Category: Case Study #1

An architect has a responsibility of making places both stable and safe for its occupants. If an architect believes the quality of concrete has been compromise and the owner of the project is aware of this and won’t do anything about it, then the architect must report this to the DOB.

On October 2018 the floor collapsed during a party held in a meeting room of a residential building and 29 people were injured. In order to investigate the cause of the collapse the occupant load capacity of the room is need it to compare it to how many people were in the room at the time of the collapse, also its need it to take a look at the structural plans of the room to see if the room had the capacity to support people dancing on it or if it was design to only support people seating on it since it is a meeting room after all and not a dance floor, See what materials were used to reinforce the floor in case of poor material choice caused the floor to collapse. These things will help to determine if the collapse was caused by the occupants in the room or by poor construction of the room.

If the accident was caused by the occupant’s overloading the room, then the fraternity most be hold accountable for the damage cause on the building and injures caused on the people. But if it was the structural engineer’s fault then the construction company should respond.

As an Architect, it is an obligation to seek to it that a commissioned project are both satisfying and safe to the people intended to occupy it. As stated in the book, “Professional Practice” “An Architect serve two main functions, We are the creators, the designers, the authors, and the coordinators of all the other design professional work. In these roles we take the information about the project’s needs (the program), We synthesize the information (along with all of the site)in to designs, we elaborate on those designs and we produce working drawings and specifications that fully communicate what the owner contracts with the contractor to build and exactly how to build it.”

This simply translates that a the Architect is responsible for the best outcome of the commissioned project, and anything that falls out of line with such an agreement permits the termination or breech of the contract. In the case where the Architect discovers a cheat  in the cement content, The architect must report the incident to the city. Though this may cost the Architect financially, it will be the best action, that will result to the safety of the pubic and even the security of he/she’s profession.

Xhulja Ponari

Arch 4861 Professional Practice

Prof. Mishara

Case study #1 Discrepancy in Concrete Mixture

After reading and analyzing the situation of Case Study #1, it is obvious that communication and understanding from all parties is the main problem that occurs. There is an intended lack of communication between the owner, the superintendent of construction, and the architect. On the other hand, the owner seems to be blinded by the money savings, so he does not see or understand the future consequences of the action that he is attempting to take. Legally, the architect should be the interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and the judge of the performance of both the owner and the superintendent. What makes a successful outcome is a careful inspection, testing, and evaluation of the project from the architect.

In this case, the architect knows that other parties involved in the project have been cheating on the cement content of the concrete and that the concrete will not come up to the strength by the specifications and by the local building code.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem is for the architect to take the responsibilities that come with his professional title, to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. The first step that the architect should take is not signing/approving the contractor’s requisition. After that, the architect has ethical and professional responsibility to report the problem to his superiors, DOB, and their lawyers too. This way all the superior parties are aware of this problem and the architect is not responsible for any personal or public future consequences.

Arch 4861

Professional Practice

Assignment #2

Case study #1

 

  In this case study, the story itself exposes many potential problems in both communication level and operation level. Along with this accident happened, we can briefly summarize the problem in three areas. It includes the market contract order is fuzzy and chaotic, the behavior of market entities is not standardized, and the project cannot be implemented in accordance with planned standards. (I believe the markets can metaphorize the relationship between owners and contractors).

   In the division of roles among the three parties(Owner, Architect, Contractor), the architect has an employment relationship with the owner and the owner has another employment relationship with the contractor. In this case study, the architect and the contractor have not assumed the same division of work. Both sides of the Architect and the Contractor have no direct connection and the partnership, even though both sides are working with the same owner. And, although in today’s complex building construction field, architects are increasingly playing a communication role between building investors( Owner or Developer)  and professional contractors. In addition, the Architect has to coordinate the structure, hydropower and HVAC systems. However, in this case, or under professional regulation, Architects are usually hired by and responsible to construction owners or developers rather than construction contractors. For Architects in all kind of the situation, the safety will always be the first priority.

  By reviewing this accident event, we understand the owner excessively believes in the commitments made by the contractor and knows the contractor’s illegal operation process. Based on trust is the personal emotion between the owner and contractor. This directly caused the project to became ambiguity and disorder. The contractor’s irregular suggestion of the prescription of the concrete construction shouldn’t be accepted by the owner because the owner believes it can reduce the cause. At the same time during the construction period, no concrete required tests were taking. In fact, that resulting in irregulate behavior and standards. All of these changed the original accordance with the planned order from Architect. The result is that the structure is not strong enough to support allowable structural loads. 

  In solution, I believe the owner and contractor clarify the rights and responsibilities. Then to Standardize the orders and behavioral operations. According to the NYC department of the building (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/business/local-laws.page Page for all the local law) “Local Law 119 of 2019 (Int. No. 1533-A) A Local Law to amend the New York city building code, in relation to the definition of site safety training full compliance date and site safety training second compliance date.”,  the site training of workers is required. Also based on the NYC department of the building, “NYC building code 2014 chapter 19-Concrete”, in general regulation, the training should slump test and the cylinder test. Also in “New York City Local Law 10 of 1980” “The City mandated that owners of applicable buildings have their street façades and appurtenances periodically inspected by a licensed Registered Architect or Professional Engineer and that a Report based on this periodic critical examination must be filed with the Department of Buildings.” I believe that local law can be also used in this condition. It is required the licensed architect and engineer should take directly immediately responsible for a water tightness of the exterior surfaces after certified by the commissioner by identity the Structure is safe, safe with a repair and maintenance program or unsafe. which must report the status to the department and categorized when the structure is in unsafety conditions. Also, the result must be notifying the owner. The committee has the power to override may grant an extension of time of up to ninety days to complete the repairs required to correct an unsafe condition, unless unsafe conditions shall be corrected within thirty days. After that, the licensed architect and engineer should take the same response within two weeks after repairs to correct the unsafe condition until it has been completed. The requirements of all the provisions are only for existing buildings, and I think that the buildings under construction can be rebuilt if necessary. At the same time, if the defect can be compensated, I think that the part that needs to be replaced must be replaced, including all parts that do not meet the requirements during the inspection process. Finally, there are corresponding filings. All this requires the owner’s measurement and the contractor’s responsibility. Also related to the law, I suggest our architects explain clearly to the owner and contractor about the illegal risks. For example the New York City “Local Law 111 of 2019 (Int. No. 1257-A) A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to inspections of construction sites for which the department of buildings has issued a permit.” and the New York City “Local Law 104 of 2019 (Int. No. 975-A) A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to denying building permits where a residential building has an excessive number of violations.” to prevent this case happen again.

 

Submitted by: Zhenhao Huang

Date: 02/18/2019

It’s unfortunate how many times a preventable incident occurs because of a silly approval. Especially in New York City, where some projects are quickly approved and constructed without the absolute knowledge of all parties. This case study is a prime example of getting work done quickly and inefficiently. An architect is responsible for many aspects in a complex project such as the clients needs, development, and construction. 

What’s unfortunate is when a client, who hires you, is in agreement with an unsafe idea, like using the wrong content of cement. Cement is critical and significant to the concrete building phase and affects the structure in the long term. As an architect, a prime concern to always be aware of is safety and durability. We are trained for moments that require leadership and quick action, even when the client is against the decision.

 A professional should always be five steps ahead and provide options instead of quickly reaching a significant conclusion that affects all involved. In a moment like the cement issue, if there is a disagreement still, then there is no choice but to not approve the contractor’s requisition. It’s a decision that prevents future consequences for the superintendent and architect.

In any field of profession one must do its best and carefully examine every little detail of their job to make sure it’s flawless for the client and themselves for any and all job they have, this is especially true to the architects. Every architects have to protect the health, safety, and welfare of every individual that will go into their designed buildings and those around its vicinity. In case study 1, the architect notice a different in the poured in place concrete, the amount is different than the original proposal which can and will lead to the building falling down. When the architect talk to the owner he said, he will talk to the superintendent of construction, which is hire independently by the owner. The situation create a distrust between the groups, architect suspect the owner and the superintendent cheating on material to save money which will be really bad on the architect since it’s his job to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In this kind of sticky situation I would suggest the architect try to get an emergency meeting with the owner and the superintendent as fast as possible because it’s the entire team that build the building not just architect, so the reasonable thing to do is to prove how the shortage in concrete will negative impact the overall building. The architect have to test the concrete and show the result as prove to the owner and superintendent. At the same time the architect should also get ready for the worse, which is when after the fact they will keep on not listen or outright refuse it, then the architect should prepare and find his original proposal for the pour in place concrete amount in all his document, as prove to the government like the DOB that the owner and superintendent is cheating on the concrete, that is the last straw to do which I don’t think it should come to that.

As a professional architect, you have the responsibility to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public however, this is not always the case. Like in Case Study #1 where an architect was given the task of designing a house using poured-in-place concrete. Where he quickly learned that the superintendent of the construction had been cheating on the cement content, the problem with this is that the concrete cannot meet its full strength causing a safety hazard for anybody who inhabits the house. What’s worst is the architect has reason to believe that the owner knew about the cheating.
I believe that the architect has the responsibility as a professional to inform a superior of the situation like the DOB. If anything were to happen the architect in charge of the project could have a lawsuit in his hands or worst it could harm someone innocent. The architect could also leave the project and the contractor’s requisition should not be certified.

I believed the responsibilities of an architect in this situation should be to report the incident to whoever is mainly in  charged. In the meantime, the architect shouldn’t receive any money until the problem gets solved and until the work is completely done. As a licensed architect your responsibilities is to provide welfare and safety to the public. The architect job is to build sustainable and functional building that give your client stability and fully security. No construction staff, clients, or any other should be putting their life at risk or get injured by Incompetent work. The case study called “Discrepancy in Concrete Mixture” stated that the owner could possibly knew from the beginning what the superintendent construction  was doing with the cement. Due to the owner reaction when the architect addressed the problem to it. The owner seems not to be so surprised about what was happening. Indeed, the architect should take a right decision when it comes to this type of cases. No architect could get monetarily convinced to proceed with a construction when the concrete is in this condition.