Richard you've told us yourself that at least three architects turned down this project, and that part of your justification for having taken it on is that you felt that if nobody else did it then the theater would be homeless. This is not a matter of competition between architects and building designers. There's no element of competition in this story at all. The whole problem is life safety. You've proven over 20+ pages that you don't understand codes. All through this thread architects have been educating you on codes and even basic terms that you did not know when you designed this.
I told you many pages back, just as JBeaumont told you last night, that there are drawings stamped by an engineer that conclusively establish that the interior height of the building exceeds 20'-2 1/2". We don't have any reason to lie about that, and the engineer had nothing to be gained by getting that wrong, and everything to be lost. If they don't get it right then their own work won't meet code. Those drawings were done in order to design an adjoining addition, and the required fire wall between the existing and new buildings and new code-compliant higher parapets for the back and front of the existing building (the latter of which you should have designed in your project, as they were required then too.) The engineer's drawings match exactly everything that I have seen in all of the photos - both those posted by the theater on its site and its social media, and those posted by you throughout this thread. You seem to think that an engineer who measured the building, plus everybody in this thread, are lying to you. This is delusional and absurdly self-centered.
This is not an issue of architects lying to you. The issue is that you don't have the education or even the arithmetic ability to take on this type of project safely. This building has design errors that pose a risk of injury and death to hundreds or thousands of people every week. You seem to care much more about defending your wrong math than about the fact that you personally, Richard Balkins, through your own personal gross ineptitude, have endangered everyone who ever enters this building.
Once the permits are issued, it kind of ties my hand from just changing it at my whim without some issues.
Not true. In a nearby community, where there was a construction boon, 500 dwelling units, by various architects and multiple builders were improperly permitted. The use group was improperly proscribed for the construction type. Most of these units had been issued a CO. Many had been sold, some had been sold more than once. The State came in, revoked everyone's CO and required the addition of sprinkler systems and/or fire separations.
Our buildings were all ok. But our clients were also always complaining that we were requiring things "no one else is doing"
My point: a REAL designer has real responsibility. A real designer would understand that the clients cant just do what he wants and, "oh, well". You must do your job.
You say its art. Problem is your art is finger paints and macaroni collages
For measuring with tape, you need a tall ladder which I doubt will be set up by the client to run a direct measurement in a straight line. I doubt the engineer is going to stand on the truss chords...
When I field measured, I had got about ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. I was on a ladder to do that during demolition going on.
Rick first of all nobody should need a ladder at all to measure something this height with a tape measure. Anybody who actually knows how to use a tape measure can stand on the floor and measure straight up far in excess of 12 feet. Do you not know how to stand on the floor and double a tape back on itself for vertical stability and snake it straight up from the floor? I thought you said you did carpentry and restoration in community college. Somebody should send this thread to whatever regional accreditation entity is responsible for keeping that school in existence.
I think you've finally identified exactly the problem right here, and it's got nothing to do with counting bricks or CMU. You don't know how to use a tape measure. Simple as that. You got ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. The engineer got 11'-6" for that same measurement.
Rick actually admitted in a thread a while back that he didn't know how to use a tape measure. He even asked another member about the "subtle nuances" of using one in order to derive the length and width of a rectangular shaped room.
As for obtaining the engineer's drawing set: they're public record. You don't know enough to understand that and easily get them yourself, and so you're alleging some sort of impropriety on the engineer's or architects' parts. Obtaining the drawings yourself is even easier than correct operation of a tape measure. Your failure to do so is further proof of your incompetence.
May 21, 16 1:35 pm ·
·
ummm rich you just thretened to kill someone
Olaf,
Ha, you are interpreting it that way. Does it really have to result in that? No. It's not what the words says.
the real story is that the building is in fact not up to code, per the fire inspector. unfortunately, you having been down there once during construction doesn't matter, because you apparently didn't do a checklist for substantial completion of the project. probably, because dont know what those things are. re-affirming, once again, the importance of licensure when dealing with public health and welfare
Lets see, they jumped the gun with the permit process without an actual construction document and specifications. You have engineers doing mechanical and fire sprinklers and not being provided the drawings from those engineers, it's kind of difficult to do a check list process when the client and contractor is interfering with the whole coordination process. I never got to do a full walk through, check list work.
Somewhere in the process, they never bothered with it. They never finalized the permit process, either.
May 21, 16 1:38 pm ·
·
JeromeS wrote:
Once the permits are issued, it kind of ties my hand from just changing it at my whim without some issues.
Not true. In a nearby community, where there was a construction boon, 500 dwelling units, by various architects and multiple builders were improperly permitted. The use group was improperly proscribed for the construction type. Most of these units had been issued a CO. Many had been sold, some had been sold more than once. The State came in, revoked everyone's CO and required the addition of sprinkler systems and/or fire separations.
Our buildings were all ok. But our clients were also always complaining that we were requiring things "no one else is doing"
My point: a REAL designer has real responsibility. A real designer would understand that the clients cant just do what he wants and, "oh, well". You must do your job.
You say its art. Problem is your art is finger paints and macaroni collages
In the REAL world, as a designer or architect, you don't have the authority in law or otherwise to tell contractors or clients what to do. They can just flat out ignore you and marginalize you, lie to you or not tell full truths about things. The only authorities that can issue stop work order is the public officials with that authority. Only they have the 'police' power. If complaints goes to deaf ears, it doesn't matter how much noise you or I make.
In the REAL world, as a designer or architect, you don't have the authority in law or otherwise to tell contractors or clients what to do. They can just flat out ignore you and marginalize you, lie to you or not tell full truths about things.
Wrong.If an architect's client decides to ignore the architect's recommendations and do something that violates code, in fact the architect is required by law to report that situation immediately to the code official. The law states that failure to do so is a criminal offense punishable by a fine (ranging from $1000 to $50,000 in various states) and/or a 1-year prison sentence.
May 21, 16 1:53 pm ·
·
Sponty,
As for obtaining the engineer's drawing set: they're public record. You don't know enough to understand that and easily get them yourself, and so you're alleging some sort of impropriety on the engineer's or architects' parts. Obtaining the drawings yourself is even easier than correct operation of a tape measure. Your failure to do so is further proof of your incompetence.
They are not because those drawings are NOT filed with the city. I can obtain it if it was in the permit files. It is not in the permit files. The only drawings supposedly prepared by an engineer is the fire sprinkler drawings supposedly prepared by Interface Engineering.
They are not public record. I have told you that they are not in permit file so it seems that you are not telling the truth about how you obtained them. I have looked at everything in the permit folder all the way back to the 1980s.
I am telling you the truth. The drawings are public record. I said nothing about the city's permit files. I am thousands of miles away, and I was able to obtain the drawings from public records. You're being extraordinarily stupid today, even for you.
May 21, 16 2:01 pm ·
·
Rick first of all nobody should need a ladder at all to measure something this height with a tape measure. Anybody who actually knows how to use a tape measure can stand on the floor and measure straight up far in excess of 12 feet. Do you not know how to stand on the floor and double a tape back on itself for vertical stability and snake it straight up from the floor? I thought you said you did carpentry and restoration in community college. Somebody should send this thread to whatever regional accreditation entity is responsible for keeping that school in existence.
I think you've finally identified exactly the problem right here, and it's got nothing to do with counting bricks or CMU. You don't know how to use a tape measure. Simple as that. You got ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. The engineer got 11'-6" for that same measurement.
Yes, but when a ladder happened to be there then yes, I used the ladder. First off, unless the tape measure is new, you may not even have 10' stand off. In addition, I measured so that the 'tip' was resting touching the floor and reading the measurements at the bottom side of the bottom chord. I read the measurements where my eye level is about that of which I am reading the measurement from. Otherwise, I could be off by a lot. In other words, I try to be as close as possible to where the measurement is being made. I don't do that tape folding crap, either. The tape measure I had at the time would not stay on the bottom chord very well. On the other end, you are trying to get the exact measurement from the blade of the tape measure. You need to get the main body/case/ reel of the tape out of the way and get an exact measurement. I had actually did that and after a number of attempt had successfully get a measurement reading without the tape falling off the chord and I had to subtract the thickness of the chord for the height from bottom of chord to floor. I double checked the measurement by being on the ladder.
How much did the engineer actually field measured and how much was it derived in CAD after you drew it in CAD.
May 21, 16 2:21 pm ·
·
Spontaneous,
EXACTLY, where did you get it ?
No game play. EXACTLY where did you get it? Who did you get it from?
May 21, 16 2:26 pm ·
·
Just so you know, I had been to Andy Stricker's website. It's not there.
That's about as equally weird as if I said "I don't do that pants zipping crap". Sure I could wear elastic-waisted MC Hammer pants, or sailor pants with a flap and buttons, but I'd be throwing out the best method of pants closure. What are your ethical or religious objections to properly operating a tape measure from the ground? There is a small margin of error associated with being on the ground looking up at the marks, and there's another for the curve in a doubled tape - but at most these might cumulatively put you off by 1/4" - no way it accounts for an 8 inch discrepancy.
What you're describing above about needing multiple attempts to get this measurement, and having to subtract the chord thickness, and the box of the tape being in the way and so forth - it's all a description of somebody who doesn't know how to use a tape measure. There's no way this needs more than 2 attempts to get right and verify - with no subtraction or other arithmetic of any type involved. And no ladder.
I haven't seen the engineer's drawings, but if the difference between you and them is 8 inches then it's most likely because one of you is off by a block course. Given your history with Hammer-Pants math and measuring methods all my money is on the engineer for accuracy.
"Hammer-Pants math" just became my new favorite phrase.
May 21, 16 3:47 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
You don't fold a measuring tape. Especially the metal ones. Good way to ruin the measuring tape by metal fatique.
In addition, you can be off a 1/4" each time. That's besides the point. The simple answer is, he didn't measure the truss to the floor. The drawing is done in CAD, right? Right?
He may not have actually field measured that. He may have or an employee of his may have measured some but not all. Don't you even look at the photos at all?
If the garage door opening is 10-ft. That's 120 inches. 120 divided by 8 is 15. This would be equivalent of 15 ROWS of CMUs of 8" nominal height. This is what you got there.
The brick pilasters is ONE CMU row taller. Each truss is at the same elevation within a small fraction of an inch. Construction tolerance. Okay.
The photos are the REAL building not the drawings. You have the photos, use your brain for yourself. Okay. None of this, political bullshit. Look and see for your own eyes.
I was wrong with some numbers earlier because I had a migraine headache from all the circular back and forth argument, a tooth ache and regular distractions at home. After awhile, I get fatigued by all the fucking drama here.
10 ft. door. 10-ft. is 120 inches. RIGHT? 120 divide by 8 is 15. 120 divide by 15 is 8. Goes with the units of CMUs. 3 bricks with mortar joint is aligned to the 8" interval. Average physical brick height is 2-1/4" thick. The mortar is slight variable. The brick mason just made sure every 3 brick rows on pilaster aligned with the CMU. Easy to achieve when he mortar is wet. We both know that obviously.
You look at the photo and you will see the top of a window that was at the top portion of the garage door opening as another photo that I have would show you. The pilasters are only one CMU row taller (or 3 BRICK rows taller).
That would put the the pilaster at about 128 inches. Actually it's about 129.5 inches. This can give room for about a +/- 1/4".
Do a little math 129.5 inches divide by 12 for feet & inches. That's 10.7916666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 feet but lets convert them to the feet and inch format. That is 10'-9 1/2". Plug a way with your calculator.
0.7916666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 ft converted to inches (multiply by 12) is 9.5 inches. 9-1/2 inches.
The truss bottom chord is about 8" (7.5" to be reasonably precise within +/- 1/4".) Since the actual width between the CMU walls are approximately 464 inches. Since the truss is a gable truss peaking in the middle. So you divide the span in half for calculating the truss rise from the TOP of the bottom chord to the peak. That would be 232 INCHES.
5:12 is a ratio of 0.4166666666666666666666666666666666666666666 in decimal form.
The rise should be 0.416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 of the run. 0.416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 of the run of 232 inches is 96.666666666666666666666666666666666667 inches.
That's 8'- 0 2/3"
Add the bottom chord height of say... 8" while we are at it. It's actually about a 1/2 shorter than that.
That's about 104.6666666666666666666666666666666666 inches. That's 8'-8 2/3". Add that to 10'-9.5" we have earlier is would result in decimal form, 19.51388888888888888888888888888888888888888888888. That's just shy of 19'-6 3/16".
The highest interior finish is an additional 2-5/8 inches. Remember the 2x4 purlins (actual dimensions being 1.5" x 3.5") is at an angle and the two purlins at the ridge form a V shape with corners abutting each other enclosing a kite shape (in cross-section) concealed space. So to the highest actual interior elevation is 2-5/8" higher than the peak of the top chords of the truss. That would be about 19'-8 3/4". So even if I have some additional room for another inch or two. I'd still be ~19'-9" to 19'-10".
Balkins, if you tried to measure such a high space without folding the tape you're an idiot. The contractor and anyone around must have chuckled at home stupid you looked. But that's typical for you. You have no real experience. Just blind ignorant ideology. Like a religious zealot.
May 21, 16 4:07 pm ·
·
What you're describing above about needing multiple attempts to get this measurement, and having to subtract the chord thickness, and the box of the tape being in the way and so forth - it's all a description of somebody who doesn't know how to use a tape measure
That was about 9 years ago. The measuring tape tip slipping of the truss chord. I always do straight direct linear measurements with measuring tapes and I measured more than once. There was an additional reason for measuring multiple points along the truss to verify field conditions INCLUDING the slope of the grade. Additional reasons included checking spring-back ( reduction of deflection ) of the truss when the somewhat heavy drop-down ceiling structure was removed.
Those are just among a number of basic reasons. It also verifies prior measurements.
Those were mostly on a bunch of field notes that I had many years ago.
You don't fold a measuring tape. Especially the metal ones. Good way to ruin the measuring tape by metal fatique.
Rick you do fold a measuring tape. That is how you use a measuring tape. That's how it's designed to be used. That is how you use one to measure vertically, or to measure a long horizontal or any other dimension for which you need the tape to be stiffer than it would be if you just poked it out into space without folding it.
Measuring tape 101: Measuring tapes are curved across the width of the tape. They're designed that way both so that they maintain more stiffness than if they were flat, and so that they can be doubled back on themselves without developing creases. Unless you fold it completely flat and deliberately put a crease in it you're not going to have any issue with metal fatigue. The fold is a small curve that slides up and down the length of the tape at your will, and does not leave any creases or damage of any sort.
If you use the tape right and are experienced in doing so then you will not have 1/4" of error. I meant that even you, who don't know how to use the tape properly, couldn't possibly come up with more than 1/4" of error. Anybody doing field measurements should be able to stand on the ground and snake a doubled tape a minimum of 18 feet vertically. If your tape is so old and beat that this is impossible then it's time for a new tape. You don't just take a junk tool to do a professional job.
I did look at the photos and as I've told you before, I counted the bricks individually and there are more than 50 bricks. It also appears to me from the photos that the bottoms of the trusses are much higher than 10'-10". I'm basing this on the scale of other objects and people in the space. I used the same method when I told you that it appeared from photos that the original garage door was 10 feet and not 9 - and it turned out that I was correct and you were not. I'm quite confident that this is also the case in my judgement from the photos that the trusses are more than 11'-0" above the floor, and that you are wrong again. I'm backing this with nearly 30 years of experience in field measuring.
There's really no sense in discussing this any further. If OBAE cares they can send somebody who knows how to operate a tape measure to verify.
The engineers' drawings indicate two field measurements were taken regarding height:
1. The measurement from floor to underside of truss: 11'-6". This was taken inside the building, at an exterior wall. If as you say the floor tapers downward a bit toward the center of the room, then they measured at the shortest possible vertical, and this measurement would be slightly taller in the middle of the room.
2. From the bottom of the truss to the peak of the truss: 8'-8 1/2". This is close to what you say above.
Together that is 20'-2 1/2" from floor to peak of trusses. You keep making the point that the peak of the truss is not even all the way to the underside of the interior ceiling finish - so that would add another couple inches.
If they're right then there is simply one more block than you think, and the building is not exempt. We all understand that you believe you measured correctly and you believe that the engineer measured incorrectly, and you believe that he did not measure what he indicates that he did measure, and you believe he just guesstimated n CAD. But every one of numerous indications in this thread, and others on this site, and on other sites indicates that you don't know how to measure and you don't know how to do math, and therefore that you are very probably the one who is wrong.
I can measure the circumference of a fly's asshole with measuring tape.
May 21, 16 4:51 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
I use what I have at the time.
What you describe is called standout distance. That is typically 9-ft. to 11-ft. Not 18 ft. 13-ft. is among the highest with a FatMax Xtreme and a quote for a Bostitch measuring tape that was at 15'. These exact make/model of tapes weren't available 9 YEARS ago or 10 years ago with that stand-out range. Most of them were in the 8-ft. to 12-ft. range.
It's not that simple to read measurements when there is no interior lighting and the only light source is the light coming through the window bays. Not exactly a clean light source that doesn't wash out your sight with a fuzzy glare that totally kills contrast in vision.
From what I recall, the measurements are printed only on one side of the measuring tapes I had. It was not double-sided.
May 21, 16 5:13 pm ·
·
Sponty,
The engineers' drawings indicate two field measurements were taken regarding height:
1. The measurement from floor to underside of truss: 11'-6". This was taken inside the building, at an exterior wall. If as you say the floor tapers downward a bit toward the center of the room, then they measured at the shortest possible vertical, and this measurement would be slightly taller in the middle of the room.
2. From the bottom of the truss to the peak of the truss: 8'-8 1/2". This is close to what you say above.
Together that is 20'-2 1/2" from floor to peak of trusses. You keep making the point that the peak of the truss is not even all the way to the underside of the interior ceiling finish - so that would add another couple inches.
If they're right then there is simply one more block than you think, and the building is not exempt. We all understand that you believe you measured correctly and you believe that the engineer measured incorrectly, and you believe that he did not measure what he indicates that he did measure, and you believe he just guesstimated n CAD. But every one of numerous indications in this thread, and others on this site, and on other sites indicates that you don't know how to measure and you don't know how to do math, and therefore that you are very probably the one who is wrong.
How tall is the garage door did the engineer claim?
Look at the photo that I posted within the last 24 hours.
How many rows of CMUs is the engineering showing above the garage door to the top of the pilasters.
"Standout distance" is the distance that a tape will remain rigid when stuck out WITHOUT folding it over. That's usually about 10 feet. When you fold it over you should be able to get 20+ feet out of a FatMax when going vertical, and at least 18 feet out of a lighter gage tape. This isn't a new technique or something that needs a 21st century tape measure. I first learned it from my shop teacher in 5th grade (1970s). We had contests to get to the cafeteria ceiling (approximately 19 feet). Most fifth graders could do it, even little girls.
So now you're saying that you aren't sure about your measurements because you couldn't clearly read your tape. Don't you think THAT might explain the discrepancies?
May 21, 16 5:20 pm ·
·
Sponty,
You still get 10-ft. because the tape will fold over every 10-ft. because of gravity effect on it. Those folds over to the ground. Unless you have some anti-gravity device or you elevate yourself to a higher elevation, it doesn't work.
I measured by getting on a ladder and sending the tape and tang to the ground while holding the fucking measuring tape up against the side of the chord in order to be up close to the measuring marks so I can see the marks. This got around the lighting issue. I tried being on the ground and hold the tang on the top of the bottom chord but it was being more nuisance than its worth when the tang slips off. Before I went up on a ladder, I had measured the height of the pilasters by counting the bricks and measuring the brick itself and every three brick rows for every 8-inches.
You still get 10-ft. because the tape will fold over every 10-ft. because of gravity effect on it. Those folds over to the ground. Unless you have some anti-gravity device or you elevate yourself to a higher elevation, it doesn't work.
Ha!!!! You're a total moron. That statement proves you haven't even tried it. The tape does NOT fold over every ten feet. When you fold the tape over you're creating an isosceles triangle with a very tiny upside down base. Because of the curve across the width of the tape this causes the tape to become tighter/stiffer/more rigid when doubled over than when standing out alone.
Seriously Richard, this is how the rest of us measure buildings on a daily basis. I blame your community college, and your home-schooling parents, as much as you for your utter cluelessness. But now that you're becoming aware of the VERY HUGE HOLES in your tiny education, you become responsible for fixing them. You can't do math at even a middle school level. You can't operate the simplest tools that a professional building designer needs to operate.
You're wrong at every turn and never take responsibility for it - it's always some uncontrollable factor: toothache, migraine, poor lighting, too much drama, stupid client, evil contractor, plotting architects, lazy engineers, ramen noodles, temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, old tape measures, short ladders, overbearing fathers, wrong file formats, part-time building officials, biased college administrators, traffic, the AIA, ammonia fumes, gangs of Portland, slave driver employers, unemployment, the IRS, high school girls...
May 21, 16 5:45 pm ·
·
Just so you know, I do in fact from the occassion actually do a little bit of folding to extend a measuring tape up like this guy does: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraiWOUg3VI ) but I only measure so much and so far. While I could do it to get height of the chord, the lighting condition would make it a little be problematic and when there just happened to be a ladder not in use at the time, I took the time to do so.
Just so you know, I do in fact from the occassion actually do a little bit of folding to extend a measuring tape up like this guy does:
Nope. I do not believe you that you've ever had occasion to do that. I don't believe you because above you just said "You don't fold a measuring tape" and claimed it would cause metal fatigue. What I do believe is that you had no clue what any of us were talking about, so you went looking for a YouTube video.
You should probably get your eyes examined too. Most people can read the marks on tape that's at 11'-6" from the floor (your eyes are only about 6 feet below that). There was that huge garage door you could have opened for light too... And flashlights.
May 21, 16 6:00 pm ·
·
Sponty,
Depends on lighting conditions. You don't get the issue. While the bottom chord is relatively easy to achieve. The 20-ft. is not so. Here's the reason, all that light washes out contrast especially when that light flooding your eyes when you are inside a room with no lighting (at the time). Yes, it is possible for that. You realized I did measure the pilasters.
The door on the east side is ONLY about 7' ft. tall. The opening height being about 88" tall. There is ONLY 5 CMU rows above the door to the height of the pilaster. Are you going to tell me that the 42" wide east door is an 8-ft. tall door opening?
Rick, why do you insist your measurements are correct? You didn't design this building. And if it were exempt you have proven that you could design it correctly to begin with. In sum, you have never been qualified to do this work. Quit now. Do something else. Like lead tours of where they filmed the goonies. Or get a job on a fishing boat.
I can see in some of the other pictures of that door that it's cut into a partial row of block. There's approximately a half row of CMU above the door frame. There are 5.5 rows of CMU above it, not 5 rows. Also in your photo we can clearly see that the truss is resting about 2 inches above the nearest row of CMU. So right there you've already put yourself 6 inches above your last batch of Hammer-Pants Math, and only 2 inches at best away from everything you've posted here exactly matching what the engineer's drawings show and what I've been telling you all along. Want to quit now that you've finally proven this is a non-exempt building? Or keep going until we find the other 2 inches?
sample CPBD exam question derived from this thread:
If a door opening on the east wall of an assembly space is 42" wide and 8' tall, the storage under the stage unsprinklered and you can't use a regular tape measure, then what size of hammer pants does a home-schooled Kangaroo wear and what is the ratio of the total number of cross-dressers/transpersons attending the play to the minimum height of a non-exempt structure?
i was on mobile so i couldn't comment, but the part where balkins says that you cannot bend measuring tape because of metal fatigue....man, that was some delicious shit. pure, grade A rick balkins excuse right there
Someday I'd like to do a daily blog with a quote from Balkins. There's years worth of material on archinect alone. Damn, this could be my ticket to retirement. "Shit Balkins says."
+1 Dangermouse ... pure, uncut, grade A, premium, unadulterated Balkins right there.
Rick, you do realize that the way the tape bends when you measure the way that is being described, is the same bending the tape does just to roll up inside the case, right? Think about it. How else could that many feet of tape measure fit inside that little case?
Metal fatigue being what it is, a good way to ruin a tape measure is by using it. Be careful how many times you pull the tape out of the case.
May 22, 16 12:38 am ·
·
Rick, you do realize that the way the tape bends when you measure the way that is being described, is the same bending the tape does just to roll up inside the case, right? Think about it. How else could that many feet of tape measure fit inside that little case?
Ok, I thought he was referring to bending it the opposite direction. Doing so would fatigue the tape considerably.
May 22, 16 3:47 am ·
·
Sponty,
I can see in some of the other pictures of that door that it's cut into a partial row of block. There's approximately a half row of CMU above the door frame. There are 5.5 rows of CMU above it, not 5 rows. Also in your photo we can clearly see that the truss is resting about 2 inches above the nearest row of CMU. So right there you've already put yourself 6 inches above your last batch of Hammer-Pants Math, and only 2 inches at best away from everything you've posted here exactly matching what the engineer's drawings show and what I've been telling you all along. Want to quit now that you've finally proven this is a non-exempt building? Or keep going until we find the other 2 inches?
The top of the door opening is in the 6th CMU row from the top.
The door opening with the header piece or filler block is about 89.5". The original door opening that was about 39" wide and widen to 42" for the new door but the original door opening was a 36" wide x 6'-10" door (approximately). The door to replace was 42" wide x 84" tall. They knocked out some of the CMUs and than partially cut some of the others to support a wider door. This was pre-existing door opening condition. Lets not forget the stem wall is ~26.5" and there is 13 ROWS of CMUs to on top of the stem wall to the height of the pilasters. It comes down to exactly jiving the door but the door is an approximate scale and you can easily.
The door is threshold about where the floor level is at.
From the floor to the bottom of CMU row 9 (or row 12 if you add 3 CMU rows for the concrete foundation wall) is about 89.5 inches. A 7 foot door would fall short. It was possible the original door was 6'-10" then replaced by a 36" wide by 7'-0" tall door and then widen for 42" wide x 7'-0" tall door. Considering there were 3 or more businesses prior to the laundromat business in this building, the doors had been changed out a number of times. It doesn't take much to figure out what happened and how but the header filler block above the door is to fill up the gap between an 84" tall door & frame and the CMU row above.
It supports what I am saying in the CMU units.
May 22, 16 4:32 am ·
·
And if it were exempt you have proven that you could design it correctly to begin with.
Ha, Thank you for what should be considered a compliment.
It appears from photos of the exterior building that that door is actually taller than 7'-0".
Somebody who knows how to use a measuring tape, and has the visual acuity to read the numbers, just needs to go there and measure from floor to highest point of ceiling. Oh wait - the engineer already did that! And he found that it's a non-exempt building!
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
Richard you've told us yourself that at least three architects turned down this project, and that part of your justification for having taken it on is that you felt that if nobody else did it then the theater would be homeless. This is not a matter of competition between architects and building designers. There's no element of competition in this story at all. The whole problem is life safety. You've proven over 20+ pages that you don't understand codes. All through this thread architects have been educating you on codes and even basic terms that you did not know when you designed this.
I told you many pages back, just as JBeaumont told you last night, that there are drawings stamped by an engineer that conclusively establish that the interior height of the building exceeds 20'-2 1/2". We don't have any reason to lie about that, and the engineer had nothing to be gained by getting that wrong, and everything to be lost. If they don't get it right then their own work won't meet code. Those drawings were done in order to design an adjoining addition, and the required fire wall between the existing and new buildings and new code-compliant higher parapets for the back and front of the existing building (the latter of which you should have designed in your project, as they were required then too.) The engineer's drawings match exactly everything that I have seen in all of the photos - both those posted by the theater on its site and its social media, and those posted by you throughout this thread. You seem to think that an engineer who measured the building, plus everybody in this thread, are lying to you. This is delusional and absurdly self-centered.
This is not an issue of architects lying to you. The issue is that you don't have the education or even the arithmetic ability to take on this type of project safely. This building has design errors that pose a risk of injury and death to hundreds or thousands of people every week. You seem to care much more about defending your wrong math than about the fact that you personally, Richard Balkins, through your own personal gross ineptitude, have endangered everyone who ever enters this building.
Once the permits are issued, it kind of ties my hand from just changing it at my whim without some issues.
Not true. In a nearby community, where there was a construction boon, 500 dwelling units, by various architects and multiple builders were improperly permitted. The use group was improperly proscribed for the construction type. Most of these units had been issued a CO. Many had been sold, some had been sold more than once. The State came in, revoked everyone's CO and required the addition of sprinkler systems and/or fire separations.
Our buildings were all ok. But our clients were also always complaining that we were requiring things "no one else is doing"
My point: a REAL designer has real responsibility. A real designer would understand that the clients cant just do what he wants and, "oh, well". You must do your job.
You say its art. Problem is your art is finger paints and macaroni collages
For measuring with tape, you need a tall ladder which I doubt will be set up by the client to run a direct measurement in a straight line. I doubt the engineer is going to stand on the truss chords...
When I field measured, I had got about ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. I was on a ladder to do that during demolition going on.
Rick first of all nobody should need a ladder at all to measure something this height with a tape measure. Anybody who actually knows how to use a tape measure can stand on the floor and measure straight up far in excess of 12 feet. Do you not know how to stand on the floor and double a tape back on itself for vertical stability and snake it straight up from the floor? I thought you said you did carpentry and restoration in community college. Somebody should send this thread to whatever regional accreditation entity is responsible for keeping that school in existence.
I think you've finally identified exactly the problem right here, and it's got nothing to do with counting bricks or CMU. You don't know how to use a tape measure. Simple as that. You got ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. The engineer got 11'-6" for that same measurement.
As for obtaining the engineer's drawing set: they're public record. You don't know enough to understand that and easily get them yourself, and so you're alleging some sort of impropriety on the engineer's or architects' parts. Obtaining the drawings yourself is even easier than correct operation of a tape measure. Your failure to do so is further proof of your incompetence.
ummm rich you just thretened to kill someone
Olaf,
Ha, you are interpreting it that way. Does it really have to result in that? No. It's not what the words says.
the real story is that the building is in fact not up to code, per the fire inspector. unfortunately, you having been down there once during construction doesn't matter, because you apparently didn't do a checklist for substantial completion of the project. probably, because dont know what those things are. re-affirming, once again, the importance of licensure when dealing with public health and welfare
Lets see, they jumped the gun with the permit process without an actual construction document and specifications. You have engineers doing mechanical and fire sprinklers and not being provided the drawings from those engineers, it's kind of difficult to do a check list process when the client and contractor is interfering with the whole coordination process. I never got to do a full walk through, check list work.
Somewhere in the process, they never bothered with it. They never finalized the permit process, either.
JeromeS wrote:
Once the permits are issued, it kind of ties my hand from just changing it at my whim without some issues.
Not true. In a nearby community, where there was a construction boon, 500 dwelling units, by various architects and multiple builders were improperly permitted. The use group was improperly proscribed for the construction type. Most of these units had been issued a CO. Many had been sold, some had been sold more than once. The State came in, revoked everyone's CO and required the addition of sprinkler systems and/or fire separations.
Our buildings were all ok. But our clients were also always complaining that we were requiring things "no one else is doing"
My point: a REAL designer has real responsibility. A real designer would understand that the clients cant just do what he wants and, "oh, well". You must do your job.
You say its art. Problem is your art is finger paints and macaroni collages
In the REAL world, as a designer or architect, you don't have the authority in law or otherwise to tell contractors or clients what to do. They can just flat out ignore you and marginalize you, lie to you or not tell full truths about things. The only authorities that can issue stop work order is the public officials with that authority. Only they have the 'police' power. If complaints goes to deaf ears, it doesn't matter how much noise you or I make.
There is nothing you or I can do about it.
In the REAL world, as a designer or architect, you don't have the authority in law or otherwise to tell contractors or clients what to do. They can just flat out ignore you and marginalize you, lie to you or not tell full truths about things.
Wrong. If an architect's client decides to ignore the architect's recommendations and do something that violates code, in fact the architect is required by law to report that situation immediately to the code official. The law states that failure to do so is a criminal offense punishable by a fine (ranging from $1000 to $50,000 in various states) and/or a 1-year prison sentence.
Sponty,
As for obtaining the engineer's drawing set: they're public record. You don't know enough to understand that and easily get them yourself, and so you're alleging some sort of impropriety on the engineer's or architects' parts. Obtaining the drawings yourself is even easier than correct operation of a tape measure. Your failure to do so is further proof of your incompetence.
They are not because those drawings are NOT filed with the city. I can obtain it if it was in the permit files. It is not in the permit files. The only drawings supposedly prepared by an engineer is the fire sprinkler drawings supposedly prepared by Interface Engineering.
They are not public record. I have told you that they are not in permit file so it seems that you are not telling the truth about how you obtained them. I have looked at everything in the permit folder all the way back to the 1980s.
I am telling you the truth. The drawings are public record. I said nothing about the city's permit files. I am thousands of miles away, and I was able to obtain the drawings from public records. You're being extraordinarily stupid today, even for you.
Rick first of all nobody should need a ladder at all to measure something this height with a tape measure. Anybody who actually knows how to use a tape measure can stand on the floor and measure straight up far in excess of 12 feet. Do you not know how to stand on the floor and double a tape back on itself for vertical stability and snake it straight up from the floor? I thought you said you did carpentry and restoration in community college. Somebody should send this thread to whatever regional accreditation entity is responsible for keeping that school in existence.
I think you've finally identified exactly the problem right here, and it's got nothing to do with counting bricks or CMU. You don't know how to use a tape measure. Simple as that. You got ~10'-10" from the bottom of the chord to the floor below. The engineer got 11'-6" for that same measurement.
Yes, but when a ladder happened to be there then yes, I used the ladder. First off, unless the tape measure is new, you may not even have 10' stand off. In addition, I measured so that the 'tip' was resting touching the floor and reading the measurements at the bottom side of the bottom chord. I read the measurements where my eye level is about that of which I am reading the measurement from. Otherwise, I could be off by a lot. In other words, I try to be as close as possible to where the measurement is being made. I don't do that tape folding crap, either. The tape measure I had at the time would not stay on the bottom chord very well. On the other end, you are trying to get the exact measurement from the blade of the tape measure. You need to get the main body/case/ reel of the tape out of the way and get an exact measurement. I had actually did that and after a number of attempt had successfully get a measurement reading without the tape falling off the chord and I had to subtract the thickness of the chord for the height from bottom of chord to floor. I double checked the measurement by being on the ladder.
How much did the engineer actually field measured and how much was it derived in CAD after you drew it in CAD.
Spontaneous,
EXACTLY, where did you get it ?
No game play. EXACTLY where did you get it? Who did you get it from?
Just so you know, I had been to Andy Stricker's website. It's not there.
I don't do that tape folding crap, either.
That's about as equally weird as if I said "I don't do that pants zipping crap". Sure I could wear elastic-waisted MC Hammer pants, or sailor pants with a flap and buttons, but I'd be throwing out the best method of pants closure. What are your ethical or religious objections to properly operating a tape measure from the ground? There is a small margin of error associated with being on the ground looking up at the marks, and there's another for the curve in a doubled tape - but at most these might cumulatively put you off by 1/4" - no way it accounts for an 8 inch discrepancy.
What you're describing above about needing multiple attempts to get this measurement, and having to subtract the chord thickness, and the box of the tape being in the way and so forth - it's all a description of somebody who doesn't know how to use a tape measure. There's no way this needs more than 2 attempts to get right and verify - with no subtraction or other arithmetic of any type involved. And no ladder.
I haven't seen the engineer's drawings, but if the difference between you and them is 8 inches then it's most likely because one of you is off by a block course. Given your history with Hammer-Pants math and measuring methods all my money is on the engineer for accuracy.
"Hammer-Pants math" just became my new favorite phrase.
Bloopox,
You don't fold a measuring tape. Especially the metal ones. Good way to ruin the measuring tape by metal fatique.
In addition, you can be off a 1/4" each time. That's besides the point. The simple answer is, he didn't measure the truss to the floor. The drawing is done in CAD, right? Right?
He may not have actually field measured that. He may have or an employee of his may have measured some but not all. Don't you even look at the photos at all?
If the garage door opening is 10-ft. That's 120 inches. 120 divided by 8 is 15. This would be equivalent of 15 ROWS of CMUs of 8" nominal height. This is what you got there.
The brick pilasters is ONE CMU row taller. Each truss is at the same elevation within a small fraction of an inch. Construction tolerance. Okay.
The photos are the REAL building not the drawings. You have the photos, use your brain for yourself. Okay. None of this, political bullshit. Look and see for your own eyes.
I was wrong with some numbers earlier because I had a migraine headache from all the circular back and forth argument, a tooth ache and regular distractions at home. After awhile, I get fatigued by all the fucking drama here.
10 ft. door. 10-ft. is 120 inches. RIGHT? 120 divide by 8 is 15. 120 divide by 15 is 8. Goes with the units of CMUs. 3 bricks with mortar joint is aligned to the 8" interval. Average physical brick height is 2-1/4" thick. The mortar is slight variable. The brick mason just made sure every 3 brick rows on pilaster aligned with the CMU. Easy to achieve when he mortar is wet. We both know that obviously.
You look at the photo and you will see the top of a window that was at the top portion of the garage door opening as another photo that I have would show you. The pilasters are only one CMU row taller (or 3 BRICK rows taller).
That would put the the pilaster at about 128 inches. Actually it's about 129.5 inches. This can give room for about a +/- 1/4".
Do a little math 129.5 inches divide by 12 for feet & inches. That's 10.7916666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 feet but lets convert them to the feet and inch format. That is 10'-9 1/2". Plug a way with your calculator.
0.7916666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 ft converted to inches (multiply by 12) is 9.5 inches. 9-1/2 inches.
The truss bottom chord is about 8" (7.5" to be reasonably precise within +/- 1/4".) Since the actual width between the CMU walls are approximately 464 inches. Since the truss is a gable truss peaking in the middle. So you divide the span in half for calculating the truss rise from the TOP of the bottom chord to the peak. That would be 232 INCHES.
5:12 is a ratio of 0.4166666666666666666666666666666666666666666 in decimal form.
The rise should be 0.416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 of the run. 0.416666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 of the run of 232 inches is 96.666666666666666666666666666666666667 inches.
That's 8'- 0 2/3"
Add the bottom chord height of say... 8" while we are at it. It's actually about a 1/2 shorter than that.
That's about 104.6666666666666666666666666666666666 inches. That's 8'-8 2/3". Add that to 10'-9.5" we have earlier is would result in decimal form, 19.51388888888888888888888888888888888888888888888. That's just shy of 19'-6 3/16".
The highest interior finish is an additional 2-5/8 inches. Remember the 2x4 purlins (actual dimensions being 1.5" x 3.5") is at an angle and the two purlins at the ridge form a V shape with corners abutting each other enclosing a kite shape (in cross-section) concealed space. So to the highest actual interior elevation is 2-5/8" higher than the peak of the top chords of the truss. That would be about 19'-8 3/4". So even if I have some additional room for another inch or two. I'd still be ~19'-9" to 19'-10".
What you're describing above about needing multiple attempts to get this measurement, and having to subtract the chord thickness, and the box of the tape being in the way and so forth - it's all a description of somebody who doesn't know how to use a tape measure
That was about 9 years ago. The measuring tape tip slipping of the truss chord. I always do straight direct linear measurements with measuring tapes and I measured more than once. There was an additional reason for measuring multiple points along the truss to verify field conditions INCLUDING the slope of the grade. Additional reasons included checking spring-back ( reduction of deflection ) of the truss when the somewhat heavy drop-down ceiling structure was removed.
Those are just among a number of basic reasons. It also verifies prior measurements.
Those were mostly on a bunch of field notes that I had many years ago.
You don't fold a measuring tape. Especially the metal ones. Good way to ruin the measuring tape by metal fatique.
Rick you do fold a measuring tape. That is how you use a measuring tape. That's how it's designed to be used. That is how you use one to measure vertically, or to measure a long horizontal or any other dimension for which you need the tape to be stiffer than it would be if you just poked it out into space without folding it.
Measuring tape 101: Measuring tapes are curved across the width of the tape. They're designed that way both so that they maintain more stiffness than if they were flat, and so that they can be doubled back on themselves without developing creases. Unless you fold it completely flat and deliberately put a crease in it you're not going to have any issue with metal fatigue. The fold is a small curve that slides up and down the length of the tape at your will, and does not leave any creases or damage of any sort.
If you use the tape right and are experienced in doing so then you will not have 1/4" of error. I meant that even you, who don't know how to use the tape properly, couldn't possibly come up with more than 1/4" of error. Anybody doing field measurements should be able to stand on the ground and snake a doubled tape a minimum of 18 feet vertically. If your tape is so old and beat that this is impossible then it's time for a new tape. You don't just take a junk tool to do a professional job.
I did look at the photos and as I've told you before, I counted the bricks individually and there are more than 50 bricks. It also appears to me from the photos that the bottoms of the trusses are much higher than 10'-10". I'm basing this on the scale of other objects and people in the space. I used the same method when I told you that it appeared from photos that the original garage door was 10 feet and not 9 - and it turned out that I was correct and you were not. I'm quite confident that this is also the case in my judgement from the photos that the trusses are more than 11'-0" above the floor, and that you are wrong again. I'm backing this with nearly 30 years of experience in field measuring.
There's really no sense in discussing this any further. If OBAE cares they can send somebody who knows how to operate a tape measure to verify.
The engineers' drawings indicate two field measurements were taken regarding height:
1. The measurement from floor to underside of truss: 11'-6". This was taken inside the building, at an exterior wall. If as you say the floor tapers downward a bit toward the center of the room, then they measured at the shortest possible vertical, and this measurement would be slightly taller in the middle of the room.
2. From the bottom of the truss to the peak of the truss: 8'-8 1/2". This is close to what you say above.
Together that is 20'-2 1/2" from floor to peak of trusses. You keep making the point that the peak of the truss is not even all the way to the underside of the interior ceiling finish - so that would add another couple inches.
If they're right then there is simply one more block than you think, and the building is not exempt. We all understand that you believe you measured correctly and you believe that the engineer measured incorrectly, and you believe that he did not measure what he indicates that he did measure, and you believe he just guesstimated n CAD. But every one of numerous indications in this thread, and others on this site, and on other sites indicates that you don't know how to measure and you don't know how to do math, and therefore that you are very probably the one who is wrong.
I can measure the circumference of a fly's asshole with measuring tape.
Bloopox,
I use what I have at the time.
What you describe is called standout distance. That is typically 9-ft. to 11-ft. Not 18 ft. 13-ft. is among the highest with a FatMax Xtreme and a quote for a Bostitch measuring tape that was at 15'. These exact make/model of tapes weren't available 9 YEARS ago or 10 years ago with that stand-out range. Most of them were in the 8-ft. to 12-ft. range.
It's not that simple to read measurements when there is no interior lighting and the only light source is the light coming through the window bays. Not exactly a clean light source that doesn't wash out your sight with a fuzzy glare that totally kills contrast in vision.
From what I recall, the measurements are printed only on one side of the measuring tapes I had. It was not double-sided.
Sponty,
The engineers' drawings indicate two field measurements were taken regarding height:
1. The measurement from floor to underside of truss: 11'-6". This was taken inside the building, at an exterior wall. If as you say the floor tapers downward a bit toward the center of the room, then they measured at the shortest possible vertical, and this measurement would be slightly taller in the middle of the room.
2. From the bottom of the truss to the peak of the truss: 8'-8 1/2". This is close to what you say above.
Together that is 20'-2 1/2" from floor to peak of trusses. You keep making the point that the peak of the truss is not even all the way to the underside of the interior ceiling finish - so that would add another couple inches.
If they're right then there is simply one more block than you think, and the building is not exempt. We all understand that you believe you measured correctly and you believe that the engineer measured incorrectly, and you believe that he did not measure what he indicates that he did measure, and you believe he just guesstimated n CAD. But every one of numerous indications in this thread, and others on this site, and on other sites indicates that you don't know how to measure and you don't know how to do math, and therefore that you are very probably the one who is wrong.
How tall is the garage door did the engineer claim?
Look at the photo that I posted within the last 24 hours.
How many rows of CMUs is the engineering showing above the garage door to the top of the pilasters.
"Standout distance" is the distance that a tape will remain rigid when stuck out WITHOUT folding it over. That's usually about 10 feet. When you fold it over you should be able to get 20+ feet out of a FatMax when going vertical, and at least 18 feet out of a lighter gage tape. This isn't a new technique or something that needs a 21st century tape measure. I first learned it from my shop teacher in 5th grade (1970s). We had contests to get to the cafeteria ceiling (approximately 19 feet). Most fifth graders could do it, even little girls.
So now you're saying that you aren't sure about your measurements because you couldn't clearly read your tape. Don't you think THAT might explain the discrepancies?
Sponty,
You still get 10-ft. because the tape will fold over every 10-ft. because of gravity effect on it. Those folds over to the ground. Unless you have some anti-gravity device or you elevate yourself to a higher elevation, it doesn't work.
I measured by getting on a ladder and sending the tape and tang to the ground while holding the fucking measuring tape up against the side of the chord in order to be up close to the measuring marks so I can see the marks. This got around the lighting issue. I tried being on the ground and hold the tang on the top of the bottom chord but it was being more nuisance than its worth when the tang slips off. Before I went up on a ladder, I had measured the height of the pilasters by counting the bricks and measuring the brick itself and every three brick rows for every 8-inches.
You still get 10-ft. because the tape will fold over every 10-ft. because of gravity effect on it. Those folds over to the ground. Unless you have some anti-gravity device or you elevate yourself to a higher elevation, it doesn't work.
Ha!!!! You're a total moron. That statement proves you haven't even tried it. The tape does NOT fold over every ten feet. When you fold the tape over you're creating an isosceles triangle with a very tiny upside down base. Because of the curve across the width of the tape this causes the tape to become tighter/stiffer/more rigid when doubled over than when standing out alone.
Seriously Richard, this is how the rest of us measure buildings on a daily basis. I blame your community college, and your home-schooling parents, as much as you for your utter cluelessness. But now that you're becoming aware of the VERY HUGE HOLES in your tiny education, you become responsible for fixing them. You can't do math at even a middle school level. You can't operate the simplest tools that a professional building designer needs to operate.
You're wrong at every turn and never take responsibility for it - it's always some uncontrollable factor: toothache, migraine, poor lighting, too much drama, stupid client, evil contractor, plotting architects, lazy engineers, ramen noodles, temperatures above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, old tape measures, short ladders, overbearing fathers, wrong file formats, part-time building officials, biased college administrators, traffic, the AIA, ammonia fumes, gangs of Portland, slave driver employers, unemployment, the IRS, high school girls...
Just so you know, I do in fact from the occassion actually do a little bit of folding to extend a measuring tape up like this guy does: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IraiWOUg3VI ) but I only measure so much and so far. While I could do it to get height of the chord, the lighting condition would make it a little be problematic and when there just happened to be a ladder not in use at the time, I took the time to do so.
Flashlights are pretty cool. They help people see things when light lacks
Just so you know, I do in fact from the occassion actually do a little bit of folding to extend a measuring tape up like this guy does:
Nope. I do not believe you that you've ever had occasion to do that. I don't believe you because above you just said "You don't fold a measuring tape" and claimed it would cause metal fatigue. What I do believe is that you had no clue what any of us were talking about, so you went looking for a YouTube video.
You should probably get your eyes examined too. Most people can read the marks on tape that's at 11'-6" from the floor (your eyes are only about 6 feet below that). There was that huge garage door you could have opened for light too... And flashlights.
Sponty,
Depends on lighting conditions. You don't get the issue. While the bottom chord is relatively easy to achieve. The 20-ft. is not so. Here's the reason, all that light washes out contrast especially when that light flooding your eyes when you are inside a room with no lighting (at the time). Yes, it is possible for that. You realized I did measure the pilasters.
The door on the east side is ONLY about 7' ft. tall. The opening height being about 88" tall. There is ONLY 5 CMU rows above the door to the height of the pilaster. Are you going to tell me that the 42" wide east door is an 8-ft. tall door opening?
http://s32.postimg.org/t7kp43zed/stage_larger.png
PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF.
APPARENTLY.
I can see in some of the other pictures of that door that it's cut into a partial row of block. There's approximately a half row of CMU above the door frame. There are 5.5 rows of CMU above it, not 5 rows. Also in your photo we can clearly see that the truss is resting about 2 inches above the nearest row of CMU. So right there you've already put yourself 6 inches above your last batch of Hammer-Pants Math, and only 2 inches at best away from everything you've posted here exactly matching what the engineer's drawings show and what I've been telling you all along. Want to quit now that you've finally proven this is a non-exempt building? Or keep going until we find the other 2 inches?
nice Josh....in case you do not understand Richard, you do realize this is all your fault.
sample CPBD exam question derived from this thread:
If a door opening on the east wall of an assembly space is 42" wide and 8' tall, the storage under the stage unsprinklered and you can't use a regular tape measure, then what size of hammer pants does a home-schooled Kangaroo wear and what is the ratio of the total number of cross-dressers/transpersons attending the play to the minimum height of a non-exempt structure?
i was on mobile so i couldn't comment, but the part where balkins says that you cannot bend measuring tape because of metal fatigue....man, that was some delicious shit. pure, grade A rick balkins excuse right there
I think he meant to say mental fatigue
+1 Dangermouse ... pure, uncut, grade A, premium, unadulterated Balkins right there.
Rick, you do realize that the way the tape bends when you measure the way that is being described, is the same bending the tape does just to roll up inside the case, right? Think about it. How else could that many feet of tape measure fit inside that little case?
Metal fatigue being what it is, a good way to ruin a tape measure is by using it. Be careful how many times you pull the tape out of the case.
Rick, you do realize that the way the tape bends when you measure the way that is being described, is the same bending the tape does just to roll up inside the case, right? Think about it. How else could that many feet of tape measure fit inside that little case?
Ok, I thought he was referring to bending it the opposite direction. Doing so would fatigue the tape considerably.
Sponty,
I can see in some of the other pictures of that door that it's cut into a partial row of block. There's approximately a half row of CMU above the door frame. There are 5.5 rows of CMU above it, not 5 rows. Also in your photo we can clearly see that the truss is resting about 2 inches above the nearest row of CMU. So right there you've already put yourself 6 inches above your last batch of Hammer-Pants Math, and only 2 inches at best away from everything you've posted here exactly matching what the engineer's drawings show and what I've been telling you all along. Want to quit now that you've finally proven this is a non-exempt building? Or keep going until we find the other 2 inches?
The top of the door opening is in the 6th CMU row from the top.
The door opening with the header piece or filler block is about 89.5". The original door opening that was about 39" wide and widen to 42" for the new door but the original door opening was a 36" wide x 6'-10" door (approximately). The door to replace was 42" wide x 84" tall. They knocked out some of the CMUs and than partially cut some of the others to support a wider door. This was pre-existing door opening condition. Lets not forget the stem wall is ~26.5" and there is 13 ROWS of CMUs to on top of the stem wall to the height of the pilasters. It comes down to exactly jiving the door but the door is an approximate scale and you can easily.
The door is threshold about where the floor level is at.
From the floor to the bottom of CMU row 9 (or row 12 if you add 3 CMU rows for the concrete foundation wall) is about 89.5 inches. A 7 foot door would fall short. It was possible the original door was 6'-10" then replaced by a 36" wide by 7'-0" tall door and then widen for 42" wide x 7'-0" tall door. Considering there were 3 or more businesses prior to the laundromat business in this building, the doors had been changed out a number of times. It doesn't take much to figure out what happened and how but the header filler block above the door is to fill up the gap between an 84" tall door & frame and the CMU row above.
It supports what I am saying in the CMU units.
And if it were exempt you have proven that you could design it correctly to begin with.
Ha, Thank you for what should be considered a compliment.
It appears from photos of the exterior building that that door is actually taller than 7'-0".
Somebody who knows how to use a measuring tape, and has the visual acuity to read the numbers, just needs to go there and measure from floor to highest point of ceiling. Oh wait - the engineer already did that! And he found that it's a non-exempt building!
END OF STORY
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.