Small Project Design

Chris you are correct. Lack of regulation is not the problem. As architects we have libraries of regulations, code, industry standards, and guildelines. As I see it, we have a common sense problem.

1. Zoning: Homes should not be built on the edge of oceans or below sea level..
2. Design: Design professionals should be required to perform to a higher standand in design documentation and CA, with adequate compensation for this work..
3. Inspection: Builiding Officials should actually "inspect" faciities for compliance with codes and regulations.
3. Maintenance: Owner's should be required to maintain their facilities and facilities should be reinspected on a periodic basis.

We can solve almost any building problem, but we have to first change attitudes about the process of building. That, I don't think we can do. People would rather pay higher insurance rates and hope that they do not have a weather event, than deal with the real problem.This is no differenct than health decisions we all make.


Dennis

-------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Chairman ' CEO
Hall Architects, Inc.
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

I would suggest that the idea that homes should not be allowed to be built along the coast is not very realistic.

According to the NOAA: "In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population."  

I doubt that cities like New Orleans will be abandoned due to zoning regulations just because they are below sea level, or that New York City will cease to exist just because it is located on the ocean (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are directly on the Atlantic, the Bronx is at the end of Long Island Sound bounded on the west by the Hudson, and Manhattan is on a bay at the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers.

Boston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco all fall into that category. And to assume that cities along the Mississippi will not flood because they are not along the ocean would be folly.

But I guess half the population of the United States can just pack up and leave four centuries of populated cities behind us and move to somewhere high and dry.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------

David, I believe I have failed to make my point. Of course these ideas are unrealistic. We are not going to change the weather, nor are we going to stop the increase in regulations of building and development. My point was that actions have consequences and to provoke thought about how we build.I believe we need to take a lifecycle approach to designing and building.

New Orleans and New York are great cities and I am not suggesting abandoning development of these cities or others. I am suggesting smart development. The destroying of our dune system is not smart. Buildings that are constructed that are energy hogs, building envelopes that leak air and water, and structures that fail to resist design wind loads is just not smart.

As an architect who does a fair amount of building diagnostic work, I see to many buildings where the land is graded so that water flows back against the building, masonry walls without weepholes, windows and doors without flashing, buildings that are not accessible to those with physical disabilities, and building without required egress. I see plenty of litigation against developers, architects, contractors, and a line of insurance carriers. I believe much of this can be avoided if we just could change attitudes about building.

Perhaps this is unrealistic too. But if we don't start thinking and acting we will never change it.

-------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Chairman ' CEO
Hall Architects, Inc.
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-05-2012 14:09
From: David Del Vecchio
Subject: Insurance Companies

I would suggest that the idea that homes should not be allowed to be built along the coast is not very realistic.

According to the NOAA: "In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population."  

I doubt that cities like New Orleans will be abandoned due to zoning regulations just because they are below sea level, or that New York City will cease to exist just because it is located on the ocean (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are directly on the Atlantic, the Bronx is at the end of Long Island Sound bounded on the west by the Hudson, and Manhattan is on a bay at the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers.

Boston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco all fall into that category. And to assume that cities along the Mississippi will not flood because they are not along the ocean would be folly.

But I guess half the population of the United States can just pack up and leave four centuries of populated cities behind us and move to somewhere high and dry.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------

Another suggestion (sure to be unpopular/especially here in over-taxed NJ) would be to levy a tax/fee on properties constructed in floodplains that would go into FEMA coffers for purposes of storm damage remediation and/or protective infrastructure to prevent or lessen damage in these flood prone areas from the brunt of Mother Nature's fury. How to keep the politicians from robbing these funds to pay for other political purposes.
-------------------------------------------
Harry Wright AIA
Moorestown NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 08:12
From: Dennis Hall
Subject: Insurance Companies

David, I believe I have failed to make my point. Of course these ideas are unrealistic. We are not going to change the weather, nor are we going to stop the increase in regulations of building and development. My point was that actions have consequences and to provoke thought about how we build.I believe we need to take a lifecycle approach to designing and building.

New Orleans and New York are great cities and I am not suggesting abandoning development of these cities or others. I am suggesting smart development. The destroying of our dune system is not smart. Buildings that are constructed that are energy hogs, building envelopes that leak air and water, and structures that fail to resist design wind loads is just not smart.

As an architect who does a fair amount of building diagnostic work, I see to many buildings where the land is graded so that water flows back against the building, masonry walls without weepholes, windows and doors without flashing, buildings that are not accessible to those with physical disabilities, and building without required egress. I see plenty of litigation against developers, architects, contractors, and a line of insurance carriers. I believe much of this can be avoided if we just could change attitudes about building.

Perhaps this is unrealistic too. But if we don't start thinking and acting we will never change it.

-------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Chairman ' CEO
Hall Architects, Inc.
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

A flood plain or coastal construction tax might sound like a good idea, but it is not.  Politician's have proven themselves to be unable to control their greedlust for money, and they would rob this account.  The same as politicians have done to Social Security and the same as NC politicians have done to our NC road maintenance funds.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2012 16:21
From: Harry Wright
Subject: Insurance Companies

Another suggestion (sure to be unpopular/especially here in over-taxed NJ) would be to levy a tax/fee on properties constructed in floodplains that would go into FEMA coffers for purposes of storm damage remediation and/or protective infrastructure to prevent or lessen damage in these flood prone areas from the brunt of Mother Nature's fury. How to keep the politicians from robbing these funds to pay for other political purposes.
-------------------------------------------
Harry Wright AIA
Moorestown NJ
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 08:12
From: Dennis Hall
Subject: Insurance Companies

David, I believe I have failed to make my point. Of course these ideas are unrealistic. We are not going to change the weather, nor are we going to stop the increase in regulations of building and development. My point was that actions have consequences and to provoke thought about how we build.I believe we need to take a lifecycle approach to designing and building.

New Orleans and New York are great cities and I am not suggesting abandoning development of these cities or others. I am suggesting smart development. The destroying of our dune system is not smart. Buildings that are constructed that are energy hogs, building envelopes that leak air and water, and structures that fail to resist design wind loads is just not smart.

As an architect who does a fair amount of building diagnostic work, I see to many buildings where the land is graded so that water flows back against the building, masonry walls without weepholes, windows and doors without flashing, buildings that are not accessible to those with physical disabilities, and building without required egress. I see plenty of litigation against developers, architects, contractors, and a line of insurance carriers. I believe much of this can be avoided if we just could change attitudes about building.

Perhaps this is unrealistic too. But if we don't start thinking and acting we will never change it.

-------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Chairman ' CEO
Hall Architects, Inc.
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Sally Anne Smith AIA
Smith Architectural Studio
Carmel CA
-------------------------------------------

Here in California, where we have some nasty wild fires that can wipe out several hundred homes, the state has levied a tax on rural homeowners who live in wooded areas, to help finance the State Fire Department for the extra equipment and people needed to protect homes in rural wooded areas. People are not happy with it, but it is the price you pay to live in quiet and solitude outside of surburbia.





Original Message:
Sent: 12-10-2012 08:23
From: Robert Smith
Subject: Insurance Companies

A flood plain or coastal construction tax might sound like a good idea, but it is not.  Politician's have proven themselves to be unable to control their greedlust for money, and they would rob this account.  The same as politicians have done to Social Security and the same as NC politicians have done to our NC road maintenance funds.

-------------------------------------------
Robert Smith AIA
Architect
Talley & Smith Architecture, Inc.
Shelby NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2012 16:21
From: Harry Wright
Subject: Insurance Companies

Another suggestion (sure to be unpopular/especially here in over-taxed NJ) would be to levy a tax/fee on properties constructed in floodplains that would go into FEMA coffers for purposes of storm damage remediation and/or protective infrastructure to prevent or lessen damage in these flood prone areas from the brunt of Mother Nature's fury. How to keep the politicians from robbing these funds to pay for other political purposes.
-------------------------------------------
Harry Wright AIA
Moorestown NJ
-------------------------------------------

Another thing that annoys the +*#% out of me is the fact that insurance companies are great at using actuarial data - mainly to assure that they are going to make money. So I will always question when I see a insurance company making suggestions such as changing codes and ordinances - for whose benefit is such a change? Could it be that they are "insuring" even more greatly that they will lessen the possibility of any "pay outs" for which we are paying exorbitant premiums? This always gets to me when I fill out my professional liability insurance forms. The questions are nearly overwhelming and always geared toward making sure you will never have a claim. Well if I am never going to have claim, then why should I have insurance?

I know - that is sort of extreme, but it I just did this last week and paid a ridiculous amount of money to insure a relatively miniscule amount of work being insured!

I don't like being negative, but it comes easy to me when considering insurance companies. I seriously doubt that the suggestion for code and ordinance changes is for the welfare of the insured. I would believe it is probably more for the welfare of the insurer. If we were to make such changes in codes and ordinances (insuring the insurer), do you think our premiums would be reduced? 

-------------------------------------------
George Jennings AIA
G Booker 3
Tappahannock VA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-05-2012 14:09
From: David Del Vecchio
Subject: Insurance Companies

I would suggest that the idea that homes should not be allowed to be built along the coast is not very realistic.

According to the NOAA: "In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population."  

I doubt that cities like New Orleans will be abandoned due to zoning regulations just because they are below sea level, or that New York City will cease to exist just because it is located on the ocean (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are directly on the Atlantic, the Bronx is at the end of Long Island Sound bounded on the west by the Hudson, and Manhattan is on a bay at the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers.

Boston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco all fall into that category. And to assume that cities along the Mississippi will not flood because they are not along the ocean would be folly.

But I guess half the population of the United States can just pack up and leave four centuries of populated cities behind us and move to somewhere high and dry.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, we have changed the parameters of coastal living by our own actions. Consider the destruction of  protective marshes and natural barriers that contributed so greatly particularly to the New Orleans destruction. Factor in climate change, and you have a recipe for more and more disasters.

Yes, sea ports by definition have to be where they are, but building homes on barrier islands and river banks are life style choices. Another change over the previous centuries of coastal living is that we now rely on federal flood insurance to protect us from those risky decisions. Why? Because private companies won't take such high risk bets.

I've often thought that federal flood insurance should be a pay once system on catastrophic damage. If your damage surpasses something like 50-75% of the replacement value, the offer should be a one time payment. Repair if you wish, or accept a full buyout and move. If you choose to stay, the next time you have to repair or replace you will be on your own ... or try to find private insurance and pay market cost.

-------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Messick AIA
President
HMA Architects
Lawrence KS
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-05-2012 14:09
From: David Del Vecchio
Subject: Insurance Companies

I would suggest that the idea that homes should not be allowed to be built along the coast is not very realistic.

According to the NOAA: "In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population."  

I doubt that cities like New Orleans will be abandoned due to zoning regulations just because they are below sea level, or that New York City will cease to exist just because it is located on the ocean (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are directly on the Atlantic, the Bronx is at the end of Long Island Sound bounded on the west by the Hudson, and Manhattan is on a bay at the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers.

Boston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco all fall into that category. And to assume that cities along the Mississippi will not flood because they are not along the ocean would be folly.

But I guess half the population of the United States can just pack up and leave four centuries of populated cities behind us and move to somewhere high and dry.
-------------------------------------------
David Del Vecchio AIA
Architect
David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC
Cranford NJ
-------------------------------------------

Jeffrey, you bring up a good point.

Half the problem is that the national flood insurance program encourages risky behavior on the part of property owners without much of the risk.  If those who own property on the coast (and I literally mean the coast) and on flood plains were to be charged market-rate insurance for their properties, they would either pack their things and move out, or build more appropriately.  Obviously, as architects, we are able to help with the latter option.

However, that is not the only way in which we can help.  We need to work with municipalities to change code requirements in these areas as well as help disseminate best practices for building in flood-prone settings.  Of course, that would take a little more activism on our part. (Ahem, AIA.)

The NY Times had a couple of pieces on this very subject last month.  I found them to be very informative, especially since I had little knowledge of how the flood insurance program works before reading them.

1.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opinion/end-federal-flood-insurance.html


-------------------------------------------
Francisco Grimaldi AIA
Architect
Elizabeth NJ

-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 10:39
From: Jeffrey Messick
Subject: Insurance Companies

Unfortunately, we have changed the parameters of coastal living by our own actions. Consider the destruction of  protective marshes and natural barriers that contributed so greatly particularly to the New Orleans destruction. Factor in climate change, and you have a recipe for more and more disasters.

Yes, sea ports by definition have to be where they are, but building homes on barrier islands and river banks are life style choices. Another change over the previous centuries of coastal living is that we now rely on federal flood insurance to protect us from those risky decisions. Why? Because private companies won't take such high risk bets.

I've often thought that federal flood insurance should be a pay once system on catastrophic damage. If your damage surpasses something like 50-75% of the replacement value, the offer should be a one time payment. Repair if you wish, or accept a full buyout and move. If you choose to stay, the next time you have to repair or replace you will be on your own ... or try to find private insurance and pay market cost.

-------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Messick AIA
President
HMA Architects
Lawrence KS
-------------------------------------------

I have to admit, I get a bit tired of the vitriol I often see on these forums and to be quite honest, it comes across similarly to how Owners who have issues often describe Architects: pompous and self-centered. If you don't agree with an idea, fine, you don't have to, but ours is a profession of problem solving and each idea presented has some validity or may trigger a solution that is viable. Rather than sarcastically dismiss what another peer in your profession says, how about you consider it and either modify it to work better in your mind, or offer a different solution. ------------------------------------------- Caroline Hedin Assoc. AIA MSGS Architects Olympia WA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 12-05-2012 14:09 From: David Del Vecchio Subject: Insurance Companies I would suggest that the idea that homes should not be allowed to be built along the coast is not very realistic. According to the NOAA: "In the United States, coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total land area (not including Alaska), but account for 53 percent of the total population." I doubt that cities like New Orleans will be abandoned due to zoning regulations just because they are below sea level, or that New York City will cease to exist just because it is located on the ocean (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are directly on the Atlantic, the Bronx is at the end of Long Island Sound bounded on the west by the Hudson, and Manhattan is on a bay at the confluence of the Hudson and East Rivers. Boston, Miami, Mobile, Galveston, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco all fall into that category. And to assume that cities along the Mississippi will not flood because they are not along the ocean would be folly. But I guess half the population of the United States can just pack up and leave four centuries of populated cities behind us and move to somewhere high and dry. ------------------------------------------- David Del Vecchio AIA Architect David Del Vecchio, Architect, LLC Cranford NJ -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 12-04-2012 08:06 From: Dennis Hall Subject: Insurance Companies Chris you are correct. Lack of regulation is not the problem. As architects we have libraries of regulations, code, industry standards, and guildelines. As I see it, we have a common sense problem. 1. Zoning: Homes should not be built on the edge of oceans or below sea level.. 2. Design: Design professionals should be required to perform to a higher standand in design documentation and CA, with adequate compensation for this work.. 3. Inspection: Builiding Officials should actually "inspect" faciities for compliance with codes and regulations. 3. Maintenance: Owner's should be required to maintain their facilities and facilities should be reinspected on a periodic basis. We can solve almost any building problem, but we have to first change attitudes about the process of building. That, I don't think we can do. People would rather pay higher insurance rates and hope that they do not have a weather event, than deal with the real problem.This is no differenct than health decisions we all make. Dennis ------------------------------------------- Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI Chairman ' CEO Hall Architects, Inc. Charlotte NC -------------------------------------------

My comment was in response to the first response in the thread. ------------------------------------------- Caroline Hedin Assoc. AIA MSGS Architects Olympia WA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 12-06-2012 11:21 From: Caroline Hedin Subject: Insurance Companies I have to admit, I get a bit tired of the vitriol I often see on these forums and to be quite honest, it comes across similarly to how Owners who have issues often describe Architects: pompous and self-centered. If you don't agree with an idea, fine, you don't have to, but ours is a profession of problem solving and each idea presented has some validity or may trigger a solution that is viable. Rather than sarcastically dismiss what another peer in your profession says, how about you consider it and either modify it to work better in your mind, or offer a different solution. ------------------------------------------- Caroline Hedin Assoc. AIA MSGS Architects Olympia WA -------------------------------------------

Peter, thanks the comments.

I think in the early morning of my composition of my reply to one of the issues on the forum, I failed to adequately present my point as clearly as I could have. I should have indicated that construction in an area subject to periodic flooding, (coastal or river) is not a great idea. I did not intend to indict all costal locations, nor did I intend to indicate that only coastal properties were subject to flooding or other high risk conditions. I have tried to clarify my thinking in a new post this morning, but it is probably equally inadequate.

I have investigated a lot of oceanfront construction and have seen building failures, due to bad development decisions, substandard design, poor construction, inadequate inspections, and lack of maintenance. However, my point was not about sea coast construction, it was about many of the development problems I see are solvable by just common sense thinking and everyone doing their job. If we are not meeting current codes and regulations, the idea of just add more regulations will solve the problem, seems 'nuts' to me. My hope is that we can get people thinking about what we are all doing and the results of our actions.

I understand your point of assuming risk through insurance premiums and I certainly agree that this is a valid business philosophy to risk mitigation.  My belief is that we should first seek risk avoidance through higher performance of building development practices and hopefully this will reduce our reliance on risk mitigation.

Dennis

-------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Chairman ' CEO
Hall Architects, Inc.
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 11:39
From: Caroline Hedin
Subject: Insurance Companies


My comment was in response to the first response in the thread.
-------------------------------------------
Caroline Hedin Assoc. AIA
MSGS Architects
Olympia WA
-------------------------------------------