Boniferus Raddigan
New member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
I?ll get back, correct / clarify my other posts on ?Architect?s Day? as time allows. I?ll just paste this into top of first post here as I?ve gotten some fairly hard answers on some things here Tuesday April 22.
Still a dite rusty but its getting clearer. Thank you for your indulgence, Bon
I have come to know through a little research that it is indeed in the offing MAAB could be given via normal linking legislation the authority to implement "all employee areas" be "accessible". This would be parallel or near-parallel with the finalized 7th ed CMR 780 (via normal procedures linking MAAB), but that this couldn?t happen until WELL DOWN THE ROAD (the term I was given was "years"). The further (so-called higher) standards to indeed make sinks "accessible'? is possible, worst (advocates would say best) case scenario being this would be after a lengthy hearing process entirely public et al. It is of the opinion of someone who follows these things that the state would never seek accessibility requirements for appliances, counters, racks and the like.
Restaurant people (especially I think) should be urged to become involved in (even) this present decision on expanding access for the disabled to "all employee areas" under the general building code / MAAB by extension. At present our state is (on this very particular aspect) aligned with ADA, which requires what seems to be a simple access via the entry / exit doors.. Massachusetts would be loosened from ADA on this with the proposal.
This is contrary to letter and spirit of nationalizing the building code. IBC integration should indeed have subsetting for localized conditions that should be restricted to climate, geography, density and perhaps other realms, but not access for the disabled. ?Accessibility? should be a patently scientific matter based on ergonomics and statistical percentage of population. A city with an unusual number of retirees can enhance via local zoning or other means, but there can be no single state that should maintain that all other states are deficient.
I would submit Massachusetts can only claim (as it does with police details) that the preponderance of older, tighter structures (as the police would substitute ?roads? for ?structures? ) cause need for greater scrutiny and flexibility. The nationalization of all access matters into ADA have variance mechanisms as exist in states which have entirely been given over to it. I am new to this I admit freely. It is clear the MAAB could lose its existence. That it functions in a most responsive manner (hearings are properly advertised, scheduled and participation is legally sound-proper quorums, records) is not enough. There are similar densities and histories up and down the Eastern seaboard. What makes Massachusetts so special? This of course would be applied to entirely new construction, and all renovations that exceed (as present) 30% of assessed values of the property, including improvements dating back (as recorded in building permits) three years.
What is to be accomplished by making accessible employee areas in enterprises that clearly can only function with able-bodied workers as the regular ?rank and file? ?
I wonder why ADA even has the requirement for accessible passage to and from a commercial kitchen. This even seems a mere tokenism. Is this for disabled special visitors such as newspaper reporters and health inspectors? That such egress areas almost always satisfy without purposefully being designed so just makes for a de facto accidental compliance. The rule means nothing.
But it?s the proverbial ?foot in the door? isn?t it? So now we in Massachusetts are facing this in ALL places of employment. Business owners who are eventually to be effected should be alarmed. No legislation like this sits dormant without use. There will be hearings and all for any use implementation, but what for? What is the intent?? For off-peak maintenance workers?
There is an example that was cited of non-residential kitchen facilities that presently must conform to basic accessibility as to sinks, at least (and thus heights of them, operation, under-space, the usual), this being basically (call it) a non-professional kitchen ? where volunteers can be used. The example cited was a church basement, the charitable service wanting to expand services to feed those who it wished of its parishioners and the indigent. The case was put to me that some SEVEN sinks were to be ?accessible? and this of course with a very limited budget, which of course was impossible. I presume this is to be so with all non-professional organizations that maintain kitchen facilities. I don?t know the final results but it was made clear enough to me there was an arduous appeal process. Apparently not being charitable enough. Now this obviously wasn?t a struggling half-way house with a tiny kitchenette (which I presume too is so required). This was a service by an established organization being provided to the community at large for free on typical threadbare budget. Why would the state be interested to see that the physically handicapped assume significant physical duties here? I did mention that a fellow at the April 16 BSA Codes Committee meeting stated that employee "hand washing" mechanisms are impossible to obtain / design with accessibility and I was told with a low deliberate voice that they are "challenging", as in challenging to execute.
There are numerous further matters of this ?all employee areas? expanding as proposed (industrial / factory / warehouse to mention some) that are detrimental to reasonably conducting business in the state. Then the numerous fire safety proposals that reek of overkill. I?d urge you to get there April 29.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architect's Day April 29+7th Edition CMR 780 (considerable edit of post now done here April 17 530PM)
________________________________________
This long WAIT (going on three years + I believe) for the (meat of the) 7th Edition CMR 780 is being caused by the same forces (nanny-state special interest conduits to controlling legislators) that have brought you other madness I won't here go into.
I just attended the BSA Codes Committee meeting that is effectively the prep to "Architect's Day" Tues April 29 on Beacon Hill and THESE HEARINGS ARE CRITICAL.
For more information visit www.architects.org/statehouse.
Mark Tebbets, a very astute man with impeccable credentials and delivery (Regional Manager of Government Relations with the International Building Code-iccsafe.org), said flatly that Massachusetts has more ?special interest groups? than the other five New England states combined.
Other very savvy and experienced local men of the industry, who are obviously doing exactly what such building industry professionals should be doing in or near retirement (ALL their faces were familiar to me), very soundly and sedately dropped the little ingots of absurdity that marks, sad to say, the attitude in Massachusetts as expressed by public officials who continue to think this place somehow a ?shining beacon of hope? or whatever they think. Intumescent paint in sleeping areas serving the public (not even clear if fire-rated doors/frames need this!-head of Ways & Means is pushing this BIGTIME-a college head has said already this would be a $7M cost right off to his dorms), accessibility requirements in employee areas of all assembly, commercial and institutional places (commercial kitchens would be an absolute nightmare-all this beyond ADA ?reasonable? criteria-all janitorial / service spaces short of endemic ?mechanical spaces?) were mentioned for two examples I got clearly enough. How about elimination of wood trusses altogether? This is a SERIOUS proposal. And true guard spacing req's (4" max-meant to block kiddies) in industrial settings! There?s more all right. If you?ve read anything of the ongoing battles, a long one went on as to fire suppression via sprinklers in computer equipment rooms.
These men have a working vocabulary and attitude that is highly admirable and restrained, to say the least. That they haven?t lost their wits is in and of itself commendable.
Certain technical matters are beyond redress, given the contorted process that has taken place. Implementation alone is the major subject it seems. There is obviously some room for recourse, at least to squelch absurdities I mention above still being tendered. Seems introduction of new subjects is not in play. Some of you know I have particular grievance with overkill of fire safety and ?accessibility? as pertains to three unit / low rise residential such the classic ?triple decker?, which has been basically choked off as a viable type here in Massachusetts. We are also seeing hyper-aggravated requirements for classic Back Bay townhouses- ruinous to artful ceilings- where there is no proven detriment to safety in the status quo ...well, I'll get long. One HAS to get long to explain these things thoroughly, which is why these matters get no play in the regular media. Architects and builders then shrug the shoulders and just say: "well we'll just have to go for a variance" and rely on whatever you do. This is WRONG.
The only consolation, if I heard it right, is that a further revision of CMR 780 is ALREADY (as in previously) time-lined (8th Edition) for 2009. Maybe the 7th Edition will be like Autocad Release 13. You?ll have to suffer it for a year or two, but at least you could just skip it, go back to R12. YOU CAN?T ?SKIP? THIS. That?s the only relieving things that I can think- UNLESS YOU MAKE YOURSELVES ENTIRELY KNOWN NOW. The most restrictive / expensive building code in the US (arguably therefore the universe) hitting with this obvious building recession. Now there?s a fine kettle of fish.
There will be contractor / builder association reps there who have been chomping at the bit for YEARS on finalizing this with some SENSE! See impending announcements in the BSA newsletter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially proposed MA780CMR a violation of AIA Ethics Code?
That some AIA members may routinely LIKE the building construction variance process is a contradiction of basic principals of law (thus) and certainly can lead to potential violations of the AIA Code of Ethics and even reigning state law is patently in the offing.
Canon II Obligations to the Public heavily inveighs against payments or gifts to public officials (E.S.2.1 -Rule 2.102), the most clearly illegal end of what can be made seemingly implicit in outright bad law as put forth in building construction codes and redress mechanisms.
Constant application for variances on routine matters can certainly cause temptations to illegality. An informed eighth-grader should know this. Many a bar owner in the larger cities of the Northeast will tell you a story if they?re so inclined, at least from years back.
That some AIA members LIKE to show off their skills in the manipulations
seemingly inherent in the variance process is patently obvious. Its clear to this observer that the Boston Zoning variance / application-for-relief process is basically an open acknowledgement that such skills are appreciated. That this process is ostensibly largely in the public realm should eliminate most temptations to graft and the like. This process can be artificially extended by inexperienced and / or lazy (not simply corrupt) architects and drops it right into the realm of Canon III: Obligations to the Client (E.S. 3.1-Competence: ?Members should serve their clients in a timely and competent manner.? See Rules 3.101, 3.102, 3.103).
I?m sure some could engage each other to write a book on arguments about whether or not the NIMBYISM and colloquialism of the variance process in effect forced errors of judgment by the architect detrimental to the project?s best and highest use. What cannot be excused is architect?s missing vital codes and site conditions, at least at pivotal junctures, that force considerable extensions of wasted time and thus inflated costs to client. There can and do exist volatile objective errors amidst the highly subjective zoning variance process. Nobody is perfect, but consistent ignorance of central objective matter by the architect is inexcusable and detrimental to client. He should also know roughly when to engage an engineer to determine, say, subsurface conditions that would jeopardize a project.
Anyone of experience familiar with these ?schematic design? in the ?community input? realms would be kidding you if they said they didn?t think certain architects habitually operate by performing spurious exhaustive studies (because whacky abutter X demands it), upping design phases prematurely (show deceptive progress-employ their favorite model-maker / whatever), holding off vital engineering groundwork / site investigations (for assurance of their own fee being paid first-or its just too expensive alone), then they are na?ve.
Yet all-in-all, the zoning variance process is basically subjective precisely because it is an experimental variance from the objective norm. Any architect of experience in non-urban realms (suburban office complexes, for example) who comes waltzing into Boston would doubtless make some devastating errors if a local associating architect wasn?t procured to assist with the, ah, ?permit process?. Lets call this "pathos".
When this dicey ?just go for a variance? attitude is transposed into patently technical matters of actual construction detailing and execution of what I?ll call the schematically sound design, there can?t be the cry of ?they (community groups / BRA / ZBA ) made me do it?. When the architect (or builder) routinely (as in each and every time ) has to apply for a variance to accomplish something quite defined and ?real? in construction, the whole atmosphere has become detrimental to clients. Lets call this "Ethos".
Architects who settle for this situation can be viewed by at least the cynical as ?asking for? or ?thriving on? this process. Architects often take this into consideration when writing out the fee / bill even if the variance is effortlessly granted. Many architects perform MAAB variances en masse, in some cases they ?specialize?! One is tempted to call it a ?racket?, no?
It is presently proposed a walk-in refrigerator or grille ?pick practically anything-in a commercial kitchen be ?accessible?. Longstanding now 12? handrail extensions (and the installation of 1 ?? handrails themselves) in low-scale residential is extant in 6th Edition- but almost no inspector enforces, as with guards. The latter is so patently absurd everyone ignores it in 1-2 family construction at least. The list goes on.
Joe Anyone in Des Moines can very rationally interpret that Massachusetts is discouraging business to the point that clients cannot possibly be served ?in a timely and competent manner?. That any client who transports here has been told of the difficulties makes no difference. It is simply rational, based on national norms, to call these codes irrational. The AIA?s dictum is a national one. It doesn?t add: ?except those in Massachusetts?.
To take the handrail extension (even if they bother with one on a non-conforming exterior deck / stair guard) as example, practically every builder and architect (doing private low scale residential) in the state violates this rule though it does apply to 1-2 family! This application of the particular code is simply patronizing those who are physically blind, or rather those who represent them. Visually impaired visitors to 1-2 family units in classical human ways, as too the impaired resident adjusts to such familiar surroundings. There is no need for the nanny state here. These are superfluous, empty rules-to-be-broken that can be ever-so-arbitrarily enforced. Correct me if I?m wrong- this has survived 5th and 6th Edition, so it cannot be called an ?oversight?. It will continue in the 7th as there is no new subject to be broached now.
I DID talk to a builder of a 2 family in Lowell who WAS told to get the handrails properly onto the little 5 foot exterior deck stair! Now did this builder do his client a disservice (nobody else has to do it- 6 guys in the county? ) by being one of the lonely conformers? Ever try to foot those extensions (wood rail) properly via a post?
Take the handrail requirement as 1 ?? max, the bracketing or the need for handrail at all: 99.999% of exterior installations have the top of guard functioning as handrail. Well this is ?my thing?. Its minor but points up the undercurrent.
I submit the exclusion is violating AIA Canon II while the inclusion is violating Canon III.
The very allowance of these kinds of empty, superfluous codes to go through can be interpreted as laying groundwork for inevitable violations of AIA Canon III.
In summation:
Straightforward construction / design variances (beyond zoning variances) are to be based on objectively (scientifically) deduced differences from objectively (scientifically) based norms. They are ostensibly in response to conditions (usually existing physical impediments) that force nuance.
Variances are now being forced into entirely new construction or sweeping / gut renovations that should have no need for such. This is due to overbearing and superfluous legislative responses to highly-charged special interests.
The sum total effort to achieve semblance of order in the ostensibly objective construction and tending-to-subjective zoning variance process so far exceeds national norms it constitutes endemic inability of architect to satisfy reasonable client expectations.
There always has to be a caboose, but Massachusetts is on another planet's tracks.
The contact email address given April 16 AM is:
abaldwin@architects.org (Andrew Baldwin)
Still a dite rusty but its getting clearer. Thank you for your indulgence, Bon
I have come to know through a little research that it is indeed in the offing MAAB could be given via normal linking legislation the authority to implement "all employee areas" be "accessible". This would be parallel or near-parallel with the finalized 7th ed CMR 780 (via normal procedures linking MAAB), but that this couldn?t happen until WELL DOWN THE ROAD (the term I was given was "years"). The further (so-called higher) standards to indeed make sinks "accessible'? is possible, worst (advocates would say best) case scenario being this would be after a lengthy hearing process entirely public et al. It is of the opinion of someone who follows these things that the state would never seek accessibility requirements for appliances, counters, racks and the like.
Restaurant people (especially I think) should be urged to become involved in (even) this present decision on expanding access for the disabled to "all employee areas" under the general building code / MAAB by extension. At present our state is (on this very particular aspect) aligned with ADA, which requires what seems to be a simple access via the entry / exit doors.. Massachusetts would be loosened from ADA on this with the proposal.
This is contrary to letter and spirit of nationalizing the building code. IBC integration should indeed have subsetting for localized conditions that should be restricted to climate, geography, density and perhaps other realms, but not access for the disabled. ?Accessibility? should be a patently scientific matter based on ergonomics and statistical percentage of population. A city with an unusual number of retirees can enhance via local zoning or other means, but there can be no single state that should maintain that all other states are deficient.
I would submit Massachusetts can only claim (as it does with police details) that the preponderance of older, tighter structures (as the police would substitute ?roads? for ?structures? ) cause need for greater scrutiny and flexibility. The nationalization of all access matters into ADA have variance mechanisms as exist in states which have entirely been given over to it. I am new to this I admit freely. It is clear the MAAB could lose its existence. That it functions in a most responsive manner (hearings are properly advertised, scheduled and participation is legally sound-proper quorums, records) is not enough. There are similar densities and histories up and down the Eastern seaboard. What makes Massachusetts so special? This of course would be applied to entirely new construction, and all renovations that exceed (as present) 30% of assessed values of the property, including improvements dating back (as recorded in building permits) three years.
What is to be accomplished by making accessible employee areas in enterprises that clearly can only function with able-bodied workers as the regular ?rank and file? ?
I wonder why ADA even has the requirement for accessible passage to and from a commercial kitchen. This even seems a mere tokenism. Is this for disabled special visitors such as newspaper reporters and health inspectors? That such egress areas almost always satisfy without purposefully being designed so just makes for a de facto accidental compliance. The rule means nothing.
But it?s the proverbial ?foot in the door? isn?t it? So now we in Massachusetts are facing this in ALL places of employment. Business owners who are eventually to be effected should be alarmed. No legislation like this sits dormant without use. There will be hearings and all for any use implementation, but what for? What is the intent?? For off-peak maintenance workers?
There is an example that was cited of non-residential kitchen facilities that presently must conform to basic accessibility as to sinks, at least (and thus heights of them, operation, under-space, the usual), this being basically (call it) a non-professional kitchen ? where volunteers can be used. The example cited was a church basement, the charitable service wanting to expand services to feed those who it wished of its parishioners and the indigent. The case was put to me that some SEVEN sinks were to be ?accessible? and this of course with a very limited budget, which of course was impossible. I presume this is to be so with all non-professional organizations that maintain kitchen facilities. I don?t know the final results but it was made clear enough to me there was an arduous appeal process. Apparently not being charitable enough. Now this obviously wasn?t a struggling half-way house with a tiny kitchenette (which I presume too is so required). This was a service by an established organization being provided to the community at large for free on typical threadbare budget. Why would the state be interested to see that the physically handicapped assume significant physical duties here? I did mention that a fellow at the April 16 BSA Codes Committee meeting stated that employee "hand washing" mechanisms are impossible to obtain / design with accessibility and I was told with a low deliberate voice that they are "challenging", as in challenging to execute.
There are numerous further matters of this ?all employee areas? expanding as proposed (industrial / factory / warehouse to mention some) that are detrimental to reasonably conducting business in the state. Then the numerous fire safety proposals that reek of overkill. I?d urge you to get there April 29.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architect's Day April 29+7th Edition CMR 780 (considerable edit of post now done here April 17 530PM)
________________________________________
This long WAIT (going on three years + I believe) for the (meat of the) 7th Edition CMR 780 is being caused by the same forces (nanny-state special interest conduits to controlling legislators) that have brought you other madness I won't here go into.
I just attended the BSA Codes Committee meeting that is effectively the prep to "Architect's Day" Tues April 29 on Beacon Hill and THESE HEARINGS ARE CRITICAL.
For more information visit www.architects.org/statehouse.
Mark Tebbets, a very astute man with impeccable credentials and delivery (Regional Manager of Government Relations with the International Building Code-iccsafe.org), said flatly that Massachusetts has more ?special interest groups? than the other five New England states combined.
Other very savvy and experienced local men of the industry, who are obviously doing exactly what such building industry professionals should be doing in or near retirement (ALL their faces were familiar to me), very soundly and sedately dropped the little ingots of absurdity that marks, sad to say, the attitude in Massachusetts as expressed by public officials who continue to think this place somehow a ?shining beacon of hope? or whatever they think. Intumescent paint in sleeping areas serving the public (not even clear if fire-rated doors/frames need this!-head of Ways & Means is pushing this BIGTIME-a college head has said already this would be a $7M cost right off to his dorms), accessibility requirements in employee areas of all assembly, commercial and institutional places (commercial kitchens would be an absolute nightmare-all this beyond ADA ?reasonable? criteria-all janitorial / service spaces short of endemic ?mechanical spaces?) were mentioned for two examples I got clearly enough. How about elimination of wood trusses altogether? This is a SERIOUS proposal. And true guard spacing req's (4" max-meant to block kiddies) in industrial settings! There?s more all right. If you?ve read anything of the ongoing battles, a long one went on as to fire suppression via sprinklers in computer equipment rooms.
These men have a working vocabulary and attitude that is highly admirable and restrained, to say the least. That they haven?t lost their wits is in and of itself commendable.
Certain technical matters are beyond redress, given the contorted process that has taken place. Implementation alone is the major subject it seems. There is obviously some room for recourse, at least to squelch absurdities I mention above still being tendered. Seems introduction of new subjects is not in play. Some of you know I have particular grievance with overkill of fire safety and ?accessibility? as pertains to three unit / low rise residential such the classic ?triple decker?, which has been basically choked off as a viable type here in Massachusetts. We are also seeing hyper-aggravated requirements for classic Back Bay townhouses- ruinous to artful ceilings- where there is no proven detriment to safety in the status quo ...well, I'll get long. One HAS to get long to explain these things thoroughly, which is why these matters get no play in the regular media. Architects and builders then shrug the shoulders and just say: "well we'll just have to go for a variance" and rely on whatever you do. This is WRONG.
The only consolation, if I heard it right, is that a further revision of CMR 780 is ALREADY (as in previously) time-lined (8th Edition) for 2009. Maybe the 7th Edition will be like Autocad Release 13. You?ll have to suffer it for a year or two, but at least you could just skip it, go back to R12. YOU CAN?T ?SKIP? THIS. That?s the only relieving things that I can think- UNLESS YOU MAKE YOURSELVES ENTIRELY KNOWN NOW. The most restrictive / expensive building code in the US (arguably therefore the universe) hitting with this obvious building recession. Now there?s a fine kettle of fish.
There will be contractor / builder association reps there who have been chomping at the bit for YEARS on finalizing this with some SENSE! See impending announcements in the BSA newsletter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially proposed MA780CMR a violation of AIA Ethics Code?
That some AIA members may routinely LIKE the building construction variance process is a contradiction of basic principals of law (thus) and certainly can lead to potential violations of the AIA Code of Ethics and even reigning state law is patently in the offing.
Canon II Obligations to the Public heavily inveighs against payments or gifts to public officials (E.S.2.1 -Rule 2.102), the most clearly illegal end of what can be made seemingly implicit in outright bad law as put forth in building construction codes and redress mechanisms.
Constant application for variances on routine matters can certainly cause temptations to illegality. An informed eighth-grader should know this. Many a bar owner in the larger cities of the Northeast will tell you a story if they?re so inclined, at least from years back.
That some AIA members LIKE to show off their skills in the manipulations
seemingly inherent in the variance process is patently obvious. Its clear to this observer that the Boston Zoning variance / application-for-relief process is basically an open acknowledgement that such skills are appreciated. That this process is ostensibly largely in the public realm should eliminate most temptations to graft and the like. This process can be artificially extended by inexperienced and / or lazy (not simply corrupt) architects and drops it right into the realm of Canon III: Obligations to the Client (E.S. 3.1-Competence: ?Members should serve their clients in a timely and competent manner.? See Rules 3.101, 3.102, 3.103).
I?m sure some could engage each other to write a book on arguments about whether or not the NIMBYISM and colloquialism of the variance process in effect forced errors of judgment by the architect detrimental to the project?s best and highest use. What cannot be excused is architect?s missing vital codes and site conditions, at least at pivotal junctures, that force considerable extensions of wasted time and thus inflated costs to client. There can and do exist volatile objective errors amidst the highly subjective zoning variance process. Nobody is perfect, but consistent ignorance of central objective matter by the architect is inexcusable and detrimental to client. He should also know roughly when to engage an engineer to determine, say, subsurface conditions that would jeopardize a project.
Anyone of experience familiar with these ?schematic design? in the ?community input? realms would be kidding you if they said they didn?t think certain architects habitually operate by performing spurious exhaustive studies (because whacky abutter X demands it), upping design phases prematurely (show deceptive progress-employ their favorite model-maker / whatever), holding off vital engineering groundwork / site investigations (for assurance of their own fee being paid first-or its just too expensive alone), then they are na?ve.
Yet all-in-all, the zoning variance process is basically subjective precisely because it is an experimental variance from the objective norm. Any architect of experience in non-urban realms (suburban office complexes, for example) who comes waltzing into Boston would doubtless make some devastating errors if a local associating architect wasn?t procured to assist with the, ah, ?permit process?. Lets call this "pathos".
When this dicey ?just go for a variance? attitude is transposed into patently technical matters of actual construction detailing and execution of what I?ll call the schematically sound design, there can?t be the cry of ?they (community groups / BRA / ZBA ) made me do it?. When the architect (or builder) routinely (as in each and every time ) has to apply for a variance to accomplish something quite defined and ?real? in construction, the whole atmosphere has become detrimental to clients. Lets call this "Ethos".
Architects who settle for this situation can be viewed by at least the cynical as ?asking for? or ?thriving on? this process. Architects often take this into consideration when writing out the fee / bill even if the variance is effortlessly granted. Many architects perform MAAB variances en masse, in some cases they ?specialize?! One is tempted to call it a ?racket?, no?
It is presently proposed a walk-in refrigerator or grille ?pick practically anything-in a commercial kitchen be ?accessible?. Longstanding now 12? handrail extensions (and the installation of 1 ?? handrails themselves) in low-scale residential is extant in 6th Edition- but almost no inspector enforces, as with guards. The latter is so patently absurd everyone ignores it in 1-2 family construction at least. The list goes on.
Joe Anyone in Des Moines can very rationally interpret that Massachusetts is discouraging business to the point that clients cannot possibly be served ?in a timely and competent manner?. That any client who transports here has been told of the difficulties makes no difference. It is simply rational, based on national norms, to call these codes irrational. The AIA?s dictum is a national one. It doesn?t add: ?except those in Massachusetts?.
To take the handrail extension (even if they bother with one on a non-conforming exterior deck / stair guard) as example, practically every builder and architect (doing private low scale residential) in the state violates this rule though it does apply to 1-2 family! This application of the particular code is simply patronizing those who are physically blind, or rather those who represent them. Visually impaired visitors to 1-2 family units in classical human ways, as too the impaired resident adjusts to such familiar surroundings. There is no need for the nanny state here. These are superfluous, empty rules-to-be-broken that can be ever-so-arbitrarily enforced. Correct me if I?m wrong- this has survived 5th and 6th Edition, so it cannot be called an ?oversight?. It will continue in the 7th as there is no new subject to be broached now.
I DID talk to a builder of a 2 family in Lowell who WAS told to get the handrails properly onto the little 5 foot exterior deck stair! Now did this builder do his client a disservice (nobody else has to do it- 6 guys in the county? ) by being one of the lonely conformers? Ever try to foot those extensions (wood rail) properly via a post?
Take the handrail requirement as 1 ?? max, the bracketing or the need for handrail at all: 99.999% of exterior installations have the top of guard functioning as handrail. Well this is ?my thing?. Its minor but points up the undercurrent.
I submit the exclusion is violating AIA Canon II while the inclusion is violating Canon III.
The very allowance of these kinds of empty, superfluous codes to go through can be interpreted as laying groundwork for inevitable violations of AIA Canon III.
In summation:
Straightforward construction / design variances (beyond zoning variances) are to be based on objectively (scientifically) deduced differences from objectively (scientifically) based norms. They are ostensibly in response to conditions (usually existing physical impediments) that force nuance.
Variances are now being forced into entirely new construction or sweeping / gut renovations that should have no need for such. This is due to overbearing and superfluous legislative responses to highly-charged special interests.
The sum total effort to achieve semblance of order in the ostensibly objective construction and tending-to-subjective zoning variance process so far exceeds national norms it constitutes endemic inability of architect to satisfy reasonable client expectations.
There always has to be a caboose, but Massachusetts is on another planet's tracks.
The contact email address given April 16 AM is:
abaldwin@architects.org (Andrew Baldwin)
Last edited:
