poop can you imagine a review exam with Balkins? you would eat up your entire window of time on one little thing like a door. you would get so discouraged you would not build anything. shit, Balkins you could be top examiner in NYC! starting salary is like $70k with benefits and the more you say NO the better! again, invoicing on career advise.
Rick your tenacity is not in building design or architecture - you cannot be tenacious in sticking with those things because you've never done them in the first place. You are tenacious in sticking to untenable positions. You're also tenacious in staying in the attic decades past the point when most baby birds would have been successfully shoved out of their nests. Your tenacity isn't a good thing, it's a character flaw.
I can imagine the scenario that led to your involvement in this project: Theater Committee Member 1: "So the building permit application says we need to submit a plan showing square feet and exits. I'm thinking we can measure it and draw it ourselves." Theater Committe Member 2: "I was talking to Bob at the Grand Weasel Lodge last night, and he mentioned his son little Richie wants to be an architect. Maybe Little Richie could look over the plan." TCM 1: "Um... yeah, I know little Richie... well I think we can probably draw this up ourselves on some graph paper, or maybe Joanie can draw it so it looks more professional." TCM 2: "Well... the thing is... I sort of already told Bob that we're always looking for volunteers, and he was so excited to get little Richie out of his hair for while... couldn't we find something for him to do? Let him weigh in on the shape of the snack bar or something?" TCM 1: "I guess we can put a paint brush in his hand and point him at a wall that won't be seen much, and thank him in the program... but you get to supervise him, and don't let him measure anything!..."
... and for Richard it was only the smallest hop in logic from "I painted part of the backstage hallway" to "I designed the whole project and if it wasn't for me the theater would be out of business."
The irony is that because of Richard the theater may be in trouble now.
Balkins, I'm paying my student loans off within 10 years (not 500), and have approx. 15k in rent a year (yes I know I should just buy at this point) and live comfortably.
Then again living comfortably for me is basically being able to do what I want to do within reason without having to worry about money, so its probably about expectations too. No champagne wishes and kangaroo dreams.
If you haven't noticed, even businesses with one single door in and out opens into the building but also is exit.
Rick whether the door must swing out is not your call to make. It's based on occupant load. When this building was an appliance store the door would have been allowed by code to swing in.
That is because the Use Group would have been B, so the occupant count would have been determined on 100 square feet per person for areas where people are expected to be on a regular basis (offices, corridors, appliance show room, bathroom, etc.) and 300 square feet per person in areas like stock rooms, closets, and mechanical spaces. This building is approximately 4000 square feet, so even if the whole thing were calculated at 100 square feet per person the maximum occupant count would have been 40 - so the doors would have been allowed to swing in.
Now that the building is Use Group A the doors are not allowed by code to swing in. It doesn't matter what you prefer, if you put a theater in this building you have to make the doors swing out. If there were a municipal requirement that doors not swing out into sidewalks of a certain width, or not swing out by more than some specified amount, then your choices would be either to not locate the door in that face of the building, or to recess the doors (you mention you considered that, but it didn't happen), or to not put a theater in this building.
It seems like you make decisions based on what you've seen in other existing buildings, without taking into consideration all the nuances of the code, nor the possibility that some other buildings you see may also be in violation of code.
Oregon law requires that all building projects exceeding 4,000 square feet or 20 feet in height be designed by a registered architect. The only structures exempt from this requirement are:
Detached Single Family Residences
Farm or Agricultural Buildings
Buildings that have had no structural modifications or changes to occupancy or code related classifications.
Even if we take Balkins at his word regarding measurements, there was nevertheless an occupancy change, which would violate Oregon law, according to http://orbae.com/complaint-information/
You seem to be justifying a lot of things now by saying you will go back and tell them what they need to do now to fix it. You've mentioned a few times now that you're going to tell them to put up a sign limiting occupants backstage to 49, and you're going to tell them to add a door, and you're going to tell them to add bathrooms. A few pages back you posted a long list of proclamations that you're going to make (no pyrotechnics, they must sprinkler under the stage, they must remove shelving from the egress route from the lighting booth, etc.)
1. The act of making that list is practicing architecture without a license. 2. You have no relationship to this building now that can make any of that list or remedial measures happen. Just because you were the building designer (assuming for the moment that that's true) doesn't mean you retain any authority to tell them what to do to it now. You can report unsafe conditions, accessibility and code violations to the AHJ, as can all of us, but your role is no different than ours. None of us can enforce a specific list of changes that the building must make. The people at city hall seem to know you as a resident crackpot. The people at OBAE are also familiar with you and have a similar reaction to your name. The people at the theater don't seem to recall you. Just who is going to follow your list of recommendations?
"If you trust Balkins' napkin math, the occupant load is 200"
That's Balkins' napkin math re just the seating capacity. He also says there is typically a performance cast of approximately 30. There are also box office personnel and lighting personnel (total of 4-5 according to the article in which they complain of all bumping into each other), snack bar staff, souvenir stand staff, stage manager, stage hands... There are some photos of the theater at or beyond full capacity that are downright scary - no visible clear circulation space anywhere, and what appear to be candles on the tables.
Dangermouse, unfortunately the complaint form is in conflict with the actual law, which says that buildings under 4000 square feet and 20 feet in interior height are exempt even if there is a change of use.
That is why everyone is arguing over the interior height.
May 6, 16 12:12 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Yes, it's out-swing. The drawings was schematics NOT permit drawings. It should NEVER be submitted as such. Considering I also had on the drawings two out-swinging doors proposed in the first place, those doors was proposed to be an entrance that may double as an exit. We had already switch to out-swing. Chill guys.
I had already got that in 2008. I wasn't worried about the swing orientation on the schematic because if we reduce the exit doors, the doors would be set to an out-swing.
May 6, 16 12:25 pm ·
·
Two exit doors are required when the occupant load is 500 or less. When there is 49 or less, one exit is permitted IF the means of egress travel distance does not exceed 75-ft.
May 6, 16 12:27 pm ·
·
1. The act of making that list is practicing architecture without a license. 2. You have no relationship to this building now that can make any of that list or remedial measures happen. Just because you were the building designer (assuming for the moment that that's true) doesn't mean you retain any authority to tell them what to do to it now. You can report unsafe conditions, accessibility and code violations to the AHJ, as can all of us, but your role is no different than ours. None of us can enforce a specific list of changes that the building must make. The people at city hall seem to know you as a resident crackpot. The people at OBAE are also familiar with you and have a similar reaction to your name. The people at the theater don't seem to recall you. Just who is going to follow your list of recommendations?
I was being somewhat facetious. Of course, I can't force them without taking it to the AHJ and getting the pressure put on it.
Not everyone at the ASOC necessarily knows me. There are some new people there as well. 8-9 years had passed by.
Rick nearly all buildings end up needing more exit doors than the minimum stated in code, because other code issues require them. The rule about number of spaces that can be passed through on the way to an exit is one reason (that's been covered earlier in this thread). Another is dead-end corridor length limits. Another is proximity of exits to each other - you may have additional code violations here on that one because of the diagonal rule on the main theater space. You also can't count the door at the back of the stage as an exit from the theater because none of the stairs are compliant egress components - not to mention that the backstage corridor is jammed full of combustible crap, isn't rated, has an illegal electrical panel, and doors with insufficient clearances....
Lisa looked at the records. You didn't do jack for this project as far as the law is concerned. However, you tenacious spirit of stupidity will now make this a legal matter for you. Congratulations. Better book your ticket to the outback soon.
I completely understand that it can be hard to know what you don't know... Perhaps Rick should do a little experiment and take a couple ARE practice exams, they are easy to find online, and see how you do.
So Rick here is another big problem: The door at the back of the stage doesn't meet code for egress and, based on the dimensions that you provided, the distance between the remaining two doors (measured nearest edge of opening to nearest edge of opening in a straight line, per code), is a little less than 42 feet. The overall diagonal of the main theater space is approximately 85'-4". This means that the two exits are too close together. Code requires that they be no less than half the diagonal apart in a sprinklered building, or they do not count as separate exits.
So you've got 200+ people with one exit. I would think the fire marshal would be all over that.
Here's what I don't get...why the fuck are you arguing that you designed this building if there is no record of you doing so? It's clearly a death trap. It's not a very nice building. I don't get it. If I were you, I would deny any involvement and be grateful that my name wasn't on any legal docs. Even if you had minor involvement, why the hell would you want to acknowledge that in light of all of these code infractions?
has the Internet Architectural Justice League stepped back to consider that perhaps their own ethics are getting trampled in the Balkans Theater Crusade?
let this dumpster fire burn out already
#K4L
May 6, 16 1:14 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Rick nearly all buildings end up needing more exit doors than the minimum stated in code, because other code issues require them. The rule about number of spaces that can be passed through on the way to an exit is one reason (that's been covered earlier in this thread). Another is dead-end corridor length limits. Another is proximity of exits to each other - you may have additional code violations here on that one because of the diagonal rule on the main theater space. You also can't count the door at the back of the stage as an exit from the theater because none of the stairs are compliant egress components - not to mention that the backstage corridor is jammed full of combustible crap, isn't rated, has an illegal electrical panel, and doors with insufficient clearances....
Some of those photos that you are looking at are years after the design.
You are also over counting how many exits need to have an "accessible means of egress". Since the stage would be consisting of the same individuals that would be in the back stage, they would be the same occupants. Steps do qualify as a mean of egress. As for accessible means of egress from the stage to the main stage floor, there is an issue there. The audience isn't suppose to go up the stage and out the back.
However, it is an exit from the stage for those on the stage as well as the steps. As for doors with insufficient clearances. We have a 42" wide door on the east side. That's ADA compliant as far as width goes. ADA requires 36" wide doors but 32" clearance.
First off, if your scope of work is to make the space functional, your job isn't to intentionally trigger every damn structural / seismic code requirements. That can be a difference between a $100,000 project and $750,000 project. One door or new opening can trigger all that. You are talking about going beyond the minimum of code.
With the diagonal being approximately ~85'. The requirement of code where sprinkler is used, requires doors not be less than 1/3 the diagonal. That would be no less than 28'-4".
Aside from the double-doors along the front which was changed out into a single door. If you start looking at the code requirements when 3 or more exits are provided, only two of them need to meet the so called remoteness test.
What's the issue?
Dead-end corridor could be an issue depending on the building codes authorized to be in use. IEBC was being authorized by the building official. The 2006 IEBC allowed I believe, 35-ft. for non-sprinklered and 70-ft. for sprinklered depending on which provisions being used. In addition, the space was mainly for 49 occupant limit. They were looking at 30 actors plus maybe 3 individuals who maybe make-up artists helping those who are not so inclined putting the make up themselves. The actors puts their own make-up on themselves. If they are exceeding design or going out of compliance with design, there isn't much one can do.
As for the clutter of combustible crap at the corridor was not in the design. It was suppose to be a corridor and maybe a mirror on the wall to quickly check make-up but in an emergency, you get out of the building. It's not something you just stay still and do nothing.
Perhaps, I relied on what the client tells me more than I should. Over the years, I had become more cynical of the client. Again, I can't control how clients end up doing things after the project. I can't assume what the client will use the space in the future.
May 6, 16 1:56 pm ·
·
So Rick here is another big problem: The door at the back of the stage doesn't meet code for egress and, based on the dimensions that you provided, the distance between the remaining two doors (measured nearest edge of opening to nearest edge of opening in a straight line, per code), is a little less than 42 feet. The overall diagonal of the main theater space is approximately 85'-4". This means that the two exits are too close together. Code requires that they be no less than half the diagonal apart in a sprinklered building, or they do not count as separate exits.
Since the actual door on the front is in the middle, which I assume you measured from.
Did you look at:
1015.2.1 Two exits or exit access doorways. Where two exits or exit access doorways are required from any portion of the exitaccess, the exit doors or exit access doorways shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served measured in a straight line between exit doors or exit access doorways. Interlocking or scissor stairs shall be counted as one exitstairway.
Exceptions:
1. Where exit enclosures are provided as a portion of the required exit and are interconnected by a 1-hour fire-resistance-rated corridor conforming to the requirements of Section 1018, the required exit separation shall be measured along the shortest direct line of travel within the corridor.
2. Where a building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the separation distance of the exit doors or exit access doorways shall not be less than one-third of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served.
May 6, 16 2:05 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Are you reading the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code?
If you are using a later code edition, that doesn't apply to the situation at the time. Back in 2007, neither you or I could know what the code changes would be two code editions later or even three code editions later for the next edition of the codes. Think man, think. I can't assume to know that, nor can you.
May 6, 16 2:11 pm ·
·
jla-x,
Here's what I don't get...why the fuck are you arguing that you designed this building if there is no record of you doing so? It's clearly a death trap. It's not a very nice building. I don't get it. If I were you, I would deny any involvement and be grateful that my name wasn't on any legal docs. Even if you had minor involvement, why the hell would you want to acknowledge that in light of all of these code infractions?
You would deny it even if you had major involvement. Wouldn't you?
Rick I didn't say anything at all about "accessible means of egress". Of course steps can be a means of egress. Your steps don't count as a means of egress because your steps are too narrow, and don't have compliant handrails. That door shouldn't even have an exit sign in the house, unless the stairs are brought up to code (it's very dangerous as-is - if one person falls while exiting in an emergency it can cause a stampede situation.) The more you argue about this the more it becomes apparent that you're not thoroughly reading the code. You find something that you think supports your version of things and stop right there, without finding the other 5 things that do not support your version of things. The building is not equipped throughout with a sprinkler - you already said the under-stage storage area is not.
And yes I am reading the correct version of the code that was in force at the time - though actually it hasn't been established that they ever got a C of O, since you seem to be saying they were allowed to open for one summer on a conditional basis and somehow just fell off the AHJ's radar. If that's the case then they may be required to bring everything that was done in 2007/2008 up to current code to get the C of O if the state and/or city investigates this now.
Man I really loved watching that show. Don't besmirch the Captain's good name by associating him with this dumpster-ist of all dumpster fires.
May 6, 16 3:23 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
In the schematics, handrails wasn't shown. Of course there is handles. There's handrails on the wall side.
The steps are 3-ft. wide.
For stage, you don't make the egress for 100% of the occupant load of the building.
You aren't looking at the actual stairs to the stage.
Even in schematic design, the handrails would be along the exterior wall.
The builder made the steps tread depth shorter than what I was calling for. In some photos, there seems to be be some possible indication that they raised the stage in some ways. I had 12" tread depth so I think they might have done some stuff that just is wonky and I have to see what they did. When the stage was built in 2008, it had 6" risers and tread depth of 12". Uniform riser height. It seems in some plays or whatever, they raised added like 6" or so inches to the height of the stage. I'm going to have to see what they did. If you look closely through photos of the stage carefully, you'll see some change in height of the stage to support the stage. There is something wonky going on that was never permitted or in the design specs. This raises concerns to me. Even on the site, we called for the tread depth of 12". I always went along the rule of uniform riser height (to maximum extent feasible and within 1/8" (typically) maximum variance. I never call for risers over 7" typically. I typically call for riser heights of 6" maybe 6-1/2" as maybe needed but never over 7". Tread depth of 11 or 12". The sweet spot in riser-tread sum should be 18".
Maybe 11.5" tread depth is acceptable to me for riser height of 6" or 6.25" or 6-1/2 inches.
That's how I typically roll with this stuff. Even then, a tread depth of 10" for 6 or 7" riser height is exceptional.
I always called for uniform riser height for each flight of stairs.
Rick for an egress the handrail is NOT allowed to be on only one side, and the one handrail that you do have doesn't have compliant extensions. If it has a handrail on only one side then it is not a compliant egress component. There are exceptions for stage stairs that allow them to not have handrails, but those stairs cannot be part of an egress. I am looking at the photos of the actual stairs - both the movable stage stairs, and the permanent stair off to the side that has the one handrail. 3 feet isn't wide enough for egress stairs in this situation either. You go ahead and keep arguing. I'm all done with this thread now.
May 6, 16 3:27 pm ·
·
And yes I am reading the correct version of the code that was in force at the time - though actually it hasn't been established that they ever got a C of O, since you seem to be saying they were allowed to open for one summer on a conditional basis and somehow just fell off the AHJ's radar. If that's the case then they may be required to bring everything that was done in 2007/2008 up to current code to get the C of O if the state and/or city investigates this now.
This is why some of these additional code compliance issues you are seeing occurred. Some of that occurred after July 2008. Bloopox, I will be talking to the B.O. about that.
I asked the client explicitly if they had got their certificate of occupancy just before the first show that I was there at. I didn't get a chance to walk through the entire building just before the show. The client said they got their C.O.
I probably should have checked up with the B.O. on that.
May 6, 16 3:31 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Actually there is on both sides of the stairs to the stage.
How wide is a stage egress of 49 individuals? Even 51 individuals. 51 x 0.3 = 15.3. Minimum stair width is 36". Remember, there is TWO egresses for the audience that does not involve the stairs.
Both of which meets code requirement for over 400 occupant load let alone 200.
In an emergency such as a fire, do you think they will be egressing up the stage? The entrance/exit between stage and back stage is for people on the stage or in the backstage. They are not for the audience. Why would they go up that way when they can go out an exit that is most likely to be functioning given in location in a CMU wall.
you're like a character straight from a kafka novel, balkins.
I too spoke with Lisa today, who very emphatically repeated that you had no involvement on the project, you produced no documents for the city or the client, and had no input or say into the design process. She didn't know if you were a volunteer or not, but she was quite clear that you had zero input on the design.
Balkins, that's two of us who confirmed directly with the AHJ. you did nothing with this theater but you're about to get them shut down and yourself reported to the OBAE.
This must be causing quite the confusion at the building department. I bet they've never had a situation before where a person claims to be responsible for hundreds of life safety problems in a building that they didn't design. Rick are you one of those people who feels compelled to confess to murders you didn't commit?
I had a vision of a time when Balkins pretended to be a surgeon because one time he put a bandaid on his finger. Then he decided to practice full blown surgeries on people. A mass grave of hidden bodies piled up somewhere in Clatsop county. But it wasn't his fault they died. He was trying to save them.
I joined late so perhaps I'm not following correctly but: if that stair is part of your egress strategy for the audience then it has to be 44 inches wide minimum because you have to assume half the audience is using it in addition to cast and staff. It sounds like it does have to be part of your egress strategy since the building isn't fully sprinklered including under the stage. I don't see the 1'-11" handrail extensions but the photo is dark so I'm not sure.
Agreed Donna. I tried to give Balkins some good advice in post #2 of this epic. It wouldn't have prevented any of this tragedy, but at least it would have made it easier to follow with regard to the English language.
"I can't get more than a few lines into each paragraph of your invitation before I get tired of trying to figure out what you are saying. Try proofreading and correcting grammar mistakes if you want anyone to take this seriously.
"Here's something to help you out and get you started."
Not only will this thread be a great case study for some psychology professors and future professional practice courses, it will also be an illustrative example for English professors.
or maybe someone at the theater or a design professional pissed Balkins off? he spent the last couple years pretending to be a professional and in his dubios effort to prove himself as such he has thrown anyone associated with the theater under the bus.......... Now the local taxpayer will the flip the bill for an investigation. kind of like calling the coast guard to search for a lost boat out at sea that never existed in the first place.....so Rick you have added another option for pressing charges against you. What is your IQ?
May 6, 16 5:15 pm ·
·
While in fact the garage door is 10-ft. in height, it actually doesn't change the pilaster height.
While there is 48.5 bricks tall/ There is a sloping grade on the exterior. In any case, there is 3 bricks rows in the pilaster above the door opening. This supports a pilaster that is 128" +/- an inch or two. It will still support my section drawing of the building. It will still support a height of 19'-10".
Exterior wall height to overhead interior finish would be 19'-8 3/4". Even if the ground sloped down to the middle of about 2". It is 19'-10 3/4". So even then we are riding along another inch to the height. 19'-11 and even 20'-0" to the mark is still exempt.
I'm still confident that the building is still exempt even though it is a borderline case.
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
poop can you imagine a review exam with Balkins? you would eat up your entire window of time on one little thing like a door. you would get so discouraged you would not build anything. shit, Balkins you could be top examiner in NYC! starting salary is like $70k with benefits and the more you say NO the better! again, invoicing on career advise.
Rick your tenacity is not in building design or architecture - you cannot be tenacious in sticking with those things because you've never done them in the first place. You are tenacious in sticking to untenable positions. You're also tenacious in staying in the attic decades past the point when most baby birds would have been successfully shoved out of their nests. Your tenacity isn't a good thing, it's a character flaw.
I can imagine the scenario that led to your involvement in this project:
Theater Committee Member 1: "So the building permit application says we need to submit a plan showing square feet and exits. I'm thinking we can measure it and draw it ourselves."
Theater Committe Member 2: "I was talking to Bob at the Grand Weasel Lodge last night, and he mentioned his son little Richie wants to be an architect. Maybe Little Richie could look over the plan."
TCM 1: "Um... yeah, I know little Richie... well I think we can probably draw this up ourselves on some graph paper, or maybe Joanie can draw it so it looks more professional."
TCM 2: "Well... the thing is... I sort of already told Bob that we're always looking for volunteers, and he was so excited to get little Richie out of his hair for while... couldn't we find something for him to do? Let him weigh in on the shape of the snack bar or something?"
TCM 1: "I guess we can put a paint brush in his hand and point him at a wall that won't be seen much, and thank him in the program... but you get to supervise him, and don't let him measure anything!..."
... and for Richard it was only the smallest hop in logic from "I painted part of the backstage hallway" to "I designed the whole project and if it wasn't for me the theater would be out of business."
The irony is that because of Richard the theater may be in trouble now.
Balkins refuses to move.
Because Balkins is horrible at making financial calculations.
"I MAKE ZERO DOLLARS HERE AND FREE RENT, WAY BETTER THAN $45k and $15K RENT."
Balkins, I'm paying my student loans off within 10 years (not 500), and have approx. 15k in rent a year (yes I know I should just buy at this point) and live comfortably.
Then again living comfortably for me is basically being able to do what I want to do within reason without having to worry about money, so its probably about expectations too. No champagne wishes and kangaroo dreams.
anyone hear any follow up from Fire, Building Department, or OBAE yet? I'm going to check in today with Lisa.
If you haven't noticed, even businesses with one single door in and out opens into the building but also is exit.
Rick whether the door must swing out is not your call to make. It's based on occupant load. When this building was an appliance store the door would have been allowed by code to swing in.
That is because the Use Group would have been B, so the occupant count would have been determined on 100 square feet per person for areas where people are expected to be on a regular basis (offices, corridors, appliance show room, bathroom, etc.) and 300 square feet per person in areas like stock rooms, closets, and mechanical spaces. This building is approximately 4000 square feet, so even if the whole thing were calculated at 100 square feet per person the maximum occupant count would have been 40 - so the doors would have been allowed to swing in.
Now that the building is Use Group A the doors are not allowed by code to swing in. It doesn't matter what you prefer, if you put a theater in this building you have to make the doors swing out. If there were a municipal requirement that doors not swing out into sidewalks of a certain width, or not swing out by more than some specified amount, then your choices would be either to not locate the door in that face of the building, or to recess the doors (you mention you considered that, but it didn't happen), or to not put a theater in this building.
It seems like you make decisions based on what you've seen in other existing buildings, without taking into consideration all the nuances of the code, nor the possibility that some other buildings you see may also be in violation of code.
"Egress doors can swing in, if your occupancy is less than 50 people. So many internet architects!"
If you trust Balkins' napkin math, the occupant load is 200
Oregon law requires that all building projects exceeding 4,000 square feet or 20 feet in height be designed by a registered architect. The only structures exempt from this requirement are:
Even if we take Balkins at his word regarding measurements, there was nevertheless an occupancy change, which would violate Oregon law, according to http://orbae.com/complaint-information/
Here's the complaint form:
http://orbae.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Complaint-Form-Non-Licensee.pdf
You seem to be justifying a lot of things now by saying you will go back and tell them what they need to do now to fix it. You've mentioned a few times now that you're going to tell them to put up a sign limiting occupants backstage to 49, and you're going to tell them to add a door, and you're going to tell them to add bathrooms. A few pages back you posted a long list of proclamations that you're going to make (no pyrotechnics, they must sprinkler under the stage, they must remove shelving from the egress route from the lighting booth, etc.)
1. The act of making that list is practicing architecture without a license. 2. You have no relationship to this building now that can make any of that list or remedial measures happen. Just because you were the building designer (assuming for the moment that that's true) doesn't mean you retain any authority to tell them what to do to it now. You can report unsafe conditions, accessibility and code violations to the AHJ, as can all of us, but your role is no different than ours. None of us can enforce a specific list of changes that the building must make. The people at city hall seem to know you as a resident crackpot. The people at OBAE are also familiar with you and have a similar reaction to your name. The people at the theater don't seem to recall you. Just who is going to follow your list of recommendations?
"If you trust Balkins' napkin math, the occupant load is 200"
That's Balkins' napkin math re just the seating capacity. He also says there is typically a performance cast of approximately 30. There are also box office personnel and lighting personnel (total of 4-5 according to the article in which they complain of all bumping into each other), snack bar staff, souvenir stand staff, stage manager, stage hands... There are some photos of the theater at or beyond full capacity that are downright scary - no visible clear circulation space anywhere, and what appear to be candles on the tables.
Dangermouse, unfortunately the complaint form is in conflict with the actual law, which says that buildings under 4000 square feet and 20 feet in interior height are exempt even if there is a change of use.
That is why everyone is arguing over the interior height.
Bloopox,
Yes, it's out-swing. The drawings was schematics NOT permit drawings. It should NEVER be submitted as such. Considering I also had on the drawings two out-swinging doors proposed in the first place, those doors was proposed to be an entrance that may double as an exit. We had already switch to out-swing. Chill guys.
I had already got that in 2008. I wasn't worried about the swing orientation on the schematic because if we reduce the exit doors, the doors would be set to an out-swing.
Two exit doors are required when the occupant load is 500 or less. When there is 49 or less, one exit is permitted IF the means of egress travel distance does not exceed 75-ft.
1. The act of making that list is practicing architecture without a license. 2. You have no relationship to this building now that can make any of that list or remedial measures happen. Just because you were the building designer (assuming for the moment that that's true) doesn't mean you retain any authority to tell them what to do to it now. You can report unsafe conditions, accessibility and code violations to the AHJ, as can all of us, but your role is no different than ours. None of us can enforce a specific list of changes that the building must make. The people at city hall seem to know you as a resident crackpot. The people at OBAE are also familiar with you and have a similar reaction to your name. The people at the theater don't seem to recall you. Just who is going to follow your list of recommendations?
I was being somewhat facetious. Of course, I can't force them without taking it to the AHJ and getting the pressure put on it.
Not everyone at the ASOC necessarily knows me. There are some new people there as well. 8-9 years had passed by.
Rick nearly all buildings end up needing more exit doors than the minimum stated in code, because other code issues require them. The rule about number of spaces that can be passed through on the way to an exit is one reason (that's been covered earlier in this thread). Another is dead-end corridor length limits. Another is proximity of exits to each other - you may have additional code violations here on that one because of the diagonal rule on the main theater space. You also can't count the door at the back of the stage as an exit from the theater because none of the stairs are compliant egress components - not to mention that the backstage corridor is jammed full of combustible crap, isn't rated, has an illegal electrical panel, and doors with insufficient clearances....
I completely understand that it can be hard to know what you don't know... Perhaps Rick should do a little experiment and take a couple ARE practice exams, they are easy to find online, and see how you do.
So Rick here is another big problem: The door at the back of the stage doesn't meet code for egress and, based on the dimensions that you provided, the distance between the remaining two doors (measured nearest edge of opening to nearest edge of opening in a straight line, per code), is a little less than 42 feet. The overall diagonal of the main theater space is approximately 85'-4". This means that the two exits are too close together. Code requires that they be no less than half the diagonal apart in a sprinklered building, or they do not count as separate exits.
So you've got 200+ people with one exit. I would think the fire marshal would be all over that.
Here's what I don't get...why the fuck are you arguing that you designed this building if there is no record of you doing so? It's clearly a death trap. It's not a very nice building. I don't get it. If I were you, I would deny any involvement and be grateful that my name wasn't on any legal docs. Even if you had minor involvement, why the hell would you want to acknowledge that in light of all of these code infractions?
has the Internet Architectural Justice League stepped back to consider that perhaps their own ethics are getting trampled in the Balkans Theater Crusade?
let this dumpster fire burn out already
#K4L
Bloopox,
Rick nearly all buildings end up needing more exit doors than the minimum stated in code, because other code issues require them. The rule about number of spaces that can be passed through on the way to an exit is one reason (that's been covered earlier in this thread). Another is dead-end corridor length limits. Another is proximity of exits to each other - you may have additional code violations here on that one because of the diagonal rule on the main theater space. You also can't count the door at the back of the stage as an exit from the theater because none of the stairs are compliant egress components - not to mention that the backstage corridor is jammed full of combustible crap, isn't rated, has an illegal electrical panel, and doors with insufficient clearances....
Some of those photos that you are looking at are years after the design.
You are also over counting how many exits need to have an "accessible means of egress". Since the stage would be consisting of the same individuals that would be in the back stage, they would be the same occupants. Steps do qualify as a mean of egress. As for accessible means of egress from the stage to the main stage floor, there is an issue there. The audience isn't suppose to go up the stage and out the back.
However, it is an exit from the stage for those on the stage as well as the steps. As for doors with insufficient clearances. We have a 42" wide door on the east side. That's ADA compliant as far as width goes. ADA requires 36" wide doors but 32" clearance.
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/background/adaag#4.13
I don't know what the clearance issue is?
First off, if your scope of work is to make the space functional, your job isn't to intentionally trigger every damn structural / seismic code requirements. That can be a difference between a $100,000 project and $750,000 project. One door or new opening can trigger all that. You are talking about going beyond the minimum of code.
With the diagonal being approximately ~85'. The requirement of code where sprinkler is used, requires doors not be less than 1/3 the diagonal. That would be no less than 28'-4".
Aside from the double-doors along the front which was changed out into a single door. If you start looking at the code requirements when 3 or more exits are provided, only two of them need to meet the so called remoteness test.
What's the issue?
Dead-end corridor could be an issue depending on the building codes authorized to be in use. IEBC was being authorized by the building official. The 2006 IEBC allowed I believe, 35-ft. for non-sprinklered and 70-ft. for sprinklered depending on which provisions being used. In addition, the space was mainly for 49 occupant limit. They were looking at 30 actors plus maybe 3 individuals who maybe make-up artists helping those who are not so inclined putting the make up themselves. The actors puts their own make-up on themselves. If they are exceeding design or going out of compliance with design, there isn't much one can do.
As for the clutter of combustible crap at the corridor was not in the design. It was suppose to be a corridor and maybe a mirror on the wall to quickly check make-up but in an emergency, you get out of the building. It's not something you just stay still and do nothing.
Perhaps, I relied on what the client tells me more than I should. Over the years, I had become more cynical of the client. Again, I can't control how clients end up doing things after the project. I can't assume what the client will use the space in the future.
So Rick here is another big problem: The door at the back of the stage doesn't meet code for egress and, based on the dimensions that you provided, the distance between the remaining two doors (measured nearest edge of opening to nearest edge of opening in a straight line, per code), is a little less than 42 feet. The overall diagonal of the main theater space is approximately 85'-4". This means that the two exits are too close together. Code requires that they be no less than half the diagonal apart in a sprinklered building, or they do not count as separate exits.
Since the actual door on the front is in the middle, which I assume you measured from.
Did you look at:
1015.2.1 Two exits or exit access doorways. Where two exits or exit access doorways are required from any portion of the exit access, the exit doors or exit access doorways shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building or area to be served measured in a straight line between exit doors or exit access doorways. Interlocking or scissor stairs shall be counted as one exit stairway.
Exceptions:
1. Where exit enclosures are provided as a portion of the required exit and are interconnected by a 1-hour fire-resistance-rated corridor conforming to the requirements of Section 1018, the required exit separation shall be measured along the shortest direct line of travel within the corridor.
2. Where a building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the separation distance of the exit doors or exit access doorways shall not be less than one-third of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served.
Bloopox,
Are you reading the 2007 Oregon Structural Specialty Code?
If you are using a later code edition, that doesn't apply to the situation at the time. Back in 2007, neither you or I could know what the code changes would be two code editions later or even three code editions later for the next edition of the codes. Think man, think. I can't assume to know that, nor can you.
jla-x,
Here's what I don't get...why the fuck are you arguing that you designed this building if there is no record of you doing so? It's clearly a death trap. It's not a very nice building. I don't get it. If I were you, I would deny any involvement and be grateful that my name wasn't on any legal docs. Even if you had minor involvement, why the hell would you want to acknowledge that in light of all of these code infractions?
You would deny it even if you had major involvement. Wouldn't you?
Rick I didn't say anything at all about "accessible means of egress". Of course steps can be a means of egress. Your steps don't count as a means of egress because your steps are too narrow, and don't have compliant handrails. That door shouldn't even have an exit sign in the house, unless the stairs are brought up to code (it's very dangerous as-is - if one person falls while exiting in an emergency it can cause a stampede situation.) The more you argue about this the more it becomes apparent that you're not thoroughly reading the code. You find something that you think supports your version of things and stop right there, without finding the other 5 things that do not support your version of things. The building is not equipped throughout with a sprinkler - you already said the under-stage storage area is not.
And yes I am reading the correct version of the code that was in force at the time - though actually it hasn't been established that they ever got a C of O, since you seem to be saying they were allowed to open for one summer on a conditional basis and somehow just fell off the AHJ's radar. If that's the case then they may be required to bring everything that was done in 2007/2008 up to current code to get the C of O if the state and/or city investigates this now.
epic Kangeroo court here.
Court is in session!!!
Man I really loved watching that show. Don't besmirch the Captain's good name by associating him with this dumpster-ist of all dumpster fires.
Bloopox,
In the schematics, handrails wasn't shown. Of course there is handles. There's handrails on the wall side.
The steps are 3-ft. wide.
For stage, you don't make the egress for 100% of the occupant load of the building.
You aren't looking at the actual stairs to the stage.
Even in schematic design, the handrails would be along the exterior wall.
The builder made the steps tread depth shorter than what I was calling for. In some photos, there seems to be be some possible indication that they raised the stage in some ways. I had 12" tread depth so I think they might have done some stuff that just is wonky and I have to see what they did. When the stage was built in 2008, it had 6" risers and tread depth of 12". Uniform riser height. It seems in some plays or whatever, they raised added like 6" or so inches to the height of the stage. I'm going to have to see what they did. If you look closely through photos of the stage carefully, you'll see some change in height of the stage to support the stage. There is something wonky going on that was never permitted or in the design specs. This raises concerns to me. Even on the site, we called for the tread depth of 12". I always went along the rule of uniform riser height (to maximum extent feasible and within 1/8" (typically) maximum variance. I never call for risers over 7" typically. I typically call for riser heights of 6" maybe 6-1/2" as maybe needed but never over 7". Tread depth of 11 or 12". The sweet spot in riser-tread sum should be 18".
Maybe 11.5" tread depth is acceptable to me for riser height of 6" or 6.25" or 6-1/2 inches.
That's how I typically roll with this stuff. Even then, a tread depth of 10" for 6 or 7" riser height is exceptional.
I always called for uniform riser height for each flight of stairs.
Rick for an egress the handrail is NOT allowed to be on only one side, and the one handrail that you do have doesn't have compliant extensions. If it has a handrail on only one side then it is not a compliant egress component. There are exceptions for stage stairs that allow them to not have handrails, but those stairs cannot be part of an egress. I am looking at the photos of the actual stairs - both the movable stage stairs, and the permanent stair off to the side that has the one handrail. 3 feet isn't wide enough for egress stairs in this situation either. You go ahead and keep arguing. I'm all done with this thread now.
And yes I am reading the correct version of the code that was in force at the time - though actually it hasn't been established that they ever got a C of O, since you seem to be saying they were allowed to open for one summer on a conditional basis and somehow just fell off the AHJ's radar. If that's the case then they may be required to bring everything that was done in 2007/2008 up to current code to get the C of O if the state and/or city investigates this now.
This is why some of these additional code compliance issues you are seeing occurred. Some of that occurred after July 2008. Bloopox, I will be talking to the B.O. about that.
I asked the client explicitly if they had got their certificate of occupancy just before the first show that I was there at. I didn't get a chance to walk through the entire building just before the show. The client said they got their C.O.
I probably should have checked up with the B.O. on that.
Bloopox,
Actually there is on both sides of the stairs to the stage.
How wide is a stage egress of 49 individuals? Even 51 individuals. 51 x 0.3 = 15.3. Minimum stair width is 36". Remember, there is TWO egresses for the audience that does not involve the stairs.
Both of which meets code requirement for over 400 occupant load let alone 200.
In an emergency such as a fire, do you think they will be egressing up the stage? The entrance/exit between stage and back stage is for people on the stage or in the backstage. They are not for the audience. Why would they go up that way when they can go out an exit that is most likely to be functioning given in location in a CMU wall.
you're like a character straight from a kafka novel, balkins.
I too spoke with Lisa today, who very emphatically repeated that you had no involvement on the project, you produced no documents for the city or the client, and had no input or say into the design process. She didn't know if you were a volunteer or not, but she was quite clear that you had zero input on the design.
Wtf is wrong with you?
i assume that prepared drawings were submitted? Who is the responsible design professional?
http://s32.postimg.org/wzrbcjz45/59962_442158863677_7843110_n_Copy.jpg
There is two handrails. One on left and one on right hand side.
Two narrow for what?
The stage and the stairs on the stage is for serving an occupant load of less than 50.
This must be causing quite the confusion at the building department. I bet they've never had a situation before where a person claims to be responsible for hundreds of life safety problems in a building that they didn't design. Rick are you one of those people who feels compelled to confess to murders you didn't commit?
Did you get her number, Balkins?
I joined late so perhaps I'm not following correctly but: if that stair is part of your egress strategy for the audience then it has to be 44 inches wide minimum because you have to assume half the audience is using it in addition to cast and staff. It sounds like it does have to be part of your egress strategy since the building isn't fully sprinklered including under the stage. I don't see the 1'-11" handrail extensions but the photo is dark so I'm not sure.
The constant blurring of singular and plural case on this thread is likely the least of the problems here but it's driving me batty.
Richard, you can have my copy of Sim City. I don't need it. Post your address here and I'll send it.
kdjt,
i believe that the 1'-11" extension was an ADA requirement that has been relaxed to 12".
I still use the longer just to avoid fights with inspectors though.
Agreed Donna. I tried to give Balkins some good advice in post #2 of this epic. It wouldn't have prevented any of this tragedy, but at least it would have made it easier to follow with regard to the English language.
"I can't get more than a few lines into each paragraph of your invitation before I get tired of trying to figure out what you are saying. Try proofreading and correcting grammar mistakes if you want anyone to take this seriously.
"Here's something to help you out and get you started."
Not only will this thread be a great case study for some psychology professors and future professional practice courses, it will also be an illustrative example for English professors.
or maybe someone at the theater or a design professional pissed Balkins off? he spent the last couple years pretending to be a professional and in his dubios effort to prove himself as such he has thrown anyone associated with the theater under the bus.......... Now the local taxpayer will the flip the bill for an investigation. kind of like calling the coast guard to search for a lost boat out at sea that never existed in the first place.....so Rick you have added another option for pressing charges against you. What is your IQ?
While in fact the garage door is 10-ft. in height, it actually doesn't change the pilaster height.
While there is 48.5 bricks tall/ There is a sloping grade on the exterior. In any case, there is 3 bricks rows in the pilaster above the door opening. This supports a pilaster that is 128" +/- an inch or two. It will still support my section drawing of the building. It will still support a height of 19'-10".
Exterior wall height to overhead interior finish would be 19'-8 3/4". Even if the ground sloped down to the middle of about 2". It is 19'-10 3/4". So even then we are riding along another inch to the height. 19'-11 and even 20'-0" to the mark is still exempt.
I'm still confident that the building is still exempt even though it is a borderline case.
"though it is a borderline case" RWCB rubs up against self-awareness.
While there are 48.5 bricks [...] In any case, there are 3 brick rows [...]
FIFY Ricky.
the balkins method explained
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.