneficial in developing a foundation design that is waterproofing friendly and minimizes risk.

About the Author
Amos Chan, P.E., BECxP, CxA+BE is an enclosure consultant with Walter P Moore’s Diagnostics Group. He can be reached at achan@walterpmoore.com.

Performing Arts Centers

Healthcare Facilities

Hospital Design Trends

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

BD+C University Course

Moisture Control/Building Envelope

Structural Materials

Resiliency

BD+C University Course

Off

Some AEC firms are plugging into EV charging market

jcaulfield — Tue, 14 Nov 2023 20:56:50 +0000

Some AEC firms are plugging into EV charging market

jcaulfield Tue, 11/14/2023 - 14:56

Industrial Facilities

Decentralized electrical distribution is broadening recharger installation to several building types.

John Caulfield, Senior Editor

Decentralized access is broadening recharger installation to several building types.

Industrial Facilities

Multifamily Housing

Shopping Centers

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Green

Despite the recent decisions by leading automakers, in response to demand shifts, to temporarily slow their production of electric vehicles, the federal government remains committed to the electrification of transportation, and some AEC firms have been exploring avenues to capitalize on this market sector’s expansion.

Through the first half of 2023, sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. rose by 49 percent compared to the same period a year earlier. But that increase compared unfavorably to the 63% gain in calendar year 2022. Carmakers like Ford, General Motors, and Tesla have announced they were curtailing or delaying production of certain EV models during this period of what one sector analyst referred to as “growing pains.”

This market’s perceived uncertainty hasn’t tempered the Biden Administration’s support of electric vehicles as part of its larger strategy to reduce carbon emissions. The White House foresees a national network of 500,000 EV chargers nationwide, in anticipation that electric vehicle sales will rise to at least half of all new car purchases by 2030. Year-to-date EV sales through September reached just over 873,000 and were on track this month to surpass 1 million units for a year for the first time ever.

Some AEC firms are jumping on this bandwagon proactively.

Full service charging stations, in design and construction

The engineering firm Kimley-Horn recently launched TREDLite EV, a software solution for retail chains and local governments to select the best locations for their new EV chargers. Kimley-Horn also partnered with Drive Electric Tennessee, an awareness and implementation program that in September released its “Multifamily Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Guide,” for developers and occupants who wish to install chargers.

Driver SPG, a division of the general contractor C.W. Driver Companies, is building what will be the first full-service electric vehicle charging station for Rove Charging, which plans to open 20 locations by 2026. The first station, on 1.2 acres in Santa Ana, Calif., is slated to open next summer. Designed by Peruzzi Architects, the station will be able to recharge 40 vehicles simultaneously via high-powered fast chargers. The station will include an on-site market operated by Gelson’s Markets, restrooms, and free Wi-Fi for customers who use the station’s lounge and outdoor patio. Some Rove stations will offer a car wash.

Driver SPG is building Rove Charging's first full-service EV charging station. Image credit: Peruzzi Architects

The Santa Ana station will be able to generate renewable energy through on-site solar panels and battery storage that supplements the city’s electric grid.

Last month, The Chicago Athenaeum and The European Center for Architecture Art Design and Urban Studies bestowed its International Architecture Award on The Sunflower Station, an EV station of the future designed by Beijing-based Sanyou Architectural Design and commissioned by the fuel distributor and retailer Parkland Corporation, which is based in oil-rich Calgary, Alberta, and has operations in 25 countries. This station design—which reimagines a typical highway gas station as a recharging oasis—has 24 EV charging spaces, and other areas where drivers and passengers can rest, watch movies, or meditate. The design also featues solar panels and a rainwater collection system.

Recharging everywhere

The number of EV chargers continues to proliferate. Earlier this month, EVgo, one of the nation’s largest public fast-charging networks, revealed that it would start using a prefabricated approach that cuts the install time for fast chargers in half and reduces construction costs by an average of 15 percent.

EV chargers in general are more likely to be installed in parking lots of shopping centers than within dedicated standalone structures a la gas stations. An EV station concept study that Gensler and BMW Designworks conducted a few years ago has yet to find a willing adopter, confirms a Gensler spokesperson. The developers behind the Stack Charge EV station concept, who previously stated their plans to open 10 stations in Southern California by the end of 2023, now say their first station with 40 fast chargers, in Baker, Calif., between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, will open early next year.

“As the country transitions to electric vehicles, it is moving to a distributed fueling model, where a vehicle can be recharged at the gym, at the supermarket, or on roadways like gas stations,” says Mike Battaglia, COO of Blink Charging, one of the country’s leading EV charging providers, with more than 3,500 charging locations and nearly 12,000 connectors.

He says that Tesla has done a good job expanding its network of supercharging stations, of which it has nearly 2,000 with close to 22,000 supercharger ports, according to Department of Energy estimates. But Battaglia cautions that DC fast charging stations are expensive, which makes calculating the return on investment for such projects dicier.

While Blink also wants a bigger piece of the fast-charger pie, it is targeting the multifamily sector for installation of level 2 charging equipment, whose cost is a fraction of DC fast chargers, and offers higher-rate AC charging through 240-volt electrical service for residential applications, and 208-volt service for commercial applications. Level 2 chargers can charge an EV to 80 percent from empty in four to 10 hours, and a plug-in hybrid in one to two hours, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates.

Citing research by McKinsey and other sources, Battaglia says that, despite all the media hype around fast chargers, 90 percent of all kilowatt hours of electricity dispensed for EV charging will come through level 2 equipment. And more multifamily developers are interested in installing EV chargers as a competitive amenity that meets growing tenant demand.

For multifamily clients, Blink conducts a site assessment to determine the number of stations needed and whether the building has sufficient electrical service. Battaglia says that, on average, a multifamily complex would require one charger per five to seven EVs on site. Level 2 charging equipment costs between $5,000 and $6,000 per unit, and another $8,000 and $20,000 to install.

The biggest driver of cost is the distance separating the building’s electrical panel from its bank of EV chargers. That’s why Blink advises its multifamily clients, when choosing the location for chargers, to plan ahead for the likelihood of increased demand. Blink will soon offer a dual-point charging station that can recharge any electric vehicle including Tesla’s, whose charging standard has been embraced by several carmakers.

Blink Charging is advising its multifamily clients thinking of installing EV charger banks to plan ahead for future tenant demand. Image credit: Blink Charging

Production slowdown an aberration

The publicly owned Blink Charging reported a 151 percent increase in revenue, to $97.9 million, for the nine months ending September 30. The company expects to be earnings-per-share positive by December 2024, says Battaglia.

Blink recently signed a seven-year agreement to become the official EV charging provider for the city of Miami Beach, its headquarters city. Blink is also partnering with the connected car and parking service provider Parkopedia to integrate more than 4,000 EV chargers onto Parkopedia’s platform in North America, giving its subscribers access to Blink’s charger network. Blink’s products are now prioritized by the state of Utah for government, nonprofit, K-12, and higher education agencies. The company is also the EV charging supplier for the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide charging solutions for public and commercial fleet applications.

Blink emphasizes its flexibility. It will be adopting Tesla’s charging standard and incorporating plug-and-charge technology that simplifies the payment process for EV drivers. Blink also provides energy management services.

Battaglia isn’t too worried about slowdowns in EV production, which he sees as a temporary aberration. “Look, electric vehicles are now 7.7 percent of car sales, and were 25 percent [of sales] in California” in the first half of 2023. “We never thought this was going to be a linear rocket ship.”

California parking garage features wind-activated moving mural

qpurcell — Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:21:07 +0000

California parking garage features wind-activated moving mural

qpurcell Wed, 08/23/2023 - 08:21

Transportation & Parking Facilities

A massive, colorful, moving mural creatively conceals a newly opened parking garage for a global technology company in Mountain View, Calif.

Linetec

Linetec finished over 100,000 metal panels in 35 colors to create a moving mural on California parking garage—one of the largest in the U.S.

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Cladding and Facade Systems

New Project Portfolios

A massive, colorful, moving mural creatively conceals a newly opened, four-level, 520,000-sf parking garage for a global technology company in Mountain View, Calif. Linetec finished 111,692 individual metal flappers in 35 different colors to compose the wind-activated KINETICWALL system manufactured by EXTECH/Exterior Technologies, Inc.

The parking structure itself was designed by Gensler and International Parking Design. The building owner commissioned paintings by Los Angeles-based artist Kim West to depict different seasons of Mountain View’s natural landscape. The original artwork was then digitized by art consultant Selbert Perkins Design. For each pixel, Linetec finished an 8-by-8-inch extruded aluminum flapper panel in the corresponding color. To achieve the pixelated mural effect, 35 unique colors were chosen to match West’s original artwork.

When wind passes through the building façade’s KINETICWALL system, the thousands of painted “pixels” within the illustrated landscape move in response. “Kinetics express wind wave patterns as the elements move in sequence from light to dark as they catch light,” explained Kevin Smith, director of product application and development at EXTECH.

The KINETICWALL provides a functional façade for shading and ventilating the parking structure, and offers visibility from the interior. Photo courtesy EXTECH

For more than a decade, EXTECH and Linetec have collaborated on successful projects. In 2016, they worked together on the KINETICWALL installation at Boston’s Logan International Airport’s parking garage extension consisting of more than 48,000 anodized aluminum flapper panels.

“EXTECH’s projects with dynamic façade systems are always interesting and exciting,” said Linetec’s director of marketing, Tammy Schroeder. “This California tech company project is definitely one of the most colorful and impressive projects that I can recall Linetec ever doing.” According to EXTECH, it also is the largest KINETICWALL project to be completed in the U.S.

Parking garage mural blends artistry and functionality

As an artist, West selected Pantone colors used in graphic design and printing. To ensure durable, high performance that maintains the intended visual impression and longevity, the color selections were matched in 70% PVDF resin-based architectural coating systems. Linetec meticulously adjusted each paint formulation for approval by EXTECH and West.

Once all 35 colors were approved, Linetec applied the finish to the designated quantity of metal flapper panels at its Wisconsin-based facility. Specified to meet stringent AAMA 2605 industry standards, 70% PVDF resin-based coatings exhibit outstanding resistance to humidity, color change, chalk, gloss loss and chemicals. These colorful finishes also resist fading under California’s sunny skies and have passed at least 4,000 hours of salt spray testing to demonstrate performance under coastal conditions.

During the design process, EXTECH fabricated four different study mock-ups plus a one-story on-site mock-up to confirm its KINETICWALL system achieved the project’s artistic and performance requirements. Once the order was approved and processed, Linetec finished and shipped the painted aluminum components to EXTECH’S manufacturing headquarters in Pittsburgh for assembly. Each kinetic element was oriented and positioned in place to align with the artist’s vision. The flapper panels are set within extruded aluminum framing support assemblies that span each of the building’s elevations.

EXTECH’s engineering team mapped out where each flapper element would go, color-coordinating and labeling sections to determine where an element would be assembled and ultimately installed by Arrow Sign Company. The project’s entire KINTECWALL system was sequenced and shipped to the jobsite in approximately 90 truckloads to coordinate with the phased installation. Throughout the installation, EXTECH provided detailed as-built drawings for each elevation, on-site inspections and assistance.

For the Mountain View parking facility project, EXTECH’s KINETICWALL uses a pin-mount suspension system, which allows the flapper elements to seemingly float in front of the support rungs and side rails as a veil. This configuration minimizes the appearance of the supporting structure and is more convenient when creating innovative aesthetic designs.

Along with its distinctive exterior appearance, the KINETICWALL provides a functional façade for shading and ventilating the parking structure, and offers visibility from the interior. The flapperwall’s pin-mount suspension, lightweight aluminum and unitized construction also facilitates installation, saving time and labor in the field. Each flapper element was mounted in pre-assembled “ladder and rung” panels. The dimensions of these unitized panels spanned more than 22 feet tall by 6 feet 8 inches wide.

Toward the bottom of the wall, up to 9 feet above grade, static flappers are manufactured with thicker gauge metal and mounted in a custom rung system. Together with stainless steel mesh, this project-specific design helps deter climbing on the exterior and vandalism from the interior. Pin-mount suspension systems allow the flappers to be removed and replaced without any specialized tools if repair or maintenance is needed. Linetec’s high-performance finishes further minimize the need for maintenance and maximize longevity.

Future-proofing for current and adaptive reuse

According to Clark-Pacific, the building owner sought to “future-proof” its capital investment by considering a 50-year operational outlook. “As a result, the project team was able to design and construct a parking structure that fulfills present requirements, while allowing for the flexibility to repurpose the building in the future. The structure was intentionally designed to facilitate adaptive reuse, enabling it to transform from a garage into an office building with minimal selective demolition, while preserving the overall structure and some of the existing systems.”

Currently, the building comprises 1,209 static parking stalls and 460 mechanical stackers. Clark-Pacific described the facility, noting, “Its tall ceiling heights and painted interior create a spacious and bright environment for users, and its dynamic exterior boasts a kinetic façade that replicates murals of the surrounding environment. Additionally, a pedestrian greenway connects the site to other areas on the campus, and the building includes extensive landscaping and user amenities, such as a 1-megawatt solar structure and 10,000 sf of retail space on the first level.”

“The unique, colorful, dynamic façade demonstrates how visual beauty and innovative technology can be combined to form a result where the whole is more impressive than the sum of its parts,” concluded Schroeder.

“Engineering and planning a 77,500-sf exterior façade is no easy feat,” acknowledged EXTECH’s Smith. “EXTECH carefully coordinated the planning and details of the system with general contractor Clark-Pacific and the facility owner.”

On the Building Team
Architects: Gensler, International Parking Design, Inc.
Mural Artist: Kim West
Engineer/Manufacturer – Façade System: EXTECH/Exterior Technologies, Inc.
Finishing Services – Façade System: Linetec
GC: Clark-Pacific

Top 115 Architecture Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista — Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:56:59 +0000

Top 115 Architecture Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista Tue, 08/22/2023 - 17:56

Giants 400

Stantec, HDR, Page, HOK, and Arcadis North America top the rankings of the nation's largest architecture engineering (AE) firms for nonresidential building and multifamily housing work, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Performing Arts Centers

Healthcare Facilities

Hospital Design Trends

High-rise Construction

Hotel Facilities

Industrial Facilities

Justice Facilities

Laboratories

Military Construction

Sports and Recreational Facilities

Esports Arenas

Transit Facilities

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Warehouses

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

Top 115 Architecture Engineering Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Stantec	$737,681,276
2	HDR	$640,790,000
3	Page Southerland Page	$516,360,000
4	HOK	$487,756,000
5	Arcadis North America	$364,159,462
6	SmithGroup	$354,084,386
7	DLR Group	$344,400,000
8	Skidmore, Owings & Merrill	$338,000,000
9	Gresham Smith	$289,660,000
10	CannonDesign	$245,000,000
11	Ware Malcomb	$224,161,074
12	PBK Architects	$211,327,554
13	HGA	$209,523,283
14	NORR	$181,452,980
15	Flad Architects	$149,500,000
16	Huckabee	$133,961,519
17	PGAL	$129,570,000
18	EwingCole	$122,807,560
19	HED	$113,000,000
20	LPA	$109,780,585
21	LEO A DALY	$105,976,994
22	Parkhill	$97,232,279
23	GPD Group	$92,615,400
24	Ballinger	$92,253,434
25	Cushing Terrell	$91,726,196
26	Goodwyn Mills Cawood	$91,079,679
27	Core States Group	$84,705,465
28	Michael Baker Intl.	$84,277,127
29	S/L/A/M Collaborative, The	$81,283,558
30	Little Diversified Architectural Consulting	$71,983,100
31	Wold Architects and Engineers	$71,415,000
32	E4H Environments for Health Architecture	$70,161,345
33	RS&H	$69,700,000
34	LaBella Associates	$68,618,875
35	Greenberg Farrow	$61,939,600
36	SMMA	$57,333,155
37	WD Partners	$56,330,000
38	CESO	$53,681,000
39	RSP Architects	$51,867,000
40	DES Architects + Engineers	$50,000,000
41	BSA LifeStructures	$47,259,279
42	H2M Architects + Engineers	$46,003,074
43	RDG Planning & Design	$45,830,732
44	Ryan Companies US	$44,141,000
45	BKV Group	$42,000,000
46	Hoefer Welker	$40,700,000
47	CPL Architecture, Engineering, Planning	$40,354,823
48	TreanorHL	$39,590,057
49	Lord Aeck Sargent Planning & Design	$38,407,351
50	Rule Joy Trammell Rubio	$38,380,000
51	FSB Architects + Engineers	$38,342,548
52	TowerPinkster	$37,192,420
53	Kahler Slater	$37,000,000
54	G70	$34,010,910
55	Barge Design Solutions	$33,811,978
56	Baskervill	$33,624,077
57	AE7	$31,837,525
58	BSB Design	$31,188,533
59	Whitman, Requardt & Associates	$31,072,708
60	GMB Architecture + Engineering	$30,758,150
61	Alliiance	$30,407,886
62	Clark & Enersen	$28,619,824
63	SGA Design Group	$28,250,000
64	Becker Morgan Group	$28,000,000
65	Onyx Creative	$28,000,000
66	Schmidt Associates	$27,925,000
67	Larson Design Group	$27,055,031
68	Cordogan Clark & Associates	$26,215,750
69	Cromwell Architects Engineers	$25,833,740
70	SWBR	$25,032,773
71	Fanning Howey	$24,992,975
72	RBB Architects	$23,911,000
73	Spiezle Architectural Group	$23,400,000
74	Hollis + Miller Architects	$22,837,382
75	Elevatus Architecture	$22,825,000
76	LK Architecture	$22,500,000
77	SHP	$21,590,400
78	CSArch	$21,137,314
79	TETER	$20,972,669
80	DAG Architects	$20,590,956
81	LHB	$19,815,385
82	MS Consultants	$18,520,863
83	Guidon	$17,950,490
84	Bray Architects	$17,666,859
85	Hafer	$17,092,861
86	Huntsman Architectural Group	$16,941,351
87	FK Architecture	$16,500,000
88	Randall-Paulson Architects	$16,368,651
89	Rossetti	$16,041,402
90	Lantz-Boggio Architects	$15,220,000
91	DLA Architects	$14,936,708
92	Design Collaborative	$14,765,341
93	BBS Architects, Landscape Architects & Engineers	$14,185,887
94	Zimmerman Architectural Studios	$14,072,595
95	BCA Architects & Engineers	$13,700,000
96	KGD Architecture	$13,654,101
97	Álvarez-Díaz & Villalón	$13,167,420
98	Nadel Architecture + Planning	$12,865,369
99	BAR Architects & Interiors	$12,843,000
100	Miller Dunwiddie	$12,723,540
101	Bailey Edward Design	$12,649,830
102	Garmann Miller	$12,600,976
103	SchraderGroup Architecture	$11,960,000
104	AG Architecture	$11,190,300
105	Thriven Design	$10,927,576
106	Dyer Brown & Associates	$9,954,594
107	Hendy	$9,623,210
108	BASE4	$8,653,760
109	Reztark Design Studio	$8,272,175
110	KG+D Architects	$8,118,246
111	Anderson Mikos Architects	$7,856,500
112	May Architecture	$7,796,536
113	McKinley Architecture and Engineering	$7,526,835
114	DLA+ Architecture & Interior Design	$6,809,245
115	MWT Architecture	$4,700,000
116	GRW	$4,237,561
117	ACi Architects	$4,203,753
118	PF&A Design	$4,107,437
119	SAS Architects & Planners	$4,086,681
120	Walbridge	$3,370,000
121	Creative Design Solutions	$2,394,000

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report; Note: Elevatus Architecture and RBB Architects were moved to Top 175 Architecture Firms for 2023 on August 23, 2023. Progressive AE was added on August 30, 2023. Haskell was added on August 31, 2023. Lord Aeck Sargent Planning & Design and May Architecture were moved to Top 175 Architecture Firms for 2023 on September 14, 2023. Whitman, Requardt & Associates was moved from Top 35 Engineering Architecture Firms for 2023 on October 31, 2023.

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report