Condos Present Big Risks for Architects
Division 4 - MASONRY
Jungle Architecture
Congress for the New Urbanism
Second Ward Association Builds on AIA and City Planning's
Workshop Goals
CONDOS PRESENT BIG RISKS FOR ARCHITECTS
Monterey, California, September 18, 1996 – Architects who design condominiums
are among the most likely design professionals to be sued for errors or
omissions -- and they face some of the most costly claims. So concludes
DPIC Companies* 1996 *Focus on Claims,* a study based on more than 8,600
closed claim files from 1989 to 1995 and representing more than $269 million
in claim payments.
The study showed that DPIC-insured architects generated only 1% of their
fees from condominium projects. Yet condos have accounted for more than
7% of architects* total closed claims -- and have consumed 14% of the total
claims dollars expended by DPIC on behalf of architects.
By comparison, commercial/industrial projects generated 26% of architectural
fees, but made up only 18% of closed claims and consumed less than 13%
of claim dollars. Colleges and universities also appear to be relatively
low risk projects for architects. They made up 9% of architect fees while
generating 7% of closed claims and consuming only 5% of claims dollars.
Other findings:
* Roofs have been the most common element involved in architect claims,
but wall problems have had the biggest drain on claims dollars. Roof problems
were involved in 10% of closed claims and consumed 11% of claims dollars.
Walls made up fewer than 9% of claims but consumed 13% of claim dollars.
Other major elements involved in claims were HVAC (7% of claims, 6% of
dollars), floors (6% of claims, 4% of dollars) and code compliance (5%
of claims, 9% of claims dollars).
* Most closed claims against architects were filed by their clients.
Owners, developers and other clients filed half (50%) of closed claims
against architects, consuming 64% of claims dollars. Third parties filed
approximately 30% of the claims (21% of claims dollars) and contractors/subs
filed 14% of claims (12% of claims dollars).
* Economic loss is the largest type of damage resulting from architect
claims, making up 37% of claims and 48% of claims dollars. By comparison,
only 36% of claims against architects and 39% of claims ollars primarily
involved property damage. Bodily injury claims were less prevalent, making
up 25% of claims and 12% of claims dollars.
Additional Focus on Claims data and other risk management information
are available free of charge through DPIC's Internet loss prevention library,
located on the World Wide Web at http://www.dpic.com.
DPIC Companies is the professional liability specialist of the Orion
Capital Companies, wholly owned by Orion Capital Corporation, New York,
a NYSE listed corporation with assets of more than $2 billion.
Contact: Tom Owens
Phone (800) 227-8533, ext. 217
Fax (408) 649-3240
Internet: tom
Division 4 - MASONRY
by Rip Case, CSIW.R. Grace, Masonry Products Division
This is the first in a series of articles discussing various
aspects of designing and building with masonry. Future topics will include
thru-wall flashing, efflorescence control, cleaning masonry walls, and
the use of integral water-repellents in concrete masonry units (CMU).
ASHRAE 90.1
ASHRAE 90.1 is a standard created by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers to determine the U-Values
in non-residential construction. The standard addresses and sets minimum
requirements for energy efficient design and has been adopted by a number
of states throughout the country. ASHRAE takes many factors into consideration
when determining the energy values required for efficient performance,
such as; geographic location, heating and/or cooling requirements, glazing,
overhangs, building positioning and construction materials. The standardís
goal is to achieve optimum performance at the lowest cost. In many cases,
the R-Value needed may not be as high as traditionally thought. Computer
based programs are available to help you and your engineer determine the
actual values needed for your desired performance. In many cases, the heating
and/or cooling needs can be reduced when completing this analysis.
THERMAL-MASS
ASHRAE also addresses the ability of the construction materials to store
and release heat through their thermal mass capacity. Thermal mass is defined
as materials with mass heat capacity and surface area capable of affecting
building loads by storing and releasing heat as the interior and exterior
temperatures fluctuate. Masonry materials have excellent thermal mass capacity
and slow down the heat loss through a building, decreasing both heating
and cooling loads. This material advantage allows the designer to insulate
at a lower level with masonry when compared with alternative building materials
without thermal mass capabilities. Comparing standard R-Values of construction
materials does not necessarily indicate the thermal performance if thermal
mass characteristics are not considered.
Thermal performance of Masonry Walls are addressed in NCMA (National
Concrete Masonry Association) TEK Notes 6-1A (1995) for Multi-Wythe CMU
Walls and TEK Note 6-2A (1996) for Single-Wythe CMU Walls.
INSULATION IN SINGLE-WYTHE CONSTRUCTION
There is a comfort level with the R-Values and performance of board
and batt insulations in cavity wall and interior finish masonry construction,
but what if your budget or application dictates a single-wythe structure
with a hard interior finish? You may even believe that you cannot meet
your thermal requirements with this type of construction. Again, the thermal
mass of the material should be the determining factor as opposed to the
stated R-Value of the individual masonry units.
There are a number of insulation choices for single-wythe CMU construction,
such as; polystyrene inserts, loose fill or specialty reduced web insulated
units. Based on the thermal mass capacity of the masonry and considering
the other factors that determine heating/cooling loads, you may easily
achieve the thermal performance your client desires.
When determining the thermal needs for CMU single-wythe construction,
consider the following factors:
Does the interior allow for finish and insulation,
or will the cores(or cavity) need to be insulated?
The density of the units is the major factor in the
thermal capacity. Cubic foot density of the block material effects fire
ratings, STC, R-Values and U-Values.
ALWAYS BUT ALWAYS request data reflecting R-values
for the density of the CMU you intend to use on your job.
When comparing the performance of various insulation
types within the wall, be sure that the comparison of unit densities is
equivalent.
A wall with hard surface requirements on both sides
may be insulated to provide all the energy efficiency and structural integrity
you require.
Determine the percentage of the wall area to be grouted.
Typically in the south, walls are grouted on 48îo.c. which represents
17% of the wall area to be insulated.(See TEK Note 6-2A). Areas of the
country subject to seismic and structural codes may require different grout
spacing.
Does your choice of insulation allow it to remain
in the grouted cells without affecting the structural integrity?
What effect will the R-value reduction in partially
or fully grouted walls have on the owners energy cost?
Is the insulation drainable? Does it allow moisture
which inadvertently enters the wall to be collected and directed to the
exterior?
REMEMBER anything which interferes with the process
of water collection and direction of the water to the outside of the building
is contrary to the principles of good masonry design.
Is the insulation absorbent? How will this effect
the thermal performance?
Will damage result if insulation traps water and freezes?
Has insulation shrinkage been taken into account when
calculating R-values?
Quality Assurance?
How will the designer verify that the insulation has
actually been installed in sufficient
quantity to assure the values indicated?
Who would bear the expense of needed remedial work
if an infra-red inspection indicated insufficient quantity of insulation?
Many of the previous issues are easily overcome through proper
masonry design, detailing and specification. Thoughtfully consider the
building use, the location and the desired performance before determining
the thermal value needed. Compare equivalency of the insulation productsíperformance
in building materials of like density and thermal mass capacity.
Do not be afraid to explore alternative building materials. Their thermal
performance may be better than you think. Consider the use of masonry with
its thermal mass capacity, fire-resistance, beauty and durability for life
cycle cost effectiveness.
Jungle Architecture
The International Committee had a rare treat at the June meeting.
Tom Robson, AIA, of HOK/Houston, called on the Dallas office principal
in charge of design William Paul Lacey, AIA, to do the presentation. The
topic was "Cash vs Culture." We took a look at architecture in
the jungles of Indonesia. We frequently evaluate architectural design as
an origin of the "Primitive Hut" or as adhering to Greek proportions.
This presentation spanned the full spectrum between the two, then challenged
us to consider the end results of our designs.
In the Irian Jara, West New Guinea jungles, where the natives have only
recently stopped their custom of cannibalism, a Sheraton Inn at Timika
was commissioned by Freeport, Indonesia. This HOK/LBI Associates project
presented challenges that one would expect from a jungle setting. But the
usual mosquitoes, snakes, and frogs were overshadowed by such jungle inhabitants
as moths with a wing span of 8 to 10 inches. The natives were not necessarily
inhospitable, but the design crews were constantly reminded of their own
human vulnerability.
To preserve the native culture and artifacts of the region, an Asmat
Museum of Art was part of the Sheraton Inn design. The natives were approached
to contribute artifacts, not only as design elements for the Inn, but also
as authentic tribal designs. Additionally, many of the furnishings were
produced by native Indonesian craftsmen. The Inn for Freeport guests and
executives was designed to provide protection from the jungle elements
while being unobtrusively placed in the rain forest. Availability of local
materials played a deciding factor in much of the design. This International
Committee presentation was certainly thought provoking and bordered on
creating an element of fear for design professionals that trek into these
jungles without a "Tarzan" as a protector.
Bonnie Boudreaux, Associate AIA, Committee Chair
Congress for the New Urbanism
CNU IVThe neo-traditional movement in the U.S.A.
Charleston, South Carolina
May 3-5, 1996
The Congress for the New Urbanism IV, affectionately called "CNU
IV" gathered architects, planners, developers and public officials
from all across the U.S., and surprising numbers from abroad, for a three
day "Congress" in one of America's most livable small cities,
Charleston, South Carolina, May 3-5, 1996.
This was a most interesting and "livable" design conference,
many of which tend to be a competitive tedious, chest thumping social event,
rather than an educational assembly of dedicated goal-oriented professionals
earnestly working to improve their knowledge and that of their colleagues.
There was clearly a spirit of collegiality at this gathering. A lot of
interesting information was exchanged, ranging from the economics of transit
oriented development to architectural guidelines for successful mixed-use
neighborhoods.
CNU was founded four years ago by Andres Duany and his wife Elizabeth
Plater-Zyberk, architects and planners of Miami, Florida, best known for
their Seaside project. CNU started as a small invitation only group of
dedicated believers in neo-traditional planning and architecture. Peter
Calthorpe and Daniel Solomon of California were early apostles. Two years
ago, Peter Katz, the moderator of CNU IV, published a highly informative,
popular, well illustrated book, The New Urbanism (Princeton University
Press, 1993).
As stated in their charter (adopted at the conference), "The CNU
stands for the revitalization of the inner city and reformation of the
American Suburb within an integrated regional structure. The Congress believes
that the PHYSICAL COHERENCE of communities is an essential component of
their social and economic well being. It sees the decay of the inner city,
the explosion of the formless, auto-dominated suburb, the displacement
of agriculture and the degradation of the environment as interlinked problems
of public policy and design ethics. The Congress recognizes the enormous
complexity of reordering the framework of policy and practice that has
produced our dysfunctional and debilitating patterns of growth."
There were impressive speakers, particularly Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston
(a politician of extraordinary accomplishments in both design and social
spheres of his city), British architect Leon Krier (an inspiring true believer
and theoretician, railing against the failures of the modern movement),
the Senior Vice President of Equitable Life Insurance Company (who declared
that suburban sprawl is bad economics) Andres Duany, and HUD Secretary
Henry Cisneros, who also confessed to being a believer and is implementing
New Urbanism design policies within HUD, especially as it relates to public
housing.
My friend Anne Bohnn and I left the conference inspired, informed and
optimistic about the real impact that this young movement will have on
the ailing physical face of our country. There are important projects,
besides Seaside, which serve as cogent examples for skeptical developers,
bankers and municipal officials - notably Kentlands outside of Washington
D.C., Harbortowne in Memphis, TN, and Laguna West in Sacramento, CA, as
well as important projects in Seattle, Portland, Norfolk, Cleveland, Cincinnati,
and Dallas. Celebration, Disney's burgeoning new town in Orlando should
convince a lot of people. In all these projects pedestrian oriented, strong
neighborhood principals are being rigidly and successfully applied.
There is a reason to hope, perhaps, that the pervasive ugliness, congestion,
foul air and down-right inconvenience of our cities and suburbs and the
desecration of the once revered "public realm" is not the only
choice of the legacy for our children. In short, we have really messed
up our built environment; but perhaps it can be "saved." A more
aggressive "design ethos" on the part of architects and planners
is in order.
CNU V will be in Toronto next Spring with an emphasis on transportation
systems which create a more humane environment. It will be generally open
to the public. Maybe we can get a few influential Houstonians to attend?
Peter Brown, AIA
Second Ward Association Builds on AIA and City Planning's
Workshop Goals
The Second Ward Association is acting on the strategies of "changing
perception" and "improving mobility." These key goals where
some of many set by the AIA/Urban Design Committee and Houston Long Range
Planning during a Community Workshop held last November at Ripley House,
a community center located in the Second Ward.
Addressing the issue of mobility, the Second Ward Association and Houston
Metro are negotiating the addition of a lunch-time bus shuttle between
the Courthouse District and the historic neighborhood. Metro is also looking
into setting aside funds for the renovation of the Franklin Street Tunnel
which stands as one of the Ward's key gateways to the old neighborhood..
Preliminary efforts are to be cosmetic at best but will go far to improve
the all important first impressions as one enters into the neighborhood.
The shuttle is tentatively being called the "Green Line."
The name builds on the successful Red, White and Blue shuttle lines which
traverse the downtown area. The new line will run from the Courthouse,
down Franklin Street, through the Franklin Street Tunnel and on to Navigation.
It will stop at the area's numerous restaurants. Neighborhood Restaurateurs
are planning to provide lunch specials and buffet style dining for patrons
pressed for time. There is also talk of special meal discounts for "bus
patrons only."
The Second Ward Association's continued success in turning around its
neighborhood also hinges on sustained effort by the neighborhood committee
members and participating professionals from the public and private sector.
Some of participants in this recent Metro effort include Paul Mesa, Chairman
of the Second Ward Economic Development Committee; Houston's Assistant
Director of Long Range Planning, Patsy Ricon-Kallman; staff planner, Karen
Orr; and a growing number of individuals from the architectural, planning,
real estate and legal community.
Progress Report: The Green Line "Lunchtime Express" has been
approved and Metro has given top priority to the widening and refurbishing
of the Franklin Street Tunnel.
Dan Searight, AIA
Searight Architects, Inc.
Member of AIA/Urban Design Committee and
Second Ward, Beautify Navigation Committee
