I’ve been looking at some typical Perth weather data that indicates January global radiation is roughly 1000W/m2 and June global radiation is around 500W/m2 on average.

In your ‘improved’ results the solar gain around January is very small and around June very large comparatively. How has this design and its improvements managed to reject nearly all the 1000W/m2 in January and at the same time seemingly been able to absorb all the 500W/m2 in June? I appreciate lower sun angles in June will help, but such a large ’swing’, as seen in your results, still seems excessive given the global radiation bias in the area.

Thanks again,
Ian.

“If the AIA has a list what is it? Is it isotropic, Is it systems based. No one has ever used it or even spoken of it. They always refer to the CSI Format which has existed for 40 years and complain about it’s improvements.”

To clarify my earlier comment I was referring to ’standard time phases of architecture as defined by the AIA’ which your article then went on to describe as a ‘list of tasks’…I deliberately used your terminology to avoid confusion!

Another comment above states “Contractors and Engineers have no business calling the shots in Architecture”

This is something that I don’t agree with, the Architect is not always the lead in building projects. I worked with one of the largest design consultancies in the world for 7 years and the office I worked in designed and built Pharmaceutical Plants. This office was multi-discipline with the Architects working alongside everyone else, with the Process Piping & Equipment group as the lead discipline.

The role of architect changes according to the type of building they are engaged on and the type of building being designed is defined by different criteria.

All things considered, the standard time phases of architecture as defined by the AIA is far more flexible to facilitate the various design processes.

1. You have a valid license for each concurrent user that opens up a Revit session in the Cloud. (we do)
2. You don’t violate your regional usage licensing. What this means is that your US people can’t use the BIM Cloud licenses during the day, then go home, then your China operations starts using the same licenses on the BIM cloud. You can’t share across regions. Little is not since we are all US.

In fact, they want to ENCOURAGE this type of computing and I am working with them to fully embrace cloud computing, remote desktop, and virtualized PC’s.

Architecture is the province of the architects. It is what they study when they go to Architectural Schools at the College Level.

That the 16 CSI Divisions came into being was interesting but confusing from the start. I objected immediately upon hearing them. The AIA should have taken the initiative but I don’t believe that too many architects understood the whole process back then. Certainly no one had disassembled the process to the degree that we did.

But the truth remains simple and crystal clear in all these years.

My background includes Mechanical Engineering at GMI and I co-oped at the Corporate Engineering Staff where they had Departments of Suspension Systems, Power-Train Systems, Car Developement Systems, etc.

So it was easy to see the hierarchy: Systems, Assemblies, Sub-Assemblies, Parts, Materials, elements, etc. It’s the same in architecture, a long established understanding.

Now I’d have to interject that this recent spate of overwording, and bafflegab, and babel speak, perhaps introduced by BIM, has served to confuse the clients and make for the opportunitiy for new entities to insert their up cupped hands into the process.

But the fact remains that if architects find themselves under general contractors or CM’s as they now profess themselves to be, then there is an instant conflict of interest. Once the architect gives up the right to approve disbursements then Architecture no longer serves as a profession, it is simply just another supplier like plumbing.

Architecture is an old term going back a few thousand years. It has always meant the design and construction of buildings. The advent of the desktop computer cannot cange this no matter how much “new” tech talk gets spilled.

Were architects to allow themselves to be forced to relinquish their long held responsibilities chasos will follow.

Absolutely every project that I have seen come out of the Design-build arena, and that has existed in Detroit for many years, and every major project controlled by a Construction firm has been a sad show of human intelligence and talent, and in some cases they have been absolute boondoggles costing the public huge sums of monies.

Always there is a team, always they are integrated in some fashion, and always it is about architecture which is about the design and execution of the built environment. Don’t get it backwards.

“Hi Laura,

“I love the idea of a taxonomy to discuss building systems” sounds great to me. All living things are made up of systems and so are buildings. Systems perform discrete functions.

There has been a virtual file dump of terms associated with architecture lately and it seems that many are not aware of the definitions of specific terms.

So we get to hear elements and components and divisions and all sorts of things but the fact remains that system is the most fundamental and explicit and accurate of the encompassing terms.

Many disciplines have long used systems as the term of what they provide. (HVAC Systems, Plumbing Systems… Lighting Systems, etc.)

So Thank you.

The delivery format has nothing to do with this it is about how to look at architecture.

Now if you are a firm that provides Architectural and Construction services I do get a bit concerned because there is inherently an conflict of interest frome the get go.

These systems were identified by skilled project people in a large AE firm so to say that they are mine is a little off.

At the time of the Stonybrook project I informed the CEO that wh had better not bring in a GC because they would only waste time and confuse things, we simply needed a fine field superintendant. The process worked perfectly and the delivery time was probably less than what can be delivered today.

So yes, being an architect working in the field of architecure is where it should start.

There has been so much confusion lately that a state of Babel exists and it is a hoot listing to some of the stuff going on.

Contractors and Engineers have no business calling the shots in Architecture.”

Bill

Thanks for your question, and for your interest in the article.

Solar gain refers to temperature increases due to solar radiation. Wikipedia has a good definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gain

In order to reduce the energy demand for space heating, the goal of a well-designed passive building is to maximize solar gain during winter months. The higher solar gain values you see in the EcoDesigner energy balance graph represent solar radiation entering the building through equator-facing windows and glazing. Conversely, less solar gain is more desirable in Summer in order to minimize the need for space cooling.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Sid.

Thanks,
Ian.

The efforts of linking all the tasks were nearing completion when the Stonybrook project came up and it is where the first use of the approach was used. It worked. The only computer available and the only program available at the time of that project were the IBM 1130 PCS (Project Control System. It was too cumbersome. So the scheduling based upon the systems was quickly done by hand and when time permitted I replicated that in the computer based approach.

Incidentally, last year I talked with the Stonybrook Manager in charge of those buildings and he says that they have served very well and have been altered and modified numerous times because of the changing curriculum and Department assignments over time.

When the RFP responses came in the SUNY CRS Serrine response was lucid. It stated that there were three approaches to doing a project where there was an atmosphere of urgency. The Traditional way with the discrete Phases that were mentioned above, What they called “Fast Track” which would be ordering long lead items and then melding them into the traditional approach. And the third they called “Continuous Delivery” which meant that parts of the project would be designed based upon the critical path and delivered on correct time to the construction process. They advocated “Fast Track” and with integrity said that they were not yet ready to handle a Continuous Delivery process. I quiped at that time to the CEO that “Well, we are!”

I’m from Detroit where Albert Kahn had built an astounding practice. He provided something similar to the Continuous Delivery and Fast Track processes and these were initiated with the evolving Automotive Industry which was expanding exponentially. These procedures were nothing new to the large Detroit architecural firms.

The IBM PCS has been replicated by both “Project” by IBM and Primavera. Neither show any great anvancement in the past 40 years save for making it graphically based on the Desktop world. Neither are nicely set up for the AEC Environment.

I have always broken out costs on this basis and have been able to save clients large sums of money because of it. And I have broked down spec sections on this basis, and the building code search forms as well.

It is always very helpful to know which system you are talking about and what the normal distribution of costs are and how they relate to each other.

Architecture is a field where there is always the latest buzz word or fashionable word. Sustainable is the latest. There is no reason that one cannot look at a project on a systems basis and assess sustainablility on each system.

Paul’s first sentence hits the nail on the head, beautifully stated. Reg Prentice the CITO at Gehry and now Gensler has said something similar.
Martha Lagess, teaching at The Architectural Association in London saw this list some 12 or so years ago and said that she was going to teach it to her students, had me write it down in her notebook and autograph it.

My father commented years ago as he watched me develop and commented that he noticed that we architects were not working together and were always squablling and at each other’s throats. He obviously did not think that to be a Professional Approach.

The CSI unveiled the 16 Divisions at a Conference at Happy Valley on the Future of Architecture in 1969 or so. I quickly commented that it was mixed up with Materials, Systems and what have you. Admittedly it was better than the earlier AIA 57 sections simply because it was smaller. But Last month the CSI finally abandoned the 16 Divisions realizing that it did not work. That time span is some 40 years +. Things move too slowly for me but that is what happens when there are too many disparate interests.

Just to help you understand the length of involvement here, I was just invited to the reinactment of the Peace Corps Speech. Yup, even read the YR banner across the street.

And one of the first conversations with Lachmi she asked if there was any relation to what Christopher Alexander had done. I pointed out that I did go to his office at that time and was informed that I was all wrong. ;D

Yes, it would be great to have some standardization of space names as well.
Perhaps during this fallow time it might be wise to get together and work things out so that when things pick back up again everyone is ready to roll quickly in an ordered fashion.

I’d also have to say that it has become fashionable for old General Contractors to grab the reigns but they know nothing about what we are talking about. For me Construction Management should lie within the Architectural Domain.

And yes, there will be squabbles to little avail.

Bill

I developed logic diagrams of the entire process within Smith, Hinchman and Grylls working with the Department Heads and their best Architects and Engineers over a 2 1/2 year time span. Thousands of tasks were identified and drawn in their appropriate sequences and these were elaborately documented and presented

There were no preconceptions. It was a direct process of identifying which tasks beloged where.

The Systems Identified were done so in concert and with the approval of the Departments. This is not an imaginative invention.

What fell out is essentially the ABC’s of Architecture. Knowing them is most handy for learning the craft and for controlling the craft.

The reason that the StonyBrook project proceeded so quickly is that each system was basically looked at by itself and no constrictive nodes were ever placed within the process. This is important to understand.

Trying to set up constrictive nodes as has been the pratcice for years has been and remains a cause of huge costs in time and purchasing power.

Plese do not assume that this was done only on one project and ask yourself if you can deliver a 300,000sf project in 9 months from receipt of the program.

Now the word equipment here might be further clarified. Equipment is a generic word and I can see why someone might think that it would fit within another discipline but here it is used in the sense of Architectural Equipment… kitchen equipment, lab equipment, office equipment in that sense… items that can be substantial in nature and need to be planned in and planned for that are used directly by the client.

This simple list covers it all and of course there would be a number of line items under that category.

If the AIA has a list what is it? Is it isotropic, Is it systems based. No one has ever used it or even spoken of it. They always refer to the CSI Format which has existed for 40 years and complain about it’s improvements.

Part of the Babel problem is that different disciplines have taken it upon themselves to set up taxonomies and they often don’t jibe. I do believe that architects should have a strong say on what it is. The CSI apparently does not have architects on board and seems to have trouble using the word System. It is strange listening to young architects being afraid to use the word System and substituting the word Components instead.

The word System is clearly defined. If you have a better list of systems then let’s take a look at it. I’m open for discussion and I suspect that we all agree upon the Disciplines and their order of placement.

Having one simple, encompassing list is the idea here. Yes there would be a number of sub systems if you were to go and examine any system here and develop a CPM diagram of any project… usually about 65 in a good sized project.

The idea is to coordinate things based upon a clean, encompassing simple list. I have taught this method as an adjunct Professor in Arhitectural School and have heard that, “All of a sudden it all made sense to me!”

Bill