You have a conflict of interest because if the building is taller than you want it to be then you should never have done this work in the first place, and you're facing a substantial fine. The very reason that you did this measuring (if you really did it) is to try to keep yourself out of trouble. Do you see how that is a conflict of interest for you, but not for an architect?
remember when you said this in a different forum balkins?
"Bad reputation = ruined business. Take some more care in how you present your views and treat others.
Take care in what you say. What you say offline and in your home is none of my care or concern. Think of what you say online on a public forum as speaking in public. Think about what you say in email as you would in talking to someone.
In short, get a control over any of your antagonism of other people by speaking with care and reason and empathy and respect."
balkins, a court will take stamped documents from a licensed engineer over your tape measure/laser/photograph protractor algebra 100% of the time. that is really all that matters. you can write as many dissertations on CMU modularity and the finer points of using a tape measure as you'd like. in the eyes of the law, you've still practiced architecture as an unlicensed individual.
your inability to understand stamped drawings as legal documents is quite astounding.
Given that Balkins has previously reported several people to OBAE, and made a general pest of himself with their investigators, I get the feeling he's going to have a very hard time claiming ignorance of any laws there, and that they might be quite happy to have an opportunity to throw the book at him (literally even). Maybe he can sell his artistic pilaster photos to raise the 10k fine for knowingly practicing without a license.
May 23, 16 8:42 pm ·
·
I just called the theater. They've never heard of you. When did you say you did that measuring and photography?
Who are you talking to at the theater. There are a lot of new volunteers that are working there. I was just their earlier today. Around noon. Whoever is answering the phone isn't necessarily anyone that was there at the time or was talking to me. There is about 3 individuals who I talked to. Pauline, Chuck Meyer and a person who I believe is Bill Carr.
So you think that people who report dangerous situations to building officials should have to pay to fix those issues?
If you are reporting as a means of attacking a third-party then, yes. The reason is you're not reporting for HSW reasons but in reality reporting to personally attack a third party. Attacking the former client of a person to attack that person, then yes, you should pay for it. If you are reporting HSW issues for that sake then it should never be a part of attacking a person. This was being done to personally attack me. Don't tell me you are doing it for health, safety and welfare. If you tell me that no_form did that for such noble reason as that, you are a lying sack of shit not worthy to live let alone be trusted for anything. No_form is a low-life piece of shit. He is not worthy of anything. Not because of reporting HSW risks but attacking a former client of another person in order to attack that person. If he did it solely for health, safety and welfare, I personally give him a fucking accommodation and we give him a god damn ticket parade. We know better than that.
Regardless of whether or not I have talked to the past client about code issues and HSW issues, you or anyone else are suppose to contact the owners of the building first and make reasonable attempt to get these issues resolved at least 3 TIMES over a REASONABLE period of time for the issues before reporting to public official and you are suppose to by the final time prior to reporting to public officials.... inform the owners that your next step will be reporting to the public officials. That's the ethical way to do it.
You are suppose to contact the owners YOURSELF, at least three times before contacting public officials. By the final time prior to contacting public officials, you are suppose to notify the owners that your next step is reporting to the public officials. It doesn't matter if someone else has. That is what you are suppose to do ethically.
You are suppose to contact the owners YOURSELF, at least three times before contacting public officials.
No. That is a dangerous, time-wasting procedure that you have invented yourself. The law says that we have to report HSW issues immediately to the AHJs, or we can lose our licenses. I tried to warn you many pages back that the more you said about this project, the more we were going to have to report.
I was and am truly very concerned about the safety of this theater. There is a list of many different code issues, and the more photos you've shown the more issues that have become apparent. Sincerely Richard: your project is a death trap. It's an imminent threat. Calling the building owner three times and waiting for them to do anything would endanger more lives in the meantime. This is an absolutely terrible, dangerous project.
Seems like the law works differently for different people, huh Richie? Just a week or so back you were defending your obligation to report some architect whose license was expired for a year. You claimed you had no choice, he was a danger to the public. Even though you had no knowledge of him doing anything in particular during that year that endangered anyone. You "had to" report it. Did you contact him directly three times and wait a reasonable period each time to see if he renewed his license?
Here we are aware of a list of perhaps 20 or 30 different life safety violations that put hundreds or thousands of people in danger every month - but you think that it should not be reported to authorities. You'd rather risk people's lives than cause expense to the building owner. You should talk that over with God.
May 23, 16 9:03 pm ·
·
balkins, a court will take stamped documents from a licensed engineer over your tape measure/laser/photograph protractor algebra 100% of the time. that is really all that matters. you can write as many dissertations on CMU modularity and the finer points of using a tape measure as you'd like. in the eyes of the law, you've still practiced architecture as an unlicensed individual.
They can take the fact and truth. The license does not make you right. Even a licensed professional can fuck up. Don't you think we got that with the stage not being sprinklered?
I measured it. I'm sure, it isn't going to be any different. I measured the meter about 6-7 readings. A couple times, the laser beam hit the bottom of the ridge purlins, forming a V, getting a lower number which I rejected. At those times, I got close to the center line in placement of the laser. I corrected the placement for other readings. It takes a steadiness to keep the laser on a spot within an inch of the exact highest point in elevation. It's not changing the elevation enough. If someone else wants to go in there and measure, find.
When an engineer fucks up, it doesn't mean the engineer's word is God's gospel. When I do it right, it doesn't mean the engineer is right or wrong. If the engineer is wrong, the engineer made a mistake in process. Did he laser measure. Did he send his laser up a roof vent? I don't know. Did he even measure the roof in the field? Did he have an error in process? Maybe.
May 23, 16 9:04 pm ·
·
" I personally give him a fucking accommodation and we give him a god damn ticket parade.
You mean "commendation", and "ticker tape". Look those up. Learn something."
Thank You for the correction. You give a person a fucking head ache.
The last time I hung on to doing something wrong so tightly, I was 3 years old trying to convince my mom that my 6 month old brother spilled all the chocolate milk mix all over the floor and on himself.
Hey, what the hell happened, Balkins? If you had actually quit the forum, you might have actually regained an iota of credibility.
Good Bye to this worthless forum. I'm not going to accept any webcast, interview or whatever from this forum.
Please delete my account, administrator including this thread and all posts FROM me on this forum.
Thank You.
May 23, 16 9:14 pm ·
·
Seems like the law works differently for different people, huh Richie? Just a week or so back you were defending your obligation to report some architect whose license was expired for a year. You claimed you had no choice, he was a danger to the public. Even though you had no knowledge of him doing anything in particular during that year that endangered anyone. You "had to" report it. Did you contact him directly three times and wait a reasonable period each time to see if he renewed his license?
A licensed architect took an exam to know the licensing law. They signed a contractual agreement to follow the law and they intentionally violated it with criminal intent when they deliberately and intentionally let the license expire and practice architecture and use the title of architect.
Owners of properties are not abreast to the laws and if their contractors or other people they are also listening to are telling them different, that's an issue but you don't hold people who are not professionals in this field to the same standards as professionals.
Ah... but now I see this as a personal vendetta against me for reporting an Architect in Washington for violating the law.
Richard you constantly say you are a professional and you're held to the same standard of care, same laws, etc. Those laws say you can't work on this project. You worked on this project, and you created 30 code infractions that can kill people. That's what this is about. And by the way, I didn't even know you reported an architect in Washington. I found out about at least three that you've reported in Oregon when I called OBAE - and I saw the one you reported in Australia. How many more are there?
May 23, 16 9:20 pm ·
·
JBeaumont,
If the building is 4000 sq.ft. or less and less than 20-ft. to highest OVERHEAD interior finish from the top surface of lowest floor makes it an EXEMPT BUILDING. Therefore, by LAW it would be exempt.
This building IS exempt. The highest overhead interior finish does NOT exceed 19'-11". ALL of you have have never measured this building. The engineer made an error because he didn't measure the ceiling. He made a miscount on the number of CMUs. The measurements you see is CAD generated dimensions. He may not even laser measure anything.
JBeaumont, the only architect I reported was in Washington. The other parties were not licensed. In those cases, the difference is none of them were fined because the process was more to send a letter of concern and for them to make corrections.
Regarding code infractions:
Cite the code infractions that I created. I'll then look through them.
I didn't construct the snack bar or the lighting booth. Some of that didn't happen until May and June of 2008 during the time I wasn't there. They deviated from my drawings. They started getting into the permit process before I went into CDs and then the contractor took it from there. From what can be determined, they screwed things up even more. While, I didn't address everything in the SD & DD phase work, they would have been addressed in CDs when I do the bulk work of the building codes. Had they got the fire sprinkler engineer in November of 2007 instead of in February or March of 2008, I would have been able to address some of the issues. The drawings could have been worked out and finalized in December of 2007 and maybe some in January 2008.
they would have been addressed in CDs when I do the bulk work of the building codes.
You're supposed to work out your code issues in SD. How were you planning to fix things like the exits being too close together, or the inadequate fire separation between the front of the theater and the backstage area, if you wait until CD?
There's already a huge list of code infractions throughout this thread. Exits too close together, too many spaces passed through, accessibility issues everywhere, no smoke vents, no smoke curtain, doors don't have ADA hardware, some doors are too small, trap doors don't have seals, stage isn't sprinklered below, lighting booth stair isn't to code, stage steps aren't too code, handrails not to code, no standpipes, electrical panel right next to egress door, egress corridors full of shelving, closet rods over dryer, backstage door blocked by furniture, no vestibules, NO BATHROOMS, fire separations not continuous, parapets not tall enough, and those are only the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Besides which, you only learned of the existence of UL directories, standpipes, and smoke vents IN THIS THREAD, so are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that all of those things were going to get taken care of in CD, when you didn't even know about them?
yeah man of course engineers can be wrong, but yet again you totally miss the point, and instead fixate on details that don't matter. you can go measure a building. an engineer can measure the same building (which is what happened).
legally, the stamped drawing defines the size of the building. you can say "oooh i measured 6 ways 'till sunday with a laser or bob's your uncle" as much as you'd like, but a court will always take the engineers word over yours. you're just a dude off the street. thankfully for you, your name isn't on the permit drawings and the clients don't know you, because you didn't design this project.
Tell that to all the architects who fucks up on code issues in SDs. SDs never have all code issues worked out. They never have enough details for it. SDs are not CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. When I am talking SDs, I am TALKING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS or DOCUMENTS not SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS. You are confusing what I mean by SD. Submittal documents (Construction Documents), I agree with you.
Exits too close together:
Exits were not an issue. I could adjust the exact center of door in the plans. By the way, ICC interpretation is an approved interpretation. They had been doing center of threshold to center of threshold in a straight line since UBC.
too many spaces passed through: The only issue I see you are talking about is corridor. The corridor is NOT a room as the code is concern. If corridor was a room in the code, you will find this with EVERY SINGLE ACADEMIC BUILDING with a hallway and multiple classrooms. Don't you think? I would have adjusted a door location in SD in the CD.
accessibility issues everywhere: This is an existing building but more of those issues would have been addressed in the code. For example: Wheelchair Stairlift.
no smoke vents: The mechanical was being done by engineers. However, if I were to do the mechanical systems, then yes. It would have required some research on systems for it.
no smoke curtain: Easy. It would be a note on the plans and specs.
doors don't have ADA hardware: ALL DOORS would have been specified as ADA compliant doors. From 36" ADA doors to 42" or even 48" ADA compliant doors.
some doors are too small: I would have specified at least 36" ADA doors (which is compliant with ADA under the ADA Act and ADAAG as it was in 2007/2008.
trap doors don't have seals: That would have been done correctly. When I went under the stage, the trap door wasn't physically installed. The opening was made. However, I would have detailed that out in the drawings.
stage isn't sprinklered below: How is that my responsibility when a registered engineer was designing it. I would have expected to seen the engineers drawings for under the stage and above the stage. The reason I wasn't contracting the engineer myself is that the engineer would be costing me money on a project I wasn't getting paid. If the client didn't may me, I'm stuck paying the engineer out of my pocket. However, when the client or contractor was contracting the engineer, they broke the coordination. Pushed came to shove, I would have prepared plans for a limited area sprinkler system under the stage.
lighting booth stair isn't to code: How the lighting booth ended up did not follow my design. It deviated. If they didn't jump the gun, this would have been addressed in more detail drawings.
stage steps aren't too code: They would have been 6" rise x 12" tread. BY THE WAY, the stage had been altered. They extended the front of the stage by about 4-ft. and they are using non-compliant steps. I called for steps to be 6 risers x 12" tread depth. Some of those issues were done after July 2008. I believe that was done in 2009 or 2010.
handrails not to code: That would have been addressed in CDs.
no standpipes: The standpipes are not necessarily required. Those issues would have been addressed. However, they mucked up things a bit.
electrical panel right next to egress door: Under which specific code section. It was installed by a licensed electrician. I maybe overlooking it as I am sifting through these code matters (and I am sure in a real project, I would go through all the codes with enough time) but so far I don't see such requirement in NFPA 70 and OSSC and OFC. Are you sure that requirement is actually in the applicable code.
egress corridors full of shelving: There was no shelving in the corridor when I was last in that room. It wasn't in the plans, either. The only thing that was considered in the space was a mirror (preferably plastic) for make-up touch up work as the actors and actresses prepare doing before going out on to the stage. Of course, the bulk of make-up work would be done in the costume room. The egress is suppose to not have people staying in the egress for any significant length of time. It is suppose to be intermittent standing. It's not meant to be a place to just stand there.
closet rods over dryer: No proposal was ever made for closet rods over dryer. Not on any plans and never would be. That's post-occupancy non-compliance that can happen regardless. It isn't something I designed so it isn't my fault. I can't be held responsible for everything and every action a client or past client does in a building. Architects are not held to such requirements.
backstage door blocked by furniture: Sorry but no plans I ever make EVER would have furniture in the required egress or blocking an egress door. I can't control day to day operations of a
no vestibules: Not necessarily required. Exception #4 would apply of energy efficiency specialty code section 502.4.7 (but it wasn't in effect in Oregon as IECC was not adopted until 2009) . Since the theater room would be less than 3000 sq.ft. Interior dimensions, my friend. I believe vestibules were more optional at that time.
NO BATHROOMS: While that is the biggest issue. All plans showed at least an plan for at least one restroom (not bathrooms). However, there is an option to supply bathrooms in an adjacent structure or addition.
fire separations not continuous: CMU through the roof. That is adequate for a 1-hr rated fire barrier. You don't need a fire wall. Just need a fire-rated door and door assembly and seal up any openings in wall with code approved methods. Easily resolved. It would have been outlined in the CDs.
parapets not tall enough: For a FIRE WALL. You are right. Parapet is not required for the fire barrier requirements for separating the backstage and Stage/Theater room.
Of all these issues, ONLY the bathroom or restroom is the most persistent issue. It doesn't remove the requirement but portable restrooms can and do serve as a temporary solution but eventually it needs to be permanent. That was the premise. The idea is, as soon as they got the building paid for and not just renting/leasing it. They were suppose to have dealt with the addition or a separate building within suitable egress. There are multiple methods to solving the issue. As a detached structure, I could design it. As an attached structure, no... under the law. However, due to the nature of the project, it had to be separated into multiple phases.
I wish Frank Miller would turn this into a graphic novel. There's so much material here.
May 24, 16 1:45 am ·
·
yeah man of course engineers can be wrong, but yet again you totally miss the point, and instead fixate on details that don't matter. you can go measure a building. an engineer can measure the same building (which is what happened).
legally, the stamped drawing defines the size of the building. you can say "oooh i measured 6 ways 'till sunday with a laser or bob's your uncle" as much as you'd like, but a court will always take the engineers word over yours. you're just a dude off the street. thankfully for you, your name isn't on the permit drawings and the clients don't know you, because you didn't design this project.
Dangermouse,
EVERY detail matters.
The engineer made an error. Period. End of story. He did not measure the building's height directly. He counted CMUs and counted one too many by double counting. If you measured correctly from a straight vertical line from ground to highest point in the ceiling with a laser, he should have a number within +/- 1" of what I got. Every laser distance meter is accurate to less than an inch from each other.
No, a stamp does NOT define the size of a building. A building IS its size. Either you measure correctly or you don't.
You place way to much religious importance to that stamp. A $20 stamp. Whoopie fucking do. If I want to affix a stamp, I can just pay a 1 cent stamp and affix it.
Stamp doesn't make a person right or God or infallible. If it is wrong, it is wrong. I declare the engineer's stamp is wrong and I will challenge everyone of you to physically prove otherwise in front of me, the District Attorney and any one of the Circuit Court Judges.
If you can prove my measurements to be substantively wrong, then prove it. Otherwise, shut your mouth and hold your peace. I have already DONE due diligence to measure the building height.
Balkaninos, you've given enough proof here that your "measurements" are half-ass. Please see below for my irrefutable response to your wailing wall of copy-pasta.
The fact Balkins just said you don't work out code issues in SD shows that he has no idea how the architecture process works. Sure, there will be things that pop up in DD, SD, and during permit review, but every place I've worked makes works damn hard to make sure codes are met in SD.
When you don't do code research in SD, you end up with a pissed off client in later phases. The last thing you want to do is find a code issue once cost estimates have been given. Nothing irritates a client more than being told they're going to have to pay more.
no smoke curtain: Easy. It would be a note on the plans and specs.
I didn't read that whole list, but this one caught my eye. It's a prime example of what you think you know vs. how little you know. A smoke curtain doesn't work without vestibules. You can write all the notes on the plans and the specs that you want, but it won't make this work, and it won't make the building safe.
I sincerely hope this thread stays here forever, so that anybody debating using an "unlicensed architect" or "building designer" can see this real-life example of the consequences of the potential consequences of that decision - and of the absolute meaninglessness of "AIBD" as any measure of a member's qualifications or ethics.
He is arguing that he did design the project, that he is liable, and that he is held to the same standard as an architect. If I were in his place I'd be putting as much distance between this project and myself as possible. Instead he does the opposite. At best he is responsible for a terrible project and allowed the client to proceed with an unsafe design without notifying anyone.
The fact that its at best unclear if he's even legally allowed to do the project would be moot because his name isn't on any documents, except that he keeps insisting otherwise!
I think he won't let go of the claim that he's the designer because it's the only real-life project on which he's had any involvement. Most likely he has vastly exaggerated that involvement, and now is embarrassed to admit it - so will stick to his version even if it makes him responsible for fines by the state, and liability in the potential deaths of 200 people. Similar things have happened with some of his other claims over the years - example: he claimed on another forum that he worked for an architecture firm, SRG. Faced with statements to the contrary by staff of that firm, he eventually conceded that his services for SRG consisted solely of locating some old drawings in his community college's files - no more than a few hours' work and none which took place on the firm's premises - and yet he continues to list this as a job on his various profiles, and by including "2007-2008" he implies that it spanned a year or more, not an afternoon or two. This is the same person who lists by name an M.Arch program at a school he hasn't attended yet on his resume, despite not having even applied to that school, and not even being eligible to apply because of not having a bachelor degree - and he argues that because he puts future dates on those items this is ok. There are very, very blurry ideas in Richard's head about true and false, present and future, fact and fiction.
balkins man i really don't care about the size of the building. i also don't assign religious value to the stamp. i'm talking about the legal ramifications of you potentially working in the capacity as an unlicensed architect. if you say you measured the building right, then fine. i believe you. but that isn't the point.
OBAE will assume the engineers drawing be prima facie fact. you'll get a citation, assuming you had any involvement on the project. being a certified building designer doesn't mean shit.
You've, obviously, been around the comp.sys.cbm community a lot longer than I have but the one thing I've come to realize over the years is that Rick has consistently misrepresented himself.
For example:
He pretended to be one of the key members of the C-One team and acted like their spokesperson. This continued until Jens blasting him, exposing him to be a fraud.
He pretended to be in the know and working with Tulip until Ruud finally clarified the situation and exposed him as a fraud (again).
Now, we're doing it all over again with CS-Doom 64. To announce that Rick is the programmer for his project, a guy with no track record to speak of, is just ludicrous. To think he's going to be able to add SuperCPU code into VICE is just absurd.
LOL, Rick has never delivered on anything...not even a simple web site (cbmgateway).
I think it's up to us, as a community, to ferret out those who misrepresent themselves in order to protect the community because its people like Rick who hurt this community and create ill-will.
May 24, 16 11:57 am ·
·
OBAE can go measure the building themselves.
I would force OBAE to properly investigate and measure the building. They can't take an engineer's drawing over fact of reality. Photographs would prove the engineer made an error. In short, OBAE has to measure for themselves. How did the engineer make up their measured. How do you know what they actually field measured and what they didn't. I'd show them photographic proof that proves the matter.
As for track record of writing computer programs, in the 1980s, I was under 18 years old. Therefore, I didn't use my actual name. You know, kind of like Samuel Clemens use of "Mark Twain" pseudonym (or pen name) I used many different pseudonyms or aliases over time. The reason is to make it hard for people to track back to your physical address. There's legitimate reasons to not use your real name at the time as well. In that time, we (programmers in general) quite often used 'pen names' aka pseudonyms or aliases.
"He's a completely unskilled programmer. He hasn't produced anything ever, and all he ever does is write lots of incoherent posts while coming up with excuses for not doing anything. He's like a kid saying he's going to build an airplane, while not being able to fix a flat tire on his bike. He's been posting for three years about all the things he's going to do, and haven't done one single thing. Not very surprising, considering that he doesn't know how to code."
Now he's going to give you the details of his interactions with the writer of that particular comment, and tell you that it was the result of a personal grudge. Richard is incapable of recognizing the patterns in his behavior, or of taking responsibility for anything. When caught in a lie or exaggeration or called out on a history of such behavior, he always makes it somebody else's fault - from his parents to the economy to a government conspiracy. He used to blame the AIA for plotting against him, until he actually went to an AIA meeting and saw for himself what we've been saying about those being all whine and cheese. Or maybe he thinks they held off on their plotting that night, because of the presence of a "building designer".
if a picture is worth a thousand words, why is it that balkins has to write so much in his defense?
May 24, 16 1:52 pm ·
·
Now he's going to give you the details of his interactions with the writer of that particular comment, and tell you that it was the result of a personal grudge. Richard is incapable of recognizing the patterns in his behavior, or of taking responsibility for anything. When caught in a lie or exaggeration or called out on a history of such behavior, he always makes it somebody else's fault - from his parents to the economy to a government conspiracy. He used to blame the AIA for plotting against him, until he actually went to an AIA meeting and saw for himself what we've been saying about those being all whine and cheese. Or maybe he thinks they held off on their plotting that night, because of the presence of a "building designer".
Who do you think writes the Bills regarding architecture? Who do you think created the architectural licensing laws? George Morrison Post, ring a bell to those in Oregon? Lets not forget the other parties involved to coordinate such. You only need a band of 3-5 individuals, an afternoon to draft a bill, work it out a little bit over a week or two and go to state capitol and submit a bill. Getting a senator or whoever in legislator to sponsor / support the bill. Bring it before the legislator. From there, your best chance of passing such a bill is if it is gets unnoticed with attention on all these highly publicized bills so opponents won't know about it. Back in that time, AIA was even more powerful than they are today. This was before NAHB became a more opposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Post - a little Wikipedia on him. Not very in depth but there's other sources that elaborates a little more on his involvement in writing the original Architect Act of 1919 in Oregon.
Then license #2 was issued to Morris Whitehouse. License #3 to John Wicks and it basically goes from there.
Bottom line: Don't kid yourself with the capability of an organization such as AIA. Don't fool yourself to think they can't get legislation to happen.
George Morrison Post was not yet an AIA member at the time that his architect license #1 was granted, nor when he became the first executive secretary of the board. He was an AIA member for a total of less than 3 years - all of them after those events had already happened.
You never learn to get your facts straight before you post - which is part of the reason that you lost more and more credibility with each post until you had none left to lose. At this point you can write anything you like and absolutely nobody in the world, other than perhaps your mom, believes a word.
he'll be back once i talk to ted ames and get the fire inspection report. i'm sure balkerina will have plenty to ramble on about then. then of course a follow up with OBAE to see what action they are taking.
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
You have a conflict of interest because if the building is taller than you want it to be then you should never have done this work in the first place, and you're facing a substantial fine. The very reason that you did this measuring (if you really did it) is to try to keep yourself out of trouble. Do you see how that is a conflict of interest for you, but not for an architect?
remember when you said this in a different forum balkins?
"Bad reputation = ruined business. Take some more care in how you present your views and treat others.
Take care in what you say. What you say offline and in your home is none of my care or concern. Think of what you say online on a public forum as speaking in public. Think about what you say in email as you would in talking to someone.
In short, get a control over any of your antagonism of other people by speaking with care and reason and empathy and respect."
balkins, a court will take stamped documents from a licensed engineer over your tape measure/laser/photograph protractor algebra 100% of the time. that is really all that matters. you can write as many dissertations on CMU modularity and the finer points of using a tape measure as you'd like. in the eyes of the law, you've still practiced architecture as an unlicensed individual.
your inability to understand stamped drawings as legal documents is quite astounding.
Given that Balkins has previously reported several people to OBAE, and made a general pest of himself with their investigators, I get the feeling he's going to have a very hard time claiming ignorance of any laws there, and that they might be quite happy to have an opportunity to throw the book at him (literally even). Maybe he can sell his artistic pilaster photos to raise the 10k fine for knowingly practicing without a license.
I just called the theater. They've never heard of you. When did you say you did that measuring and photography?
Who are you talking to at the theater. There are a lot of new volunteers that are working there. I was just their earlier today. Around noon. Whoever is answering the phone isn't necessarily anyone that was there at the time or was talking to me. There is about 3 individuals who I talked to. Pauline, Chuck Meyer and a person who I believe is Bill Carr.
So you think that people who report dangerous situations to building officials should have to pay to fix those issues?
If you are reporting as a means of attacking a third-party then, yes. The reason is you're not reporting for HSW reasons but in reality reporting to personally attack a third party. Attacking the former client of a person to attack that person, then yes, you should pay for it. If you are reporting HSW issues for that sake then it should never be a part of attacking a person. This was being done to personally attack me. Don't tell me you are doing it for health, safety and welfare. If you tell me that no_form did that for such noble reason as that, you are a lying sack of shit not worthy to live let alone be trusted for anything. No_form is a low-life piece of shit. He is not worthy of anything. Not because of reporting HSW risks but attacking a former client of another person in order to attack that person. If he did it solely for health, safety and welfare, I personally give him a fucking accommodation and we give him a god damn ticket parade. We know better than that.
Regardless of whether or not I have talked to the past client about code issues and HSW issues, you or anyone else are suppose to contact the owners of the building first and make reasonable attempt to get these issues resolved at least 3 TIMES over a REASONABLE period of time for the issues before reporting to public official and you are suppose to by the final time prior to reporting to public officials.... inform the owners that your next step will be reporting to the public officials. That's the ethical way to do it.
You are suppose to contact the owners YOURSELF, at least three times before contacting public officials. By the final time prior to contacting public officials, you are suppose to notify the owners that your next step is reporting to the public officials. It doesn't matter if someone else has. That is what you are suppose to do ethically.
You are suppose to contact the owners YOURSELF, at least three times before contacting public officials.
No. That is a dangerous, time-wasting procedure that you have invented yourself. The law says that we have to report HSW issues immediately to the AHJs, or we can lose our licenses. I tried to warn you many pages back that the more you said about this project, the more we were going to have to report.
I was and am truly very concerned about the safety of this theater. There is a list of many different code issues, and the more photos you've shown the more issues that have become apparent. Sincerely Richard: your project is a death trap. It's an imminent threat. Calling the building owner three times and waiting for them to do anything would endanger more lives in the meantime. This is an absolutely terrible, dangerous project.
I'm guessing this is gonna ultimately come down on the contractor and engineer?
I personally give him a fucking accommodation and we give him a god damn ticket parade.
You mean "commendation", and "ticker tape". Look those up. Learn something.
Seems like the law works differently for different people, huh Richie? Just a week or so back you were defending your obligation to report some architect whose license was expired for a year. You claimed you had no choice, he was a danger to the public. Even though you had no knowledge of him doing anything in particular during that year that endangered anyone. You "had to" report it. Did you contact him directly three times and wait a reasonable period each time to see if he renewed his license?
Here we are aware of a list of perhaps 20 or 30 different life safety violations that put hundreds or thousands of people in danger every month - but you think that it should not be reported to authorities. You'd rather risk people's lives than cause expense to the building owner. You should talk that over with God.
balkins, a court will take stamped documents from a licensed engineer over your tape measure/laser/photograph protractor algebra 100% of the time. that is really all that matters. you can write as many dissertations on CMU modularity and the finer points of using a tape measure as you'd like. in the eyes of the law, you've still practiced architecture as an unlicensed individual.
They can take the fact and truth. The license does not make you right. Even a licensed professional can fuck up. Don't you think we got that with the stage not being sprinklered?
I measured it. I'm sure, it isn't going to be any different. I measured the meter about 6-7 readings. A couple times, the laser beam hit the bottom of the ridge purlins, forming a V, getting a lower number which I rejected. At those times, I got close to the center line in placement of the laser. I corrected the placement for other readings. It takes a steadiness to keep the laser on a spot within an inch of the exact highest point in elevation. It's not changing the elevation enough. If someone else wants to go in there and measure, find.
When an engineer fucks up, it doesn't mean the engineer's word is God's gospel. When I do it right, it doesn't mean the engineer is right or wrong. If the engineer is wrong, the engineer made a mistake in process. Did he laser measure. Did he send his laser up a roof vent? I don't know. Did he even measure the roof in the field? Did he have an error in process? Maybe.
" I personally give him a fucking accommodation and we give him a god damn ticket parade.
You mean "commendation", and "ticker tape". Look those up. Learn something."
Thank You for the correction. You give a person a fucking head ache.
Hey, what the hell happened, Balkins? If you had actually quit the forum, you might have actually regained an iota of credibility.
Good Bye to this worthless forum. I'm not going to accept any webcast, interview or whatever from this forum.
Please delete my account, administrator including this thread and all posts FROM me on this forum.
Thank You.
Seems like the law works differently for different people, huh Richie? Just a week or so back you were defending your obligation to report some architect whose license was expired for a year. You claimed you had no choice, he was a danger to the public. Even though you had no knowledge of him doing anything in particular during that year that endangered anyone. You "had to" report it. Did you contact him directly three times and wait a reasonable period each time to see if he renewed his license?
A licensed architect took an exam to know the licensing law. They signed a contractual agreement to follow the law and they intentionally violated it with criminal intent when they deliberately and intentionally let the license expire and practice architecture and use the title of architect.
Owners of properties are not abreast to the laws and if their contractors or other people they are also listening to are telling them different, that's an issue but you don't hold people who are not professionals in this field to the same standards as professionals.
Ah... but now I see this as a personal vendetta against me for reporting an Architect in Washington for violating the law.
This is what this crap is really about. Isn't it?
Richard you constantly say you are a professional and you're held to the same standard of care, same laws, etc. Those laws say you can't work on this project. You worked on this project, and you created 30 code infractions that can kill people. That's what this is about. And by the way, I didn't even know you reported an architect in Washington. I found out about at least three that you've reported in Oregon when I called OBAE - and I saw the one you reported in Australia. How many more are there?
JBeaumont,
If the building is 4000 sq.ft. or less and less than 20-ft. to highest OVERHEAD interior finish from the top surface of lowest floor makes it an EXEMPT BUILDING. Therefore, by LAW it would be exempt.
This building IS exempt. The highest overhead interior finish does NOT exceed 19'-11". ALL of you have have never measured this building. The engineer made an error because he didn't measure the ceiling. He made a miscount on the number of CMUs. The measurements you see is CAD generated dimensions. He may not even laser measure anything.
JBeaumont, the only architect I reported was in Washington. The other parties were not licensed. In those cases, the difference is none of them were fined because the process was more to send a letter of concern and for them to make corrections.
Regarding code infractions:
Cite the code infractions that I created. I'll then look through them.
I didn't construct the snack bar or the lighting booth. Some of that didn't happen until May and June of 2008 during the time I wasn't there. They deviated from my drawings. They started getting into the permit process before I went into CDs and then the contractor took it from there. From what can be determined, they screwed things up even more. While, I didn't address everything in the SD & DD phase work, they would have been addressed in CDs when I do the bulk work of the building codes. Had they got the fire sprinkler engineer in November of 2007 instead of in February or March of 2008, I would have been able to address some of the issues. The drawings could have been worked out and finalized in December of 2007 and maybe some in January 2008.
they would have been addressed in CDs when I do the bulk work of the building codes.
You're supposed to work out your code issues in SD. How were you planning to fix things like the exits being too close together, or the inadequate fire separation between the front of the theater and the backstage area, if you wait until CD?
There's already a huge list of code infractions throughout this thread. Exits too close together, too many spaces passed through, accessibility issues everywhere, no smoke vents, no smoke curtain, doors don't have ADA hardware, some doors are too small, trap doors don't have seals, stage isn't sprinklered below, lighting booth stair isn't to code, stage steps aren't too code, handrails not to code, no standpipes, electrical panel right next to egress door, egress corridors full of shelving, closet rods over dryer, backstage door blocked by furniture, no vestibules, NO BATHROOMS, fire separations not continuous, parapets not tall enough, and those are only the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Besides which, you only learned of the existence of UL directories, standpipes, and smoke vents IN THIS THREAD, so are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that all of those things were going to get taken care of in CD, when you didn't even know about them?
yeah man of course engineers can be wrong, but yet again you totally miss the point, and instead fixate on details that don't matter. you can go measure a building. an engineer can measure the same building (which is what happened).
legally, the stamped drawing defines the size of the building. you can say "oooh i measured 6 ways 'till sunday with a laser or bob's your uncle" as much as you'd like, but a court will always take the engineers word over yours. you're just a dude off the street. thankfully for you, your name isn't on the permit drawings and the clients don't know you, because you didn't design this project.
Please don't send him up here. I just got the last of my boxes unpacked and would like to stay a while.
I dunno, "Cole + Balkins Architects" has a nice ring to it.
Some professional liability insurance broker just felt a great disturbance in the force.
Lol
JBeaumont,
Tell that to all the architects who fucks up on code issues in SDs. SDs never have all code issues worked out. They never have enough details for it. SDs are not CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. When I am talking SDs, I am TALKING SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS or DOCUMENTS not SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS. You are confusing what I mean by SD. Submittal documents (Construction Documents), I agree with you.
Exits too close together:
Exits were not an issue. I could adjust the exact center of door in the plans. By the way, ICC interpretation is an approved interpretation. They had been doing center of threshold to center of threshold in a straight line since UBC.
too many spaces passed through: The only issue I see you are talking about is corridor. The corridor is NOT a room as the code is concern. If corridor was a room in the code, you will find this with EVERY SINGLE ACADEMIC BUILDING with a hallway and multiple classrooms. Don't you think? I would have adjusted a door location in SD in the CD.
accessibility issues everywhere: This is an existing building but more of those issues would have been addressed in the code. For example: Wheelchair Stairlift.
no smoke vents: The mechanical was being done by engineers. However, if I were to do the mechanical systems, then yes. It would have required some research on systems for it.
no smoke curtain: Easy. It would be a note on the plans and specs.
doors don't have ADA hardware: ALL DOORS would have been specified as ADA compliant doors. From 36" ADA doors to 42" or even 48" ADA compliant doors.
some doors are too small: I would have specified at least 36" ADA doors (which is compliant with ADA under the ADA Act and ADAAG as it was in 2007/2008.
trap doors don't have seals: That would have been done correctly. When I went under the stage, the trap door wasn't physically installed. The opening was made. However, I would have detailed that out in the drawings.
stage isn't sprinklered below: How is that my responsibility when a registered engineer was designing it. I would have expected to seen the engineers drawings for under the stage and above the stage. The reason I wasn't contracting the engineer myself is that the engineer would be costing me money on a project I wasn't getting paid. If the client didn't may me, I'm stuck paying the engineer out of my pocket. However, when the client or contractor was contracting the engineer, they broke the coordination. Pushed came to shove, I would have prepared plans for a limited area sprinkler system under the stage.
lighting booth stair isn't to code: How the lighting booth ended up did not follow my design. It deviated. If they didn't jump the gun, this would have been addressed in more detail drawings.
stage steps aren't too code: They would have been 6" rise x 12" tread. BY THE WAY, the stage had been altered. They extended the front of the stage by about 4-ft. and they are using non-compliant steps. I called for steps to be 6 risers x 12" tread depth. Some of those issues were done after July 2008. I believe that was done in 2009 or 2010.
handrails not to code: That would have been addressed in CDs.
no standpipes: The standpipes are not necessarily required. Those issues would have been addressed. However, they mucked up things a bit.
electrical panel right next to egress door: Under which specific code section. It was installed by a licensed electrician. I maybe overlooking it as I am sifting through these code matters (and I am sure in a real project, I would go through all the codes with enough time) but so far I don't see such requirement in NFPA 70 and OSSC and OFC. Are you sure that requirement is actually in the applicable code.
egress corridors full of shelving: There was no shelving in the corridor when I was last in that room. It wasn't in the plans, either. The only thing that was considered in the space was a mirror (preferably plastic) for make-up touch up work as the actors and actresses prepare doing before going out on to the stage. Of course, the bulk of make-up work would be done in the costume room. The egress is suppose to not have people staying in the egress for any significant length of time. It is suppose to be intermittent standing. It's not meant to be a place to just stand there.
closet rods over dryer: No proposal was ever made for closet rods over dryer. Not on any plans and never would be. That's post-occupancy non-compliance that can happen regardless. It isn't something I designed so it isn't my fault. I can't be held responsible for everything and every action a client or past client does in a building. Architects are not held to such requirements.
backstage door blocked by furniture: Sorry but no plans I ever make EVER would have furniture in the required egress or blocking an egress door. I can't control day to day operations of a
no vestibules: Not necessarily required. Exception #4 would apply of energy efficiency specialty code section 502.4.7 (but it wasn't in effect in Oregon as IECC was not adopted until 2009) . Since the theater room would be less than 3000 sq.ft. Interior dimensions, my friend. I believe vestibules were more optional at that time.
NO BATHROOMS: While that is the biggest issue. All plans showed at least an plan for at least one restroom (not bathrooms). However, there is an option to supply bathrooms in an adjacent structure or addition.
fire separations not continuous: CMU through the roof. That is adequate for a 1-hr rated fire barrier. You don't need a fire wall. Just need a fire-rated door and door assembly and seal up any openings in wall with code approved methods. Easily resolved. It would have been outlined in the CDs.
parapets not tall enough: For a FIRE WALL. You are right. Parapet is not required for the fire barrier requirements for separating the backstage and Stage/Theater room.
Of all these issues, ONLY the bathroom or restroom is the most persistent issue. It doesn't remove the requirement but portable restrooms can and do serve as a temporary solution but eventually it needs to be permanent. That was the premise. The idea is, as soon as they got the building paid for and not just renting/leasing it. They were suppose to have dealt with the addition or a separate building within suitable egress. There are multiple methods to solving the issue. As a detached structure, I could design it. As an attached structure, no... under the law. However, due to the nature of the project, it had to be separated into multiple phases.
"That is all I intend to say on this."
I should've bet money.
I wish Frank Miller would turn this into a graphic novel. There's so much material here.
yeah man of course engineers can be wrong, but yet again you totally miss the point, and instead fixate on details that don't matter. you can go measure a building. an engineer can measure the same building (which is what happened).
legally, the stamped drawing defines the size of the building. you can say "oooh i measured 6 ways 'till sunday with a laser or bob's your uncle" as much as you'd like, but a court will always take the engineers word over yours. you're just a dude off the street. thankfully for you, your name isn't on the permit drawings and the clients don't know you, because you didn't design this project.
Dangermouse,
EVERY detail matters.
The engineer made an error. Period. End of story. He did not measure the building's height directly. He counted CMUs and counted one too many by double counting. If you measured correctly from a straight vertical line from ground to highest point in the ceiling with a laser, he should have a number within +/- 1" of what I got. Every laser distance meter is accurate to less than an inch from each other.
No, a stamp does NOT define the size of a building. A building IS its size. Either you measure correctly or you don't.
You place way to much religious importance to that stamp. A $20 stamp. Whoopie fucking do. If I want to affix a stamp, I can just pay a 1 cent stamp and affix it.
Stamp doesn't make a person right or God or infallible. If it is wrong, it is wrong. I declare the engineer's stamp is wrong and I will challenge everyone of you to physically prove otherwise in front of me, the District Attorney and any one of the Circuit Court Judges.
If you can prove my measurements to be substantively wrong, then prove it. Otherwise, shut your mouth and hold your peace. I have already DONE due diligence to measure the building height.
I'll put up $20 for the show...
Balkaninos, you've given enough proof here that your "measurements" are half-ass. Please see below for my irrefutable response to your wailing wall of copy-pasta.
When you don't do code research in SD, you end up with a pissed off client in later phases. The last thing you want to do is find a code issue once cost estimates have been given. Nothing irritates a client more than being told they're going to have to pay more.
no smoke curtain: Easy. It would be a note on the plans and specs.
I didn't read that whole list, but this one caught my eye. It's a prime example of what you think you know vs. how little you know. A smoke curtain doesn't work without vestibules. You can write all the notes on the plans and the specs that you want, but it won't make this work, and it won't make the building safe.
I sincerely hope this thread stays here forever, so that anybody debating using an "unlicensed architect" or "building designer" can see this real-life example of the consequences of the potential consequences of that decision - and of the absolute meaninglessness of "AIBD" as any measure of a member's qualifications or ethics.
I really don't understand Balkin's logic here.
He is arguing that he did design the project, that he is liable, and that he is held to the same standard as an architect. If I were in his place I'd be putting as much distance between this project and myself as possible. Instead he does the opposite. At best he is responsible for a terrible project and allowed the client to proceed with an unsafe design without notifying anyone.
The fact that its at best unclear if he's even legally allowed to do the project would be moot because his name isn't on any documents, except that he keeps insisting otherwise!
Makes no sense to me
I think he won't let go of the claim that he's the designer because it's the only real-life project on which he's had any involvement. Most likely he has vastly exaggerated that involvement, and now is embarrassed to admit it - so will stick to his version even if it makes him responsible for fines by the state, and liability in the potential deaths of 200 people. Similar things have happened with some of his other claims over the years - example: he claimed on another forum that he worked for an architecture firm, SRG. Faced with statements to the contrary by staff of that firm, he eventually conceded that his services for SRG consisted solely of locating some old drawings in his community college's files - no more than a few hours' work and none which took place on the firm's premises - and yet he continues to list this as a job on his various profiles, and by including "2007-2008" he implies that it spanned a year or more, not an afternoon or two. This is the same person who lists by name an M.Arch program at a school he hasn't attended yet on his resume, despite not having even applied to that school, and not even being eligible to apply because of not having a bachelor degree - and he argues that because he puts future dates on those items this is ok. There are very, very blurry ideas in Richard's head about true and false, present and future, fact and fiction.
balkins man i really don't care about the size of the building. i also don't assign religious value to the stamp. i'm talking about the legal ramifications of you potentially working in the capacity as an unlicensed architect. if you say you measured the building right, then fine. i believe you. but that isn't the point.
OBAE will assume the engineers drawing be prima facie fact. you'll get a citation, assuming you had any involvement on the project. being a certified building designer doesn't mean shit.
You've, obviously, been around the comp.sys.cbm community a lot longer
than I have but the one thing I've come to realize over the years is
that Rick has consistently misrepresented himself.
For example:
He pretended to be one of the key members of the C-One team and acted
like their spokesperson. This continued until Jens blasting him,
exposing him to be a fraud.
He pretended to be in the know and working with Tulip until Ruud
finally clarified the situation and exposed him as a fraud (again).
Now, we're doing it all over again with CS-Doom 64. To announce that
Rick is the programmer for his project, a guy with no track record to
speak of, is just ludicrous. To think he's going to be able to add
SuperCPU code into VICE is just absurd.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.cbm/bgL8U8mCofE
LOL, Rick has never delivered on anything...not even a simple web site
(cbmgateway).
I think it's up to us, as a community, to ferret out those who
misrepresent themselves in order to protect the community because its
people like Rick who hurt this community and create ill-will.
OBAE can go measure the building themselves.
I would force OBAE to properly investigate and measure the building. They can't take an engineer's drawing over fact of reality. Photographs would prove the engineer made an error. In short, OBAE has to measure for themselves. How did the engineer make up their measured. How do you know what they actually field measured and what they didn't. I'd show them photographic proof that proves the matter.
As for track record of writing computer programs, in the 1980s, I was under 18 years old. Therefore, I didn't use my actual name. You know, kind of like Samuel Clemens use of "Mark Twain" pseudonym (or pen name) I used many different pseudonyms or aliases over time. The reason is to make it hard for people to track back to your physical address. There's legitimate reasons to not use your real name at the time as well. In that time, we (programmers in general) quite often used 'pen names' aka pseudonyms or aliases.
"He's a completely unskilled programmer. He hasn't produced anything
ever, and all he ever does is write lots of incoherent posts while
coming up with excuses for not doing anything. He's like a kid saying
he's going to build an airplane, while not being able to fix a flat
tire on his bike. He's been posting for three years about all the
things he's going to do, and haven't done one single thing. Not very
surprising, considering that he doesn't know how to code."
What was your alias?
Now he's going to give you the details of his interactions with the writer of that particular comment, and tell you that it was the result of a personal grudge. Richard is incapable of recognizing the patterns in his behavior, or of taking responsibility for anything. When caught in a lie or exaggeration or called out on a history of such behavior, he always makes it somebody else's fault - from his parents to the economy to a government conspiracy. He used to blame the AIA for plotting against him, until he actually went to an AIA meeting and saw for himself what we've been saying about those being all whine and cheese. Or maybe he thinks they held off on their plotting that night, because of the presence of a "building designer".
so am I the only one here worried that Sir Balkarino the Great Wizard just compared himself to Mark Twain?
or that in the "1980's" when he was "programming" this "Mark Twain" was no more than 7 years old (according to his reported age of 34)
if a picture is worth a thousand words, why is it that balkins has to write so much in his defense?
Now he's going to give you the details of his interactions with the writer of that particular comment, and tell you that it was the result of a personal grudge. Richard is incapable of recognizing the patterns in his behavior, or of taking responsibility for anything. When caught in a lie or exaggeration or called out on a history of such behavior, he always makes it somebody else's fault - from his parents to the economy to a government conspiracy. He used to blame the AIA for plotting against him, until he actually went to an AIA meeting and saw for himself what we've been saying about those being all whine and cheese. Or maybe he thinks they held off on their plotting that night, because of the presence of a "building designer".
Who do you think writes the Bills regarding architecture? Who do you think created the architectural licensing laws? George Morrison Post, ring a bell to those in Oregon? Lets not forget the other parties involved to coordinate such. You only need a band of 3-5 individuals, an afternoon to draft a bill, work it out a little bit over a week or two and go to state capitol and submit a bill. Getting a senator or whoever in legislator to sponsor / support the bill. Bring it before the legislator. From there, your best chance of passing such a bill is if it is gets unnoticed with attention on all these highly publicized bills so opponents won't know about it. Back in that time, AIA was even more powerful than they are today. This was before NAHB became a more opposition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Post - a little Wikipedia on him. Not very in depth but there's other sources that elaborates a little more on his involvement in writing the original Architect Act of 1919 in Oregon.
Then license #2 was issued to Morris Whitehouse. License #3 to John Wicks and it basically goes from there.
Bottom line: Don't kid yourself with the capability of an organization such as AIA. Don't fool yourself to think they can't get legislation to happen.
They have done it before.
Balkarina:
Bottom line: You know nothing, not even the depth of your own ignorance.
As far as this thread goes, I've exhausted all patience in debating this issue with any of you.
I'm looking to other threads that are more interesting then this time waste.
George Morrison Post was not yet an AIA member at the time that his architect license #1 was granted, nor when he became the first executive secretary of the board. He was an AIA member for a total of less than 3 years - all of them after those events had already happened.
You never learn to get your facts straight before you post - which is part of the reason that you lost more and more credibility with each post until you had none left to lose. At this point you can write anything you like and absolutely nobody in the world, other than perhaps your mom, believes a word.
As far as this thread goes, I've exhausted all patience in debating this issue with any of you.
$25,000 says he posts in this thread again.
he'll be back once i talk to ted ames and get the fire inspection report. i'm sure balkerina will have plenty to ramble on about then. then of course a follow up with OBAE to see what action they are taking.
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.