The snack bar, lighting booth, and stage that Balkins added also are not ADA-accessible.
The hatch in the stage lacks code-required approved locks, and is not constructed of solid wood and lacks a tight seal.
The entire building lacks any bathrooms, and the number of portable toilets provided outside does not meet the plumbing code for an establishment that serves food and drink.
The awning at the exterior ticket window has supports that project into the walking zone, with no way to be detected by a cane-using visually impaired person.
The theater regularly hosts events with occupancy counts that exceed the design occupant loads stated by Mr. Balkins.
I think he's got a non-compliant projection booth in there too. I know he said a couple pages back that it is not a projection booth, but then back on page 3 he said it was "a projectionist area with the projection light in it". Hard to say exactly how a "projectionist area" differs from a "projection room", but I'm sure he'll be back to enlighten us with another "you do realize..." bout of code nonsense.
May 1, 16 8:07 pm ·
·
Jbeaumont:
Where there is a 50-person cast and 2 are on stage for a scene (as if often the case in large-ensemble productions) the rest are backstage. There are photos on the theater's sites of most of the cast hanging out back there waiting to go on for big production numbers - along with the costume assistants, makeup people, etc. They're packed in back there like sardines.
Yes of course doors could be added. But they should have been in the design in the first place!
You just keep answering everything with what "could have" been done. Doesn't it concern you at all that the current facility, as it was done, is DANGEROUS? If you don't care that people can be killed because of your ineptitude, then you're a selfish, egotistical maniac.
I had two doors in the backstage design but they wanted to reduce it to 1 door. I told them that no more than 49 people in the back stage with one exit.
In a fire, if someone is on stage front, don't you think they would just go out the exit with the audience that's just to the right if you are on stage looking towards the audience. There's an inherent risk and if they are all just standing in the hall way., that is a problem. In any case, you seem to miss the point that people constantly move from room to room to room. As the code looks at it, when an emergency occurs (the point where evacuation is required) the people that are in the backstage are suppose to exit the door. If they are adjacent to the exit in the first place they go out that way. A 36" wide door can support an overage above 49 individuals. So as two people maybe on stage at the back of the stage. They just more than likely would go out the backstage exit as people are leaving. So after the first two of the 49 in the back stage exits so what if two on stage goes out that way. If they are at the Stage Right "wing"... that person is in a perfect location to go out the east exit with the audience.
Even if some of the people on stage were leaving out the "Backstage", they are entering the backstage hall way egress as people are leaving. It isn't the intent that people on the stage performance area is going to exit out the back. If they exceed 49 then they are suppose to add a second exit out. I told them, if more than 49 are in the back stage they need two exits. As long as they don't exceed 49, one exit is sufficient per code requirement. If two people or even 10 people went into the backstage after 20 of the 49 had left the back stage, so what? The stage has a means of egress off the stage. The point is the total on-stage and backstage shall not exceed 49. Otherwise additional exits are required.
They told me they were going to operate with less than that in total. You are always assuming a theater of 3x this theater size. Why? It's like designing a Detroit Fox Theatre for a small theater like Coaster Theater or even smaller.
Whom am I to tell the client how they run their theater program or even you?
May 1, 16 9:29 pm ·
·
JeromeS,
Exits for discharging a building are outswinging doors.
balkins buddy, the issue isn't with the number of exits, or the occupant load, its with how accessible those exits are. you've said before that the client didn't have enough money to make the building totally compliant--which is fine! this happens! the correct response to a situation like that is to:
a) help them find more money so the building can be compliant and safe
OR
b) walk away from the project.
i'm all about community architecture and i think you made a workable space for these people, but it needs to be safe. you don't make a safe building by combining non fire rated roof assemblies, insufficient fire rated partitioning, and non-ADA compliant egress spaces.
I'm not actually assuming anything Rick. I'm basing my comments on my observations from photographs. You've claimed at various points in this thread that the design occupancy is anything from 120 to 200+. There are photos of rows of chairs for an audience of 200+, and there are performances that list casts of 50+, in addition to stage hands, lighting techs, makeup people, stage managers, costumers, box office people, snack bar people, and so forth. Some of those productions have a cast and crew that approach 100. There are also photos of the cast in the backstage area jammed into that hallway, and the hallway is lined with racks of clothes, shelves of wigs, piles of props, and scenery flats - all combustible and easily reducing the corridor width by half.
When designing a theater a real design professional makes some reasonable assumptions about how a theater will be used. A real design professional also makes some reasonable assumptions about how a box office area will be used and doesn't assume that a single 18 inch deep counter and two folding chairs are going to accommodate all the office equipment, tickets, programs, phones, workers' coats and bags and other belongings, etc. - especially when the same room is also the lighting/projection room, and overflow storage.
Watch the Station fire video again, especially the part where people are desperately trying to pull all the trampled, stuck people out of the front doors with black smoke billowing above them. One spark in that backstage area during a performance and that's what you've got in your theater.
A folding chair can encroach on the 60" turning radius - it's movable furniture so it's not counted in that, but it can't encroach on the egress route - there needs to be a zone for the seated or standing employees that's outside of the clear egress route, because this isn't just an office, it's the corridor to the lighting booth. The way he has it designed, the room is only wide enough for the clear egress route + the depth of the work surface - there's no zone for the people to stand or sit and not be impeding circulation - that's why the theater director said in that article that they're always bumping into each other and can't breather
Yes there is an ADAAG exception for private offices - it allows a private office to have a non-compliant bathroom, and it allows offices' layouts to not meet ADA - if there are offices in which it is possible to have an ADA compliant layout. This office is the only office and it isn't possible to do an ADA-compliant layout in it, and it's also a corridor.
a corridor as in people from other spaces exit through it?
203.9 has exceptions for work areas. i don't know if those exceptions apply, but if they do the space doesn't have to be accessible or on an accessible route.
Rick why didn't you just walk away from this project rather than proceeding with all of the client's wishes for you to skirt code? You weren't even being paid - why didn't you just explain to them that as a design professional your only choices were to design to code or to not design?
Curt, yes, people from other spaces exit through it. It's the only egress route for the lighting and projection booth, which is accessed by stair within it. It's also the only office space, so the exceptions don't apply. Plus it's the public ticket booth, so the surface would needs to be at an accessible height for the public's sake even if the employee side were exempt.
"Where there are a series of individual work stations of the same type (e.g., laboratories, service counters, ticket booths), 5%, but not less than one, of each type of work station shall be constructed so that an individual with disabilities can maneuver within the work stations. Rooms housing individual offices must meet the requirements of the guidelines concerning doors, accessible routes, etc. but do not need to allow for maneuvering space around individual desks. "
May 1, 16 10:24 pm ·
·
The theater regularly hosts events with occupancy counts that exceed the design occupant loads stated by Mr. Balkins.
You do realize that the egress width and door width exceeds even my design load and even 200 people. The exit doors egress widths at the exits supports up to 450 people just fine. The actual egress width has extra room.
The awning at the exterior ticket window has supports that project into the walking zone, with no way to be detected by a cane-using visually impaired person.
There is no awnings that are in any way part of my design. They added an awning after they had received certificate of occupancy.
The snack bar, lighting booth, and stage that Balkins added also are not ADA-accessible.
The snack bar should be ADA accessible. The snack bar does have a lower serving counter top space for wheel chair access at the snack bar. There's a higher counter top space and a lower countertop. At the corner of the snack bar right along adjacent to the exit egress on the north side of the building.
The lighting booth is not meant to be operated by people in wheelchair. There is some disabilities that disqualifies a person from being able to properly operate the projecting light. It's not a MOTION PICTURE PROJECTION ROOM. The code there does not apply.
As for the stage: I had concerns about it but it came down to a discussion about wheelchair stair lift. (incline lift). I had raised concerns about the stage not having ADA compliance. I had designed it with the intent of a wheel chair stair lift to be installed. They deviated from that. I am not a product designer. I don't design the stair lifts. They decided to omit that. I was going for a stairlift approach vs. separate vertical platform lift and stair.
For ADA purposes it does not matter whether it's a motion picture projection booth or not - it has to be accessible, or adaptable for future accessibility if a person with disabilities is hired for the job. It's illegal to disqualify a person with disabilities for that job.
The only reason it would matter whether it's a movie projection booth or not on this project is that the fire separation requirements differ.
My concern with the occupant counts is more with the backstage area. You're saying that you designed it with one compliant exit, and told them they had to keep it to 49 people or fewer. The programs for their events, plus their photos, show that they routinely have far more people in that area. In their previous locations had similarly sized productions, so as a design professional you should have been able to project that they were going to have more than 49 people in that space, and designed it with additional doors to the exterior. I think it's been clearly established that exiting back through the house does not meet code for a 2nd egress. You should have designed an additional code-compliant exit from the backstage area - not just ignored the issue and be saying several years later that they "could add more doors now".
Might as well pile it all on...missing the minimum number of plumbing fixtures too. Unless there is some exception allowing port-o-johns that I have never read before.
I do have to say that Balkins may not be liable or responsible for anything he did in regards to this project. Unless he somehow misrepresented himself. Yes he royally fucked this project and the client, yes he has put the health/safety/welfare of others at risk, yes he should never do this typ of work until he can get an education, get some real experience, move out of his parents basement, etc. The most that will likely happen with any letter or report is an investigation into the current condition at the theater, and potential closure by the fire marshall and health department...maybe a lawsuit against the owner by a litigious ADA group.
May 1, 16 11:01 pm ·
·
Rick why didn't you just walk away from this project rather than proceeding with all of the client's wishes for you to skirt code? You weren't even being paid - why didn't you just explain to them that as a design professional your only choices were to design to code or to not design?
In hindsight, it wasn't worth the headache. They also rushed my DD drawings into permits and when they did, I did complain to the B.O. but in that case, it didn't work. There was a few changes I was going to do before handing over the CDs. My DDs had enough information on it that they somehow approved permits for it.
A lesson learned was not to hand client copies of the DDs.
The best that could happen is that it put in front of the state board an example of what happens, and the potential for disaster, when an unqualified person is allowed to design this type of project, and maybe that will nudge them a little more toward re-evaluating their exemptions. I suspect that when the rules were written that exempt anything under 4000 square feet in area and 20 feet in height they probably imagined very simple low-occupancy commercial spaces - maybe things like the original appliance store that was there before, or maybe storage buildings, vehicle garages, things of that nature. It most likely never occurred to anybody involved with those regulations that somebody would hire an unlicensed person to design an assembly space in a 3998 square foot building.
As for Balkins not being liable or responsible: that's probably sadly true - though that flies against all that Balkins has said all these years about him being held to the same standard of care and equally liable as a licensed architect.
May 1, 16 11:13 pm ·
·
JBeaumont,
Who are you to tell the theater how many people maybe in the back stage. If there is a single exit then a 49 occupant notice is suppose to be posted. Can you show me a photo where there is more than 49 people in the backstage?
I wasn't designing the theater for 500 people in the dressing rooms. There is maybe 30 people. Everyone on stage in Shanghaied in Astoria on stage are also for the most part also the same people in the backstage including the makeup artists (which is mostly the performers themselves.
Rick your story about the client handing off DD drawings to the city without your authorization and then ignoring your objections is another very strong reason why this type of project should not be exempt anywhere. That could never happen with a project that requires an architect's or engineer's stamp - because if the drawings are not permit-ready a licensed professional would not stamp them, and then the AHJ would not be able to issue permits for a project that has not been fully cooked. That can only happen when the project doesn't require a stamp. All assembly projects should require a stamp.
May 1, 16 11:17 pm ·
·
The best that could happen is that it put in front of the state board an example of what happens, and the potential for disaster, when an unqualified person is allowed to design this type of project, and maybe that will nudge them a little more toward re-evaluating their exemptions. I suspect that when the rules were written that exempt anything under 4000 square feet in area and 20 feet in height they probably imagined very simple low-occupancy commercial spaces - maybe things like the original appliance store that was there before, or maybe storage buildings, vehicle garages, things of that nature. It most likely never occurred to anybody involved with those regulations that somebody would hire an unlicensed person to design an assembly space in a 3998 square foot building.
As for Balkins not being liable or responsible: that's probably sadly true - though that flies against all that Balkins has said all these years about him being held to the same standard of care and equally liable as a licensed architect.
ORS 12.135.
They took D.D. drawings before they were ready for permits and submitted them for permits.
And yet Rick has not shown even a tiny amount of remorse or of taking responsibility for his actions. The sad thing is, when this news story comes out it will give architecture a bad name even though he is most certainly not an architect. Shame on you for providing horribly inept services and passing yourself off as a competent professional Rick. Shame on you for putting these good people in harms way. Shame on you for disregard public health, safety, and welfare. You're a disgrace.
The worst thing is he won't learn a damn thing from this.
May 1, 16 11:21 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
Rick your story about the client handing off DD drawings to the city without your authorization and then ignoring your objections is another very strong reason why this type of project should not be exempt anywhere. That could never happen with a project that requires an architect's or engineer's stamp - because if the drawings are not permit-ready a licensed professional would not stamp them, and then the AHJ would not be able to issue permits for a project that has not been fully cooked.
The exemptions are statutory law not by board rules.
No, he won't learn a damn thing from this. But the state board might, about the ramifications of their unwise exemptions, and the city might, about not asserting their right to require a stamp for this type of project. The theater group also might realize some of the dangers they're living in and do a better job with the next renovation. Even if a visit from the fire marshal prods them into action in clearing out all the flammable crap blocking their backstage hallway, that would make things safer than they are today.
Balkins you are really a narcissist bordering on psychopath with your complete lack of compassion or remorse for what you've done. And you're even bold enough to talk like you will gladly do this again if give the chance. You're sick.
May 1, 16 11:47 pm ·
·
Bloopox,
What's here to learn other than so called demand to shut down business and quit. There is no opportunity to learn from that. That's just quitting. Quitting is not a path to learning Bloopox.
Sure, there are mistakes. Perhaps I should have walked away from the project and let them close without a future. If I ever do such a project in the future, I'll never do it pro bono. I'll never do it unless they provide in writing budget and in contract terms, client shall provide within 5 business days of receiving notice of secured funds towards the project and know precisely what is available towards the project among other terms.
They will also provide an up front retainer as well. Those are just for starters.
May 1, 16 11:55 pm ·
·
no_form,
Would I design a theater building ever again? Maybe.... maybe not. Would I do it the project the same way? No. Would there be differences? Yes.
Would I do a project on emergency like this? Probably not.
It would be helpful if the board and city and state fire marshal also get the part where Rick states that UL listed assemblies aren't published and that no comprehensive list of them exists. Jurisdictions that allow unlicensed people to design for these higher risk uses need to understand just how untrained, inexperienced, and uneducated some "building designers" really are, even a decade into their careers and with purportedly numerous projects under their belts.
"What's here to learn other than so called demand to shut down business and quit."
Really? This 10-page thread is full of things you didn't know and should have known. Have you learned nothing? The difference between UL-certified products and UL-listed assemblies? The existence of UL directories? The fact that egress can only go through a limited number of rooms? What a standpipe is and looks like? This list can go on and on (probably for about 7 pages if I don't count everything you could have learned about kangaroos while you were at it) but what would be the point of writing out the whole list for you? If you didn't learn anything from this thread you will never learn anything. You have stopped your potential at the level of a sheltered, naive, stubborn, insecure know-it-all 12 year old and that is all you will ever be.
First of all, this project is not exempt. It clearly states under ORs exemptions that buildings under 4000ft2 "where the occupancy or code classification has not changed" are exempt. This would not be within that exemption.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with the googling of the UL products, and yes I have heard of a combination sprinkler standpipe - and I know what one looks like, and I know that you do not.
Yep, dry line in a hotel stairwell in Texas. Your current ability to use a search engine is not in question. It's your competence at the time you did this project...and now.
omg balkans...you gave the city DD documents??!? i cant even believe this candyland bullshit. who fucking gives a city DD documents for permitting? what year is this? is this real life?
May 2, 16 1:13 am ·
·
You say that black pipe going up just to the left of that red alarm is not? Hmmm.....
May 2, 16 1:33 am ·
·
omg balkans...you gave the city DD documents??!? i cant even believe this candyland bullshit. who fucking gives a city DD documents for permitting? what year is this? is this real life?
Dangermouse,
The client not me. I did have an issue with that.
What year is this? 2016.... oh I think you meant what year was this...... 2007. The project was done 2008 aside from some other misc. stuff since then.
Balkins, you should know if it is a standpipe. You did the project. My guess is that it's a drain pipe from the roof.
Keep going. You're a menace.
May 2, 16 1:39 am ·
·
no_form,
Nope, it is not a roof drain. The roof drain is much closer to the east exit/entrance. Did you not notice the pressure gauge?
You see the pipe on the right next to the door..... (that's a roof drain) - Pre-existing.
Look at the photo downrange. You see how its connected to black pipes up above. You see the red "elbow" connector connecting the pipes. This ties into the fire-sprinkler system.
In this photo, look up to the top. That black pipe connects to the vertical black pipe in the above photos. It is connected into the sprinkler system.
It apparently ties in.
I can guarantee you it is not a roof drain.
May 2, 16 2:01 am ·
·
jla-x
Jla-x,
You need to read up more on the licensing laws. Change of Occupancy for buildings 4000 sq.ft. or less in ground area is exempt as well as 20-ft. on the height rule. 20-ft. height and 4000 sq.ft. ground area is exempt.
You need to remember the other exemptions are not limited to new construction or same occupancy. You need to read up on this as that is how all guidance on the laws and rules during the time.
May 2, 16 2:06 am ·
·
You must remember (d) is a separate exemption from (c).
If (d) applied to (c), then it negates (c) altogether especially as it pertains to alterations. Since Alterations and even an enlargement which is an alteration and would required structural alterations in the first place.
You do realize that (d) applies to any other building that isn't otherwise exempt under the other exemptions such as (b) and (c) of ORS 671.030.
May 2, 16 2:17 am ·
·
balkins buddy, the issue isn't with the number of exits, or the occupant load, its with how accessible those exits are. you've said before that the client didn't have enough money to make the building totally compliant--which is fine! this happens! the correct response to a situation like that is to:
a) help them find more money so the building can be compliant and safe
OR
b) walk away from the project.
Dangermouse,
You wrote:
A) When has finding client money a requirement of the licensing law. When has it EVER been an architect's professional job and duty to find money for a client. It's not practice of architecture. If you are contracted to do architectural services, that is EXACTLY your job.
It is not the definition of architecture or what architects do to get client money. It's the client's job to secure project funding. You work for the client. If the client says the project cost is not to exceed $150,000 then that is what your job is to do.
All of you are applying every requirement for new buildings on existing buildings. If that was the case, the only thing you CAN do is tear down and build all new. This kind of defeats the point of renovation or remodeling of existing and historic buildings.
Maybe we the people should require that you personally finance every one of client's projects out of your personal income. You pay for it.
Is that something you want to be responsible for. You also have a duty to client to not overspend budget by applying every requirement. When a building is applying Section 3410, the building official a lot of latitude as to what the B.O. is going to require and what the B.O. isn't going to require.
You see when it comes to matters of requiring or not requiring sprinklers under stages must also take into account intent of code such as ICC intent.
Lets read the commentary from 2009 IBC... it hasn't changed enough in this area of the code between 2006 (and 2007 OSSC) and 2009 IBC
While we sprinklered the stage from above and back stage (dressing rooms --- 1980s era addition). The B.O. probably not required it as the conditions to even require one:
410.6 Automatic sprinkler system. Stages shall be equipped with an automatic fire-extinguishing system in accordance with Chapter 9. Sprinklers shall be installed under the roof and gridiron and under all catwalks and galleries over the stage. Sprinklers shall be installed in dressing rooms, performer lounges, shops and storerooms accessory to such stages. [F]
Exceptions:
1. Sprinklers are not required under stage areas less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in clear height that are utilized exclusively for storage of tables and chairs, provided the concealed space is separated from the adjacent spaces by not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board.
2. Sprinklers are not required for stages 1,000 square feet (93 m2) or less in area and 50 feet (15 240 mm) or less in height where curtains, scenery or other combustible hangings are not retractable vertically. Combustible hangings shall be limited to a single main curtain, borders, legs and a single backdrop.
3. Sprinklers are not required within portable orchestra enclosures on stages.
Commentary:
Stages contain significant quantities of combustible materials stored in, around and above the stage that are located in close proximity to large quantities of lighting equipment (i.e., scenery and lighting above the stage). There also is scenery on the sides and rear of the stage; shops located along the back and sides of the stage, and storage, props, trap doors and lifts under the stage floor. This combination of fuel load and ignition sources increases the potential for a fire. As such, stages and auxiliary areas, such as dressing rooms, workshops and storerooms, are required to be protected with an automatic fire-extinguishing system.
The references to Chapter 9 indicate that the fire-extinguishing system may be designed in accordance with NFPA 13 and Section 903.3.1.1 or, if not more than 20 sprinklers are required on any single connection, a limited area sprinkler system may be used (see Section 903.3.5.1.1).
Exception 1 applies to areas less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in clear height under stages that are used only for the storage of tables and chairs. Because of the limited fuel load present, such areas are not required to be protected with sprinklers, provided that the concealed space is separated from all adjacent spaces by no less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board. This level of separation is intended to provide fire containment in the absence of sprinkler protection. This arrangement is often found in educational buildings where the room is used as a multipurpose room.
Exception 2 recognizes that stages 1,000 square feet (93 m2) or less in area and 50 feet (15 240 mm) or less in height represent a limited potential for combustibles that does not warrant the requirements for an automatic sprinkler system. The code further limits the amounts of combustible materials by not allowing any vertical retractable curtains, hangings, etc. It should be noted, however, that although sprinkler protection is not required, the requirements of Section 410.5 still apply.
Exception 3 acknowledges the limited hazards associated with portable orchestra enclosures. These elements are temporary in nature and are intended to improve the acoustics of the stage performances. These temporary enclosures do not lend themselves to temporary sprinkler heads; therefore, none are required.
The stage has only 2-ft. of clear height under the stage. While the code applies a prescriptive application of 5/8" type-x gypsum wall board. This is not 1-hr rated. It's maybe 30 minutes of rating.
Why are sprinklers required under the stage?
They are talking about a concealed space with a storage use. What if there is no storage use? Sprinklers are required under stages typically for the reasons the space is being used for storing stuff. The first exception provides an exception to sprinkler requirements because of the type of stored items. (Tables and Chairs)
Now when you are not storing anything. The intent of sprinkler requirements does not provide a practical reason for sprinklers. If anything, the only area possibly needing the type x drywall is the very front of the stage. That can be applied apply without much work. The front finish can have it installed without much difficulty. On three sides of the stage, the 5/8" drywall can be substituted with the CMU structure on the east side (currently no adjacent space on that side within the building), south side, the actual floor, and even on the west side (there is no adjacent space on that side). Since there is no practical means for storing items under the stage. The only adjacent space is to the south (top of stage and up) as that's just poured concrete wall and CMU. The only adjacent space is the audience area to the front (north side) of the stage. This means the only 5/8" gypsum wall board conceivably needed is the front row. There isn't that much drywall needed for that frontage.
The whole commentary points to storage. The underside of stage is not used for storage.
It isn't like there was much drywall needed. If the B.O. excercised a modification under 104.10 or application of alternatives under 104.11. That was at the B.O.'s call.
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
Is there exit device hardware? Do the doors swing in the direction of egress travel?
The snack bar, lighting booth, and stage that Balkins added also are not ADA-accessible.
The hatch in the stage lacks code-required approved locks, and is not constructed of solid wood and lacks a tight seal.
The entire building lacks any bathrooms, and the number of portable toilets provided outside does not meet the plumbing code for an establishment that serves food and drink.
The awning at the exterior ticket window has supports that project into the walking zone, with no way to be detected by a cane-using visually impaired person.
The theater regularly hosts events with occupancy counts that exceed the design occupant loads stated by Mr. Balkins.
I think he's got a non-compliant projection booth in there too. I know he said a couple pages back that it is not a projection booth, but then back on page 3 he said it was "a projectionist area with the projection light in it". Hard to say exactly how a "projectionist area" differs from a "projection room", but I'm sure he'll be back to enlighten us with another "you do realize..." bout of code nonsense.
Jbeaumont:
Where there is a 50-person cast and 2 are on stage for a scene (as if often the case in large-ensemble productions) the rest are backstage. There are photos on the theater's sites of most of the cast hanging out back there waiting to go on for big production numbers - along with the costume assistants, makeup people, etc. They're packed in back there like sardines.
Yes of course doors could be added. But they should have been in the design in the first place!
You just keep answering everything with what "could have" been done. Doesn't it concern you at all that the current facility, as it was done, is DANGEROUS? If you don't care that people can be killed because of your ineptitude, then you're a selfish, egotistical maniac.
I had two doors in the backstage design but they wanted to reduce it to 1 door. I told them that no more than 49 people in the back stage with one exit.
In a fire, if someone is on stage front, don't you think they would just go out the exit with the audience that's just to the right if you are on stage looking towards the audience. There's an inherent risk and if they are all just standing in the hall way., that is a problem. In any case, you seem to miss the point that people constantly move from room to room to room. As the code looks at it, when an emergency occurs (the point where evacuation is required) the people that are in the backstage are suppose to exit the door. If they are adjacent to the exit in the first place they go out that way. A 36" wide door can support an overage above 49 individuals. So as two people maybe on stage at the back of the stage. They just more than likely would go out the backstage exit as people are leaving. So after the first two of the 49 in the back stage exits so what if two on stage goes out that way. If they are at the Stage Right "wing"... that person is in a perfect location to go out the east exit with the audience.
Even if some of the people on stage were leaving out the "Backstage", they are entering the backstage hall way egress as people are leaving. It isn't the intent that people on the stage performance area is going to exit out the back. If they exceed 49 then they are suppose to add a second exit out. I told them, if more than 49 are in the back stage they need two exits. As long as they don't exceed 49, one exit is sufficient per code requirement. If two people or even 10 people went into the backstage after 20 of the 49 had left the back stage, so what? The stage has a means of egress off the stage. The point is the total on-stage and backstage shall not exceed 49. Otherwise additional exits are required.
They told me they were going to operate with less than that in total. You are always assuming a theater of 3x this theater size. Why? It's like designing a Detroit Fox Theatre for a small theater like Coaster Theater or even smaller.
Whom am I to tell the client how they run their theater program or even you?
JeromeS,
Exits for discharging a building are outswinging doors.
balkins buddy, the issue isn't with the number of exits, or the occupant load, its with how accessible those exits are. you've said before that the client didn't have enough money to make the building totally compliant--which is fine! this happens! the correct response to a situation like that is to:
a) help them find more money so the building can be compliant and safe
OR
b) walk away from the project.
i'm all about community architecture and i think you made a workable space for these people, but it needs to be safe. you don't make a safe building by combining non fire rated roof assemblies, insufficient fire rated partitioning, and non-ADA compliant egress spaces.
isn't there an exception for employee work areas in the adaag?
also, i think a folding chair is allowed to encroach the 60" circle
I'm not actually assuming anything Rick. I'm basing my comments on my observations from photographs. You've claimed at various points in this thread that the design occupancy is anything from 120 to 200+. There are photos of rows of chairs for an audience of 200+, and there are performances that list casts of 50+, in addition to stage hands, lighting techs, makeup people, stage managers, costumers, box office people, snack bar people, and so forth. Some of those productions have a cast and crew that approach 100. There are also photos of the cast in the backstage area jammed into that hallway, and the hallway is lined with racks of clothes, shelves of wigs, piles of props, and scenery flats - all combustible and easily reducing the corridor width by half.
When designing a theater a real design professional makes some reasonable assumptions about how a theater will be used. A real design professional also makes some reasonable assumptions about how a box office area will be used and doesn't assume that a single 18 inch deep counter and two folding chairs are going to accommodate all the office equipment, tickets, programs, phones, workers' coats and bags and other belongings, etc. - especially when the same room is also the lighting/projection room, and overflow storage.
Watch the Station fire video again, especially the part where people are desperately trying to pull all the trampled, stuck people out of the front doors with black smoke billowing above them. One spark in that backstage area during a performance and that's what you've got in your theater.
A folding chair can encroach on the 60" turning radius - it's movable furniture so it's not counted in that, but it can't encroach on the egress route - there needs to be a zone for the seated or standing employees that's outside of the clear egress route, because this isn't just an office, it's the corridor to the lighting booth. The way he has it designed, the room is only wide enough for the clear egress route + the depth of the work surface - there's no zone for the people to stand or sit and not be impeding circulation - that's why the theater director said in that article that they're always bumping into each other and can't breather
Yes there is an ADAAG exception for private offices - it allows a private office to have a non-compliant bathroom, and it allows offices' layouts to not meet ADA - if there are offices in which it is possible to have an ADA compliant layout. This office is the only office and it isn't possible to do an ADA-compliant layout in it, and it's also a corridor.
a corridor as in people from other spaces exit through it?
203.9 has exceptions for work areas. i don't know if those exceptions apply, but if they do the space doesn't have to be accessible or on an accessible route.
Rick why didn't you just walk away from this project rather than proceeding with all of the client's wishes for you to skirt code? You weren't even being paid - why didn't you just explain to them that as a design professional your only choices were to design to code or to not design?
Curt, yes, people from other spaces exit through it. It's the only egress route for the lighting and projection booth, which is accessed by stair within it. It's also the only office space, so the exceptions don't apply. Plus it's the public ticket booth, so the surface would needs to be at an accessible height for the public's sake even if the employee side were exempt.
"Where there are a series of individual work stations of the same type (e.g., laboratories, service counters, ticket booths), 5%, but not less than one, of each type of work station shall be constructed so that an individual with disabilities can maneuver within the work stations. Rooms housing individual offices must meet the requirements of the guidelines concerning doors, accessible routes, etc. but do not need to allow for maneuvering space around individual desks. "
The theater regularly hosts events with occupancy counts that exceed the design occupant loads stated by Mr. Balkins.
You do realize that the egress width and door width exceeds even my design load and even 200 people. The exit doors egress widths at the exits supports up to 450 people just fine. The actual egress width has extra room.
The awning at the exterior ticket window has supports that project into the walking zone, with no way to be detected by a cane-using visually impaired person.
There is no awnings that are in any way part of my design. They added an awning after they had received certificate of occupancy.
The snack bar, lighting booth, and stage that Balkins added also are not ADA-accessible.
The snack bar should be ADA accessible. The snack bar does have a lower serving counter top space for wheel chair access at the snack bar. There's a higher counter top space and a lower countertop. At the corner of the snack bar right along adjacent to the exit egress on the north side of the building.
The lighting booth is not meant to be operated by people in wheelchair. There is some disabilities that disqualifies a person from being able to properly operate the projecting light. It's not a MOTION PICTURE PROJECTION ROOM. The code there does not apply.
As for the stage: I had concerns about it but it came down to a discussion about wheelchair stair lift. (incline lift). I had raised concerns about the stage not having ADA compliance. I had designed it with the intent of a wheel chair stair lift to be installed. They deviated from that. I am not a product designer. I don't design the stair lifts. They decided to omit that. I was going for a stairlift approach vs. separate vertical platform lift and stair.
Example idea:
For ADA purposes it does not matter whether it's a motion picture projection booth or not - it has to be accessible, or adaptable for future accessibility if a person with disabilities is hired for the job. It's illegal to disqualify a person with disabilities for that job.
The only reason it would matter whether it's a movie projection booth or not on this project is that the fire separation requirements differ.
My concern with the occupant counts is more with the backstage area. You're saying that you designed it with one compliant exit, and told them they had to keep it to 49 people or fewer. The programs for their events, plus their photos, show that they routinely have far more people in that area. In their previous locations had similarly sized productions, so as a design professional you should have been able to project that they were going to have more than 49 people in that space, and designed it with additional doors to the exterior. I think it's been clearly established that exiting back through the house does not meet code for a 2nd egress. You should have designed an additional code-compliant exit from the backstage area - not just ignored the issue and be saying several years later that they "could add more doors now".
no_form,
Might as well pile it all on...missing the minimum number of plumbing fixtures too. Unless there is some exception allowing port-o-johns that I have never read before.
I do have to say that Balkins may not be liable or responsible for anything he did in regards to this project. Unless he somehow misrepresented himself. Yes he royally fucked this project and the client, yes he has put the health/safety/welfare of others at risk, yes he should never do this typ of work until he can get an education, get some real experience, move out of his parents basement, etc. The most that will likely happen with any letter or report is an investigation into the current condition at the theater, and potential closure by the fire marshall and health department...maybe a lawsuit against the owner by a litigious ADA group.
Rick why didn't you just walk away from this project rather than proceeding with all of the client's wishes for you to skirt code? You weren't even being paid - why didn't you just explain to them that as a design professional your only choices were to design to code or to not design?
In hindsight, it wasn't worth the headache. They also rushed my DD drawings into permits and when they did, I did complain to the B.O. but in that case, it didn't work. There was a few changes I was going to do before handing over the CDs. My DDs had enough information on it that they somehow approved permits for it.
A lesson learned was not to hand client copies of the DDs.
The best that could happen is that it put in front of the state board an example of what happens, and the potential for disaster, when an unqualified person is allowed to design this type of project, and maybe that will nudge them a little more toward re-evaluating their exemptions. I suspect that when the rules were written that exempt anything under 4000 square feet in area and 20 feet in height they probably imagined very simple low-occupancy commercial spaces - maybe things like the original appliance store that was there before, or maybe storage buildings, vehicle garages, things of that nature. It most likely never occurred to anybody involved with those regulations that somebody would hire an unlicensed person to design an assembly space in a 3998 square foot building.
As for Balkins not being liable or responsible: that's probably sadly true - though that flies against all that Balkins has said all these years about him being held to the same standard of care and equally liable as a licensed architect.
JBeaumont,
Who are you to tell the theater how many people maybe in the back stage. If there is a single exit then a 49 occupant notice is suppose to be posted. Can you show me a photo where there is more than 49 people in the backstage?
I wasn't designing the theater for 500 people in the dressing rooms. There is maybe 30 people. Everyone on stage in Shanghaied in Astoria on stage are also for the most part also the same people in the backstage including the makeup artists (which is mostly the performers themselves.
Rick your story about the client handing off DD drawings to the city without your authorization and then ignoring your objections is another very strong reason why this type of project should not be exempt anywhere. That could never happen with a project that requires an architect's or engineer's stamp - because if the drawings are not permit-ready a licensed professional would not stamp them, and then the AHJ would not be able to issue permits for a project that has not been fully cooked. That can only happen when the project doesn't require a stamp. All assembly projects should require a stamp.
The best that could happen is that it put in front of the state board an example of what happens, and the potential for disaster, when an unqualified person is allowed to design this type of project, and maybe that will nudge them a little more toward re-evaluating their exemptions. I suspect that when the rules were written that exempt anything under 4000 square feet in area and 20 feet in height they probably imagined very simple low-occupancy commercial spaces - maybe things like the original appliance store that was there before, or maybe storage buildings, vehicle garages, things of that nature. It most likely never occurred to anybody involved with those regulations that somebody would hire an unlicensed person to design an assembly space in a 3998 square foot building.
As for Balkins not being liable or responsible: that's probably sadly true - though that flies against all that Balkins has said all these years about him being held to the same standard of care and equally liable as a licensed architect.
ORS 12.135.
They took D.D. drawings before they were ready for permits and submitted them for permits.
That's what clients do... You're still not acknowledging you are out of your depth, you are far from qualified, exempt or not (clearly not).
The worst thing is he won't learn a damn thing from this.
Bloopox,
Rick your story about the client handing off DD drawings to the city without your authorization and then ignoring your objections is another very strong reason why this type of project should not be exempt anywhere. That could never happen with a project that requires an architect's or engineer's stamp - because if the drawings are not permit-ready a licensed professional would not stamp them, and then the AHJ would not be able to issue permits for a project that has not been fully cooked.
The exemptions are statutory law not by board rules.
No, he won't learn a damn thing from this. But the state board might, about the ramifications of their unwise exemptions, and the city might, about not asserting their right to require a stamp for this type of project. The theater group also might realize some of the dangers they're living in and do a better job with the next renovation. Even if a visit from the fire marshal prods them into action in clearing out all the flammable crap blocking their backstage hallway, that would make things safer than they are today.
The board makes recommendations for changes to those laws. They also are the ones who get the scary case studies in front of the legislators.
Bloopox,
What's here to learn other than so called demand to shut down business and quit. There is no opportunity to learn from that. That's just quitting. Quitting is not a path to learning Bloopox.
Sure, there are mistakes. Perhaps I should have walked away from the project and let them close without a future. If I ever do such a project in the future, I'll never do it pro bono. I'll never do it unless they provide in writing budget and in contract terms, client shall provide within 5 business days of receiving notice of secured funds towards the project and know precisely what is available towards the project among other terms.
They will also provide an up front retainer as well. Those are just for starters.
no_form,
Would I design a theater building ever again? Maybe.... maybe not. Would I do it the project the same way? No. Would there be differences? Yes.
Would I do a project on emergency like this? Probably not.
It would be helpful if the board and city and state fire marshal also get the part where Rick states that UL listed assemblies aren't published and that no comprehensive list of them exists. Jurisdictions that allow unlicensed people to design for these higher risk uses need to understand just how untrained, inexperienced, and uneducated some "building designers" really are, even a decade into their careers and with purportedly numerous projects under their belts.
"What's here to learn other than so called demand to shut down business and quit."
Really? This 10-page thread is full of things you didn't know and should have known. Have you learned nothing? The difference between UL-certified products and UL-listed assemblies? The existence of UL directories? The fact that egress can only go through a limited number of rooms? What a standpipe is and looks like? This list can go on and on (probably for about 7 pages if I don't count everything you could have learned about kangaroos while you were at it) but what would be the point of writing out the whole list for you? If you didn't learn anything from this thread you will never learn anything. You have stopped your potential at the level of a sheltered, naive, stubborn, insecure know-it-all 12 year old and that is all you will ever be.
http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=BXUV.U906
http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=BXUV.U904
Bloopox,
Have you heard of combination standpipe & sprinkler?
First of all, this project is not exempt. It clearly states under ORs exemptions that buildings under 4000ft2 "where the occupancy or code classification has not changed" are exempt. This would not be within that exemption.
I have no idea what you're trying to say with the googling of the UL products, and yes I have heard of a combination sprinkler standpipe - and I know what one looks like, and I know that you do not.
http://productspec.ul.com/document.php?id=BXUV.U937
Is this a standpipe? If so, what kind of standpipe is this? If not, what is it?
That's a dry standpipe of the type usually found in a stair, with a pressure gauge.
Yep, dry line in a hotel stairwell in Texas. Your current ability to use a search engine is not in question. It's your competence at the time you did this project...and now.
omg balkans...you gave the city DD documents??!? i cant even believe this candyland bullshit. who fucking gives a city DD documents for permitting? what year is this? is this real life?
You say that black pipe going up just to the left of that red alarm is not? Hmmm.....
omg balkans...you gave the city DD documents??!? i cant even believe this candyland bullshit. who fucking gives a city DD documents for permitting? what year is this? is this real life?
Dangermouse,
The client not me. I did have an issue with that.
What year is this? 2016.... oh I think you meant what year was this...... 2007. The project was done 2008 aside from some other misc. stuff since then.
Keep going. You're a menace.
no_form,
Nope, it is not a roof drain. The roof drain is much closer to the east exit/entrance. Did you not notice the pressure gauge?
You see the pipe on the right next to the door..... (that's a roof drain) - Pre-existing.
Look at the photo downrange. You see how its connected to black pipes up above. You see the red "elbow" connector connecting the pipes. This ties into the fire-sprinkler system.
In this photo, look up to the top. That black pipe connects to the vertical black pipe in the above photos. It is connected into the sprinkler system.
It apparently ties in.
I can guarantee you it is not a roof drain.
jla-x
Jla-x,
You need to read up more on the licensing laws. Change of Occupancy for buildings 4000 sq.ft. or less in ground area is exempt as well as 20-ft. on the height rule. 20-ft. height and 4000 sq.ft. ground area is exempt.
You need to remember the other exemptions are not limited to new construction or same occupancy. You need to read up on this as that is how all guidance on the laws and rules during the time.
You must remember (d) is a separate exemption from (c).
If (d) applied to (c), then it negates (c) altogether especially as it pertains to alterations. Since Alterations and even an enlargement which is an alteration and would required structural alterations in the first place.
You do realize that (d) applies to any other building that isn't otherwise exempt under the other exemptions such as (b) and (c) of ORS 671.030.
balkins buddy, the issue isn't with the number of exits, or the occupant load, its with how accessible those exits are. you've said before that the client didn't have enough money to make the building totally compliant--which is fine! this happens! the correct response to a situation like that is to:
a) help them find more money so the building can be compliant and safe
OR
b) walk away from the project.
Dangermouse,
You wrote:
A) When has finding client money a requirement of the licensing law. When has it EVER been an architect's professional job and duty to find money for a client. It's not practice of architecture. If you are contracted to do architectural services, that is EXACTLY your job.
It is not the definition of architecture or what architects do to get client money. It's the client's job to secure project funding. You work for the client. If the client says the project cost is not to exceed $150,000 then that is what your job is to do.
All of you are applying every requirement for new buildings on existing buildings. If that was the case, the only thing you CAN do is tear down and build all new. This kind of defeats the point of renovation or remodeling of existing and historic buildings.
Maybe we the people should require that you personally finance every one of client's projects out of your personal income. You pay for it.
Is that something you want to be responsible for. You also have a duty to client to not overspend budget by applying every requirement. When a building is applying Section 3410, the building official a lot of latitude as to what the B.O. is going to require and what the B.O. isn't going to require.
You see when it comes to matters of requiring or not requiring sprinklers under stages must also take into account intent of code such as ICC intent.
Lets read the commentary from 2009 IBC... it hasn't changed enough in this area of the code between 2006 (and 2007 OSSC) and 2009 IBC
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009f2cc/icod_ibc_2009f2cc_4_par242.htm
While we sprinklered the stage from above and back stage (dressing rooms --- 1980s era addition). The B.O. probably not required it as the conditions to even require one:
410.6 Automatic sprinkler system. Stages shall be equipped with an automatic fire-extinguishing system in accordance with Chapter 9. Sprinklers shall be installed under the roof and gridiron and under all catwalks and galleries over the stage. Sprinklers shall be installed in dressing rooms, performer lounges, shops and storerooms accessory to such stages. [F]
Exceptions:
1. Sprinklers are not required under stage areas less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in clear height that are utilized exclusively for storage of tables and chairs, provided the concealed space is separated from the adjacent spaces by not less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board.
2. Sprinklers are not required for stages 1,000 square feet (93 m2) or less in area and 50 feet (15 240 mm) or less in height where curtains, scenery or other combustible hangings are not retractable vertically. Combustible hangings shall be limited to a single main curtain, borders, legs and a single backdrop.
3. Sprinklers are not required within portable orchestra enclosures on stages.
Commentary:
Stages contain significant quantities of combustible materials stored in, around and above the stage that are located in close proximity to large quantities of lighting equipment (i.e., scenery and lighting above the stage). There also is scenery on the sides and rear of the stage; shops located along the back and sides of the stage, and storage, props, trap doors and lifts under the stage floor. This combination of fuel load and ignition sources increases the potential for a fire. As such, stages and auxiliary areas, such as dressing rooms, workshops and storerooms, are required to be protected with an automatic fire-extinguishing system.
The references to Chapter 9 indicate that the fire-extinguishing system may be designed in accordance with NFPA 13 and Section 903.3.1.1 or, if not more than 20 sprinklers are required on any single connection, a limited area sprinkler system may be used (see Section 903.3.5.1.1).
Exception 1 applies to areas less than 4 feet (1219 mm) in clear height under stages that are used only for the storage of tables and chairs. Because of the limited fuel load present, such areas are not required to be protected with sprinklers, provided that the concealed space is separated from all adjacent spaces by no less than 5/8-inch (15.9 mm) Type X gypsum board. This level of separation is intended to provide fire containment in the absence of sprinkler protection. This arrangement is often found in educational buildings where the room is used as a multipurpose room.
Exception 2 recognizes that stages 1,000 square feet (93 m2) or less in area and 50 feet (15 240 mm) or less in height represent a limited potential for combustibles that does not warrant the requirements for an automatic sprinkler system. The code further limits the amounts of combustible materials by not allowing any vertical retractable curtains, hangings, etc. It should be noted, however, that although sprinkler protection is not required, the requirements of Section 410.5 still apply.
Exception 3 acknowledges the limited hazards associated with portable orchestra enclosures. These elements are temporary in nature and are intended to improve the acoustics of the stage performances. These temporary enclosures do not lend themselves to temporary sprinkler heads; therefore, none are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stage has only 2-ft. of clear height under the stage. While the code applies a prescriptive application of 5/8" type-x gypsum wall board. This is not 1-hr rated. It's maybe 30 minutes of rating.
Why are sprinklers required under the stage?
They are talking about a concealed space with a storage use. What if there is no storage use? Sprinklers are required under stages typically for the reasons the space is being used for storing stuff. The first exception provides an exception to sprinkler requirements because of the type of stored items. (Tables and Chairs)
Now when you are not storing anything. The intent of sprinkler requirements does not provide a practical reason for sprinklers. If anything, the only area possibly needing the type x drywall is the very front of the stage. That can be applied apply without much work. The front finish can have it installed without much difficulty. On three sides of the stage, the 5/8" drywall can be substituted with the CMU structure on the east side (currently no adjacent space on that side within the building), south side, the actual floor, and even on the west side (there is no adjacent space on that side). Since there is no practical means for storing items under the stage. The only adjacent space is to the south (top of stage and up) as that's just poured concrete wall and CMU. The only adjacent space is the audience area to the front (north side) of the stage. This means the only 5/8" gypsum wall board conceivably needed is the front row. There isn't that much drywall needed for that frontage.
The whole commentary points to storage. The underside of stage is not used for storage.
It isn't like there was much drywall needed. If the B.O. excercised a modification under 104.10 or application of alternatives under 104.11. That was at the B.O.'s call.
500th post is mine!
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.