• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Why I'm becoming ashamed to admit that I'm an architect

Yankee Chronicler

Yankee Chronicler

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
3,452
Location
New England
Five weeks ago I reviewed plans for a commercial building. We're in the northeastern U.S. The business is a national chain, and the plans were done by an A/E firm in Texas. The plan review raised 19 issues, for almost all of which we provided the code citation. (Some of the comments had no citation, because they related to required documentation that wasn't submitted.) The building is to be a pre-engineered metal building.

Revised drawings and a narrative response were received a few days ago. After going through their revised drawings and the narrative, they adequately resolved about a third of the issues.

The original submittal didn't include any documentation on the PEMB, only a foundation plan and details -- which were marked "Preliminary, not for construction" with notes calling for the foundation to be finalized when the PEMB has been designed. We told them we couldn't accept that. Five weeks later, the foundation plans are now marked "For Permit," and the notes still say they are based on preliminary information from the PEMB manufacturer and are subject to adjustment in the field. And they asked to submit the PEMB drawings as a deferred submittal.

The electrical inspector had pointed out a major problem with the design of the service to the building. The new drawings did NOT correct the one-line that showed the equipment in the wrong sequence, but added a note calling for the contractor to coordinate with the electric utility. And added a cote stating that a piece of equipment would be supplied by the electric utility. The utility does NOT provide this equipment.

It's like they aren't even trying. A rational person might think they'd know we're going to check to see if the revised documents corrected the issues noted in the plan review. Maybe Texas architects aren't rational people?

Meanwhile, the developer behind the project has been calling our office, asking us to expedite the review of the revised documents because they have already mobilized on the site and they want to get started. (I drove past the site a few days ago and they do, indeed, have equipment parked on the site.) We didn't take them out of order, but their plans finally rose to the top so they'll get their review. I don't think they'll be happy.

Prediction: Everyone will blame us for delaying the start of construction rather than asking the design professionals why they couldn't get it right even after the Building Department gave them what my boss calls "an encyclopedia" to explain what they had wrong on the original submission.

I don't get it. I just ... don't ... understand.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Five weeks ago I reviewed plans for a commercial building. We're in the northeastern U.S. The business is a national chain, and the plans were done by an A/E firm in Texas. The plan review raised 19 issues, for almost all of which we provided the code citation. (Some of the comments had no citation, because they related to required documentation that wasn't submitted.) The building is to be a pre-engineered metal building.

Revised drawings and a narrative response were received a few days ago. After going through their revised drawings and the narrative, they adequately resolved about a third of the issues.

The original submittal didn't include any documentation on the PEMB, only a foundation plan and details -- which were marked "Preliminary, not for construction" with notes calling for the foundation to be finalized when the PEMB has been designed. We told them we couldn't accept that. Five weeks later, the foundation plans are now marked "For Permit," and the notes still say they are based on preliminary information from the PEMB manufacturer and are subject to adjustment in the field. And they asked to submit the PEMB drawings as a deferred submittal.

The electrical inspector had pointed out a major problem with the design of the service to the building. The new drawings did NOT correct the one-line that showed the equipment in the wrong sequence, but added a note calling for the contractor to coordinate with the electric utility. And added a cote stating that a piece of equipment would be supplied by the electric utility. The utility does NOT provide this equipment.

It's like they aren't even trying. A rational person might think they'd know we're going to check to see if the revised documents corrected the issues noted in the plan review. Maybe Texas architects aren't rational people?

Meanwhile, the developer behind the project has been calling our office, asking us to expedite the review of the revised documents because they have already mobilized on the site and they want to get started. (I drove past the site a few days ago and they do, indeed, have equipment parked on the site.) We didn't take them out of order, but their plans finally rose to the top so they'll get their review. I don't think they'll be happy.

Prediction: Everyone will blame us for delaying the start of construction rather than asking the design professionals why they couldn't get it right even after the Building Department gave them what my boss calls "an encyclopedia" to explain what they had wrong on the original submission.

I don't get it. I just ... don't ... understand.
Click to expand...
This post inspired an article just posted.
 
I hear you. I just posted a response to Jar's post that was a post inspired by this post.

I'm fairly new to this business, but I am frankly shocked by the lack of knowledge expressed by people who should really know better. OK, I'm a bit of a geek, but even at this point in my career, I should be overwhelmed and awed by the greater knowledge of architects and engineers who are supposed to have vastly more training and experience.
Nope.

Just this year, I've had
- an engineer draw up plans for a Part 3 (heavy commercial/large building in Canadian Code) using Part 9 references (small building Code) that were rife with all sorts of design errors (like service rooms opening into an exit shaft, which our codes don't allow)
- engineers specifying intumescent paint for a fire-rated assembly, without reference to required standards/Codes. (Hint: intumescent paint doesn't work. Haven't seen one yet that would work in Canada.)
- engineers designing post-disaster (emergency) buildings using totally incorrect seismic data, resulting in a design that was only good for about half the seismic force of the destination area
- architects trying to put mailboxes in an exit shaft, which we don't allow
- architects submitting plans that would have exposed batt-fibre insulation to moisture in a crawlspace due to very simple code violations
- architects failing to fire-rate exterior exit passageways that clearly needed fire-protection, even after being cited the Code that requires this ....
- design professionals failing to realize that an in-swinging door in a barrier-free bathroom can't be opened because a sink prevents a wheelchair from actually being put close enough to the door to open it.
And various flavours of "Oh, gosh, yeah, I guess failing to put insulation between an interior concrete slab and the outside world would create a thermal break.... But what's this 'bond' break you speak of?" from engineers, contractors and architects.

And then *WE* get yelled at for "holding up plans." Because the client naturally assumes (incorrectly, in a lot of cases) that the architect/engineer knows what's going on and that the inspector is holding things up because they are an incompetent, lily-livered, liberal-funded paper-pushing bureaucrat bent on obstructing progress and the economy in general.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Five weeks ago I reviewed plans for a commercial building. We're in the northeastern U.S. The business is a national chain, and the plans were done by an A/E firm in Texas. The plan review raised 19 issues, for almost all of which we provided the code citation. (Some of the comments had no citation, because they related to required documentation that wasn't submitted.) The building is to be a pre-engineered metal building.

Revised drawings and a narrative response were received a few days ago. After going through their revised drawings and the narrative, they adequately resolved about a third of the issues.

The original submittal didn't include any documentation on the PEMB, only a foundation plan and details -- which were marked "Preliminary, not for construction" with notes calling for the foundation to be finalized when the PEMB has been designed. We told them we couldn't accept that. Five weeks later, the foundation plans are now marked "For Permit," and the notes still say they are based on preliminary information from the PEMB manufacturer and are subject to adjustment in the field. And they asked to submit the PEMB drawings as a deferred submittal.

The electrical inspector had pointed out a major problem with the design of the service to the building. The new drawings did NOT correct the one-line that showed the equipment in the wrong sequence, but added a note calling for the contractor to coordinate with the electric utility. And added a cote stating that a piece of equipment would be supplied by the electric utility. The utility does NOT provide this equipment.

It's like they aren't even trying. A rational person might think they'd know we're going to check to see if the revised documents corrected the issues noted in the plan review. Maybe Texas architects aren't rational people?

Meanwhile, the developer behind the project has been calling our office, asking us to expedite the review of the revised documents because they have already mobilized on the site and they want to get started. (I drove past the site a few days ago and they do, indeed, have equipment parked on the site.) We didn't take them out of order, but their plans finally rose to the top so they'll get their review. I don't think they'll be happy.

Prediction: Everyone will blame us for delaying the start of construction rather than asking the design professionals why they couldn't get it right even after the Building Department gave them what my boss calls "an encyclopedia" to explain what they had wrong on the original submission.

I don't get it. I just ... don't ... understand.
Click to expand...
Wow! The items you listed for the PEMB is so basic (to me anyway). I bet they've done "100s of buildings like this" and "it was fine in other cities!" . I've worked on (Architectural PM & owner's rep) and had a number of the PEMBs projects in various states - MN, TX, CA, ND. We would've not even thought about submitting documents that wasn't also fully designed & coordinated with Mech, Plumb, Elec.
Yeah - I don't get it either....
 
Tim Mailloux said:
In CT interior designers are required mandatory code specific continuing education credits to maintain their license, but architects are not. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Really? That's... actually cracked. Here in California, CIDs (Interior Designers) don't need to know basically anything about code. At least not to maintain their certification or take the exam. I should know, I'm one of them, and I was shocked at the exam and CEU requirements. Guess that explains why certified interior designers have such a bad reputation. Architects are required to take a certain amount of CEU in different parts of code (they need like 5 hours just on ADA-related stuff, on top of other sections. At least, I think. I'm not a licensed architect but that's what I've been told).
 
In our office, we both prepare plans for clients as architects AND we are contracted with cities to perform reviews.

When we are under time or contractual pressure to submit a minimal set of plans, we actually do a mini-QC where we take the city's own standard plan check correction list (like this one from city of LA) and pretend like we're the plan checker, and mark on th correction list the plan or detail reference where it can be found. Once we've done this, we have confidence it is ready for initial plan check. If the city allows it, we even turn in this pre-made correction sheet for their use as a cheat sheet.
 
steveray said:
We send ours out in word so they can easily edit in their answers....everything on one page....or 6 depending on the architect...
Click to expand...

Interesting. We send ours out as PDF/A, expressly so they can't edit our letter and then claim the edited version is what they received.

Of course, I'm being paranoid. Nobody would ever do something like that ...
 
Tim Mailloux said:
In CT interior designers are required mandatory code specific continuing education credits to maintain their license, but architects are not. Doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Interior designers are not licensed in Connecticut, they are registered -- just like home improvement contractors. Anyone can practice interior design in Connecticut -- they just can't call themselves an "interior designer" without paying the registration fee.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Interesting. We send ours out as PDF/A, expressly so they can't edit our letter and then claim the edited version is what they received.

Of course, I'm being paranoid. Nobody would ever do something like that ...
Click to expand...
I have the original....there is no debate....it gets attached in the permit software and date stamped....
 
I had a situation where I had two major fire safety issues in plans for an appartment building. It took a few months, but the architect finally decisded to revise the plans so the developer could get his permit. A few months later, a new developer walks in for a meeting to drop off his application for a new apartment building. Same architect had drawn the plans.

I immediately flipped to the two details and saw that they were incorrect again. I handed back everything to the developer and said I wouldn't accept them, explained the issues and said we had to fight with the architect on the last one.

His question: "why on earth would the architect not make sure this was right after he had to eventually correct the last one?"

I'm a little lucky that in my new role I generally don't have to deal with bargain-bin professionals nearly as much. I deal with professionals who have been chosen by their associations to represent their best interests.
 
tmurray said:
His question: "why on earth would the architect not make sure this was right after he had to eventually correct the last one?"
Click to expand...
Yep, been there, done that. An architect made a huge blunder with a girder on one project he had to correct and then did not know I was doing plan review for another town and submitted the same undersized girder again AFTER he had to change the previous a few months before.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Interesting. We send ours out as PDF/A, expressly so they can't edit our letter and then claim the edited version is what they received.

Of course, I'm being paranoid. Nobody would ever do something like that ...
Click to expand...
I used to provide a marked set of plans, and a list in letter format (Word). The letter was generated directly from the plan mark ups, which included page numbers, arrows, highlights etc. The goal was to give them the best possible context for the comments to give them the best possible chance at understanding and successfully responding. Recently, after years of this I came to the conclusion that most of the end users of my comments were never seeing the plans, based on the number of poor responses and questions. I started asking the DP's if they got the marked plans. Most had not. So now, I use the pdf summary generated by BB, append it to the plans and that is the only document I sent out. They have no choice now but to see the list and the plans. It is working better.
 
mtlogcabin said:
CC the developer/owner and the GC. Then send reminders out that they have not responded to your comments. It creates a documentation trail that shows who is responsible for the delay.
Click to expand...
Oh, I document up the wazoo. I learned that lesson a looooong time ago.
In fact, until (and after, for a time) we went to a digital system, I tracked all my inspections in a spreadsheet. We had one paper file vanish on us (I think we found it mis-filed a few months later), but because of that spreadsheet, and the fact I kept digital copies of my inspection reports, we were able to piece things together without looking foolish.
tmurray said:
I'm a little lucky that in my new role I generally don't have to deal with bargain-bin professionals nearly as much. I deal with professionals who have been chosen by their associations to represent their best interests.
Click to expand...

I can ship you some of my applications, if you wish, just to keep you fresh? Maybe once every two-three weeks, things like the *entirety* of plans for a 160-m2 building:

1719587793863.png

Oh, and can they have the permit so they can start Tuesday?

Or the design for a one-hour separation that required STC 50. Let me know where the problems are:

1719588064384.png

I mean, I wouldn't want you to lose touch with the common folks on the front lines.....
 
Inspector Gadget said:
Oh, I document up the wazoo. I learned that lesson a looooong time ago.
In fact, until (and after, for a time) we went to a digital system, I tracked all my inspections in a spreadsheet. We had one paper file vanish on us (I think we found it mis-filed a few months later), but because of that spreadsheet, and the fact I kept digital copies of my inspection reports, we were able to piece things together without looking foolish.


I can ship you some of my applications, if you wish, just to keep you fresh? Maybe once every two-three weeks, things like the *entirety* of plans for a 160-m2 building:

View attachment 13734

Oh, and can they have the permit so they can start Tuesday?

Or the design for a one-hour separation that required STC 50. Let me know where the problems are:

View attachment 13736

I mean, I wouldn't want you to lose touch with the common folks on the front lines.....
Click to expand...
#1 Rejected. Non-compliant with Div. C 2.2.2.1.
#2 Rejected. Non-compliant with Div. C 2.2.3.1.(1)(d)

If these are from design professionals, you should lodge a complaint with their professional associations.
 
Inspector Gadget said:
The second one was from an engineer. (!)
Click to expand...
That was my assumption. It makes sense that they don't have anything for STC as that is normally the realm of architects (acoustics engineers being the exception).

Are they also in violation of the joint practice agreement?
 
tmurray said:
That was my assumption. It makes sense that they don't have anything for STC as that is normally the realm of architects (acoustics engineers being the exception).

Are they also in violation of the joint practice agreement?
Click to expand...

Reno of existing building; the application came with verbiage to indicate they'd actually read the agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top