Somebody ought'a write a book

[Yankee Chronicler]

I often hear building official colleagues complaining about the quality (or lack thereof) in the plans they receive for permits, and the frequently repeated lament is "Somebody ought'a write a book."

I'm an architect, and I'm also a writer. Over the years I have had articles published in several trade and professional magazines, I've written a number of (self-published) books, and I've even had a feature article in Fine Homebuilding magazine. So I've decided that if a book to tell architects what we need to see in construction drawings needs to be written and nobody else has stepped up to the plate, I may as well do it.

With that in mind, please let me know -- either with posts in this thread or by PM -- what you think architects need to be told to put in their drawings.

Thanks.

 

[Mark K]

I believe that what you propose to address is already addressed in Construction Specifications Institute and AIA publications. I believe there is an AIA standard which tells you where to locate different types of information.

My sense is that much of the confusion is because designers and plan checkers are often not familiar with these documents and because plan checkers are lazy. The statements by some plan checkers that they do not look at the specifications is in conflict with the code. Construction specifications are construction documents.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You're completely missing the point. I'm not asking where to look for information. I know that. When I was actively writing specifications, I was a member of the CSI and I was a certified specification writer. I know about MasterFormat. I was also a member of the AIA for many years, and at one point I came very close to accepting a position at AIA headquarters to be their national codes coordinator. I'm very familiar with the AIA publications.

The point is that I'm seeing a LOT of sets of construction documents (with or without accompanying spec books) that simply omit basic things that the code explicitly requires -- such as a site plan, such as showing the fire separation line if there are multiple buildings on a site, such as showing the accessible parking and the accessible route to the entrance, such as the statement of special inspections, such as not stating which method of compliance the designer followed when doing alterations under the IEBC.

Things like that. Stupid things that leave the plan reviewer scratching his/her head trying to figure out what (or if) the plan drawer was thinking.

I'm asking what sorts of similar omissions do you folks see on a repeat basis.

 

[ICE]

what you think architects need to be told to put in their drawings.

An addition can't be built over clay building sewer. Too many times I have encountered that mistake. Whenever there is an addition to the front of a building there should be instructions to find the building sewer and identify the material with instructions to replace it if it is clay pipe. How about an addition at the rear when there is an alley? Trust me on this... every time that it has happened the crestfallen contractor said, "Why wasn't that on the plans?" I have alerted every plan checker that I have worked with that this happens. I've asked managers to get it on the plan check checklist to no avail. It's like they enjoy the grief it causes. It still happens. I suspect that not enough inspectors catch it on an under-slab plumbing or footing inspection. Well perhaps I'm overreacting given that it only happens 2 to 4 times a year ... which equates to about 50 to 100 times since I started.

Footing details will say 2 #4 T&B. That is often confused to be one bar at the top and one bar at the bottom which satisfies the "two bars". It needs to be made clear that it's two at the top and two at the bottom.

I suppose the next mistake is made because the workmen don't drill down into the plans. "24" inches into undisturbed soil" is found on a detail. It should be a big warning on the foundation plan. Starting over is never an easy thing to do. It happens a lot.

 

[Sifu]

such as a site plan, such as showing the fire separation line if there are multiple buildings on a site, such as showing the accessible parking and the accessible route to the entrance, such as the statement of special inspections, such as not stating which method of compliance the designer followed when doing alterations under the IEBC.

If I were giving a top ten, the ones you mention would be on it. So I'll round out the top ten that are the most common issues that can almost guarantee rejection, off the top of my head and sticking to architectural issues.

• Mixed use strategy (I may take heat for saying this, but most don't seem to understand this...sometimes I'm not sure I do, especially when I see some of the proposals)
• Complete MOE, inc. CPET, EATD along a natural path (subjective, but at least try to indicate a realistic path. Sooooo many don't appear to know the difference)
• Actual adopted codes (50% at least are not accurate, if you can't get that right.....)
• For existing buildings, previous occupancy, adjacent occupancies, along with the proposed occupancy (CLASSIFICATIONS!)
• Door hardware set descriptions on the plans, tied to the door schedule
• Accurate accessible toilet room details. (At least 50% have some error base on the adopted codes. Difficult because a DP may need to design to the ADA & the ANSI, but since ANSI is the adopted code, find some boiler plates that match)
• Project narrative

 

[BN4537]

• Accurate accessible toilet room details. (At least 50% have some error base on the adopted codes. Difficult because a DP may need to design to the ADA & the ANSI, but since ANSI is the adopted code, find some boiler plates that match)

This is very true.

 

[tmurray]

This one is my pet peeve. When an architect specifies a fire separation, but they do not include a building section detailing the construction.

When I get one, they did not include the source of the rating.

When I get the source of the rating, their design does not match the source of the rating (the listed assembly is completely different from their design).

It seems like such a major thing to have this cavalier an attitude about.

 

[mark handler]

You're completely missing the point. I'm not asking where to look for information. I know that. When I was actively writing specifications, I was a member of the CSI and I was a certified specification writer. I know about MasterFormat. I was also a member of the AIA for many years, and at one point I came very close to accepting a position at AIA headquarters to be their national codes coordinator. I'm very familiar with the AIA publications.

The point is that I'm seeing a LOT of sets of construction documents (with or without accompanying spec books) that simply omit basic things that the code explicitly requires -- such as a site plan, such as showing the fire separation line if there are multiple buildings on a site, such as showing the accessible parking and the accessible route to the entrance, such as the statement of special inspections, such as not stating which method of compliance the designer followed when doing alterations under the IEBC.

Things like that. Stupid things that leave the plan reviewer scratching his/her head trying to figure out what (or if) the plan drawer was thinking.

I'm asking what sorts of similar omissions do you folks see on a repeat basis.

Those "people" are not going to buy a book, let alone read it. You may sell a few, but, Most of them think they know more than the plan checkers or inspectors.

 

[Sifu]

One issue is the lack of consistency within the plan review process. I often need to refer back to previous plan reviews, or am given plans from other AHJ's to justify a proposal and I see plans that probably should have asked for a lot of the info being discussed, but didn't. If we, as plan reviewers asked for the information more consistently, the information might start to show up more consistently. JMHO.

 

[mark handler]

One issue is the lack of consistency within the plan review process. I often need to refer back to previous plan reviews, or am given plans from other AHJ's to justify a proposal and I see plans that probably should have asked for a lot of the info being discussed, but didn't. If we, as plan reviewers asked for the information more consistently, the information might start to show up more consistently. JMHO.

Sometimes you cannot be consistent when the plans/Specs are all over the place.
If the info is on the plans vs missing from the plan, the corrections are inconsistent...

 

[mark handler]

There are also different requirements for docs and specs depending on the complexity of the construction and/or project.
I don't require the same docs for a residence as i do for a commercial building
I don't require the same docs for a remodel to a residence as i do for a remodel of a commercial building
I don't require the same docs for a commercial building shell as i do for a finished interior.

the book would be thick, real thick.....

 

[mark handler]

See attached AIA doc.

https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/EPC_Construction_Documents_2F.pdf

 

[ICE]

Those "people" are not going to buy a book, let alone read it. You may sell a few, but, Most of them think they know more than the plan checkers or inspectors.

I want an autographed copy.... gratis and of course, free shipping.

Here's some chatter from a thread about fall arrest anchors on another thread:

The manufacturer, model number, location and installation instructions as well as any structural requirements shall be provided by the architect and shall be part of the approved plans.

This something the Yankee could put in his book ... and do the same for damp-proofing subterranean walls.

 

[Sifu]

Sometimes you cannot be consistent when the plans/Specs are all over the place.
If the info is on the plans vs missing from the plan, the corrections are inconsistent...

Agree. The items I listed are to try and get the plans less all over the place.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

See attached AIA doc.

https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2017-03/EPC_Construction_Documents_2F.pdf

That's a workbook from the intern development program, and nothing in it addresses the concerns I'm asking about.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Those "people" are not going to buy a book, let alone read it. You may sell a few, but, Most of them think they know more than the plan checkers or inspectors.

Yes, I know. I often get, "But I'm an architect, and you're not." [Unspoken but implied: "So who are you to question ME?"]

It usually shuts them up pretty quick when I point out that the "RA, NCARB" under my signature means registered architect, certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.

The target market will be architects who are tired of seeing their projects rejected for permit and who are mystified as to why that keep happening. Dunno if the book might sell more than two copies. Once I reach a couple of chapters I'll pitch it to John Wiley & Sons and to McGraw-Hill. If they're not interested, I'll self-publish it through Amazon.

 

[tmurray]

Yes, I know. I often get, "But I'm an architect, and you're not." [Unspoken but implied: "So who are you to question ME?"]

It usually shuts them up pretty quick when I point out that the "RA, NCARB" under my signature means registered architect, certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.

The target market will be architects who are tired of seeing their projects rejected for permit and who are mystified as to why that keep happening. Dunno if the book might sell more than two copies. Once I reach a couple of chapters I'll pitch it to John Wiley & Sons and to McGraw-Hill. If they're not interested, I'll self-publish it through Amazon.

I had the same initial thought as ark did, but another audience that might be interested in a book like this is building officials. You're publishing a list of things that are commonly found wrong on plans. This functionally becomes a plan review checklist for people either early in their career or dealing with an archetype of building that they are not as familiar with.

 

[TheCommish]

Have you seen "Applying the Building Code" Ronald Greren, FCSI, AIA

 

[Inspector Gadget]

When I get the source of the rating, their design does not match the source of the rating (the listed assembly is completely different from their design).

It seems like such a major thing to have this cavalier an attitude about.

Or my <sarcasm> favourite </sarcasm>: Here's this Part 3 building. We're specifying fire separation, referencing a Part 9 assembly.

And the number of times I receive this after *explicitly* stating that fire separations/fire-rated assemblies must be "referenced to an Appendix D calculation or ULC listing" is staggering.

I have had some rather intense - albeit short - arguments with engineers and architects (them is s'sposed ta be more edjumikated than me is) about this, which is when I whip out the screen capture of the language in Part 3. Like, dude, what the flaming heck did you learn for four years in University and four years as an apprentice?

 

[tmurray]

Or my <sarcasm> favourite </sarcasm>: Here's this Part 3 building. We're specifying fire separation, referencing a Part 9 assembly.

And the number of times I receive this after *explicitly* stating that fire separations/fire-rated assemblies must be "referenced to an Appendix D calculation or ULC listing" is staggering.

I have had some rather intense - albeit short - arguments with engineers and architects (them is s'sposed ta be more edjumikated than me is) about this, which is when I whip out the screen capture of the language in Part 3. Like, dude, what the flaming heck did you learn for four years in University and four years as an apprentice?

A few months ago, I ruled on an appeal where a "fire protection engineer" created an alternate solution for unpermitted penetrations in a fire separation enclosing an exit enclosure. The alternate solution did not meet the requirements of Div. C, so the building official was well founded in rejecting the solution, but the solution referenced those Part 9 tables for a Part 3 building. I don't think a reasonably diligent fire protection engineer could make this mistake.

 

[Sifu]

I have a commercial review right now. It is a franchise operation, with multiple locations, all in a different state. This appears to be their first location in this state. They reference the wrong electrical code, they reference an energy code that does not exist (the architect got it wrong, the engineers got it right), they reference the 2010 ADA, but not our adopted accessibility code, then they provide two full pages of accessible details, each with a code reference for the original state's building and accessibility code, which is not consistent with our adopted codes or the ADA.

IMO It is lazy and irresponsible to not know what the codes are for the place you are building. It is an easy search to find out, or a quick phone call, 5 min. up front is all it would take. If I were the client I would not be happy with the design team.

It would be easy to say this is expected from of an out of state DP with our state stamp, but I see it from local DP's all the time as well. Part of it is the result of the myriad of different editions of the codes adopted by each AHJ. Still, it just seems like just a few minutes up front would be worth it, and should be expected.

 

[mark handler]

Yes, I know. I often get, "But I'm an architect, and you're not." [Unspoken but implied: "So who are you to question ME?"]

It usually shuts them up pretty quick when I point out that the "RA, NCARB" under my signature means registered architect, certified by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards.

The target market will be architects who are tired of seeing their projects rejected for permit and who are mystified as to why that keep happening. Dunno if the book might sell more than two copies. Once I reach a couple of chapters I'll pitch it to John Wiley & Sons and to McGraw-Hill. If they're not interested, I'll self-publish it through Amazon.

Good Luck

 

[BN4537]

The target market will be architects who are tired of seeing their projects rejected for permit and who are mystified as to why that keep happening. Dunno if the book might sell more than two copies. Once I reach a couple of chapters I'll pitch it to John Wiley & Sons and to McGraw-Hill. If they're not interested, I'll self-publish it through Amazon.

If you want it to sell, you'll need to title it something like "How to Get The Building Department to Recognize Your Greatness and Get Out of Your Way".

Know your audience...

 

[Jay Smith]

Although the title suggested by @Beniah Naylor might be a smidge extreme, it seems conceptually like a good idea. Maybe the book is simply presented as a guide to submitting for permit. It wouldn’t have to focus on what is often missing. It could be examples of how to present code compliance issues like common path of egress travel, exit access travel distance, allowable area (especially separated occupancies), grade plane, horizontal exits, fire partitions/barriers/walls, occupant load, open parking garage, etc.

I‘m not a code official, but I review drawings for architects as a consultant. My reason for being here is to learn more about what to look for. I think a large part of the problems I see come from inexperienced people trying to rely on their office’s standard templates and whatever graphic information Revit will generate. Another aspect of it is something sort of mentioned already. Architects working in many jurisdictions where local, state and federal regulations apply and are regularly changing really don’t understand it all. I know architects at very senior levels that don’t understand the difference between the ADA Standards, Texas Accessibility Standards, and ICC A117.1. That’s not meant to be critical. It’s just reality.