Balkins you didn't do the project because the documents filed by the 'client' are from a contractor and an engineer. Lisa may not have been around when the project was built, but she knows who you are and mentioned that you were a mostly harmless pest, and was very clear that she has never seen you actually file anything with the city.
May 7, 16 3:20 pm ·
·
Dangermouse,
I don't file permits for the clients. The permits are filed by the client or their contractor.
The client or client's contractor are always the parties responsible for filing permits. Filing permits when you are not the property owner/tenant or have a contractor's license is practicing as a construction contractor without a license (property owner... albeit has an exemption provision). An owner's authorized agent may file permit as such.
However, ASOC didn't request authorized agent services. I don't do that stuff unless I am being paid and also providing full construction observation services.
Design professionals do not file the permits unless they are the contractor or operating as the Client's Authorized Representative. Being the Architect does not mean that.
They did not have actual construction documents filed. They had submitted numerous drawings at different phases of the design process but none of them were Construction Documents. At the time, I didn't put my name on the plans. I would have had my name/title block on 24x36 full set sheets and I would have physically signed the prints in print out. On preliminary stuff (at the time), I didn't put name or full out title blocks on the sets because they are often on a reduce size sheet set and therefore not much room available for the drawings themselves if they had title blocks consuming up the sheets.
Balkins, when I mentioned the trap doors my point was that if they have to add 5/8" gyp bd to the underside of the stage now, to meet the fire rating, so that this counts as a fully sprinklered building, so that they don't get shut down because their exits are too close together, then they won't be able to use the trap doors in any plays any more. Do you understand now? I was not saying the trap doors have anything to do with storage. I was pointing out that because you didn't bother to understand the code and located the exit doors too close together the theater will now have to change its performances to never use the trap doors.
I do think it's naive of you to think they'll never store anything under the stage though. Somebody is going to get the not-so-bright idea to put some access panels into the font skirt of the stage - if they haven't done that already - and then they'll be stuffing folding tables and Christmas decorations and scenery flats and old costumes under there and then it's just a matter of time until someone also runs an extension cord octopus under there, which overheats, and then you've got a smoldering fire situation.
Balkins isn't this theater only a few blocks from you? Why don't you just call them and explain that you're a former volunteer who would like to get some photos for your portfolio, and ask when a good time to stop by would be. Then you can measure the height, snap some clear pictures of the full lengths of the pilasters, and see what they've actually done and not done, so you can stop guessing at all of these things.
May 7, 16 3:52 pm ·
·
Aluminate,
The doors are located in pre-existing locations or literally existing door. It is actually 43'+ from center of north exit door (one door... not two... ONE) and the center of the door on the east side. The diagonal for the main theater room is 82.5' including stage itself. That's 41.75'.
The back stage/dressing rooms area is its own space served by its own exit.
Lets remember, this building was not originally sprinklered at all.
There's no electrical service under the stage.
You do realize that what you said is still a risk even on a new construction building built 100% to code.
Let me repeat, there is NO ELECTRICAL SERVICE UNDER THE STAGE. NO ELECTRICAL WIRING OR OUTLETS OF ANY KIND HAD BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE STAGE. This was not part of the electrical system when it was installed. No part of it goes under the stage. If ASOC had subsequently added that since that time without permits, that would be entirely news to me and done by some other party.
It's just about impossible to use the whole space under the stage. It's about 4'-10" x ~38 ft. of space. There is all these stem walls with no practical way to maneuver anything through these spaces. You have maybe 14.5" x 18" to 19" space between the studs. I totally doubt there is much of any form of real storage capability. Just saying, man. It's not really functional for storage.
Remember, if they alter the stage, then they are liable for altering an already built stage. I know there was no access panel when it was built in 2008. If they do add it along the front.
Getting around the standpipes requirement is easy. A fire rated door assembly installed between the backstage and stage (if it hasn't been done already). The CMU wall assembly would meet 1-hr rating and we know that. As for adding sprinklers to cover the under side of the stage, it's doable. The sprinklers was being done by engineers who never consulted me nor contacted the parties familiar with how the stage structure was framed. Had that been done, this is probably be a non issue. Since the sprinklers was designed by an engineering company and I didn't try cobbling some addition to their sprinkler system for the stage. I didn't even see the whole sprinkler plans until recently when I looked at the permit files.
I may just derive (preliminary) a limited area sprinkler system for the stage.
It was my understanding that it was to be done by the engineer. Now, it maybe back on me to get that straighten out but that takes some looking over stuff and also reverse some issues that may have occurred. There is stuff that I have to look over.
The sprinkler heads has to have fairly wide spread area given the low height of the stage. It has to be much wider then 45 degree spread. It may have to spray up and than back down. Spraying directly at the concrete floor might be ridiculous. It would be interesting task, nonetheless.
I already explained to you - and you should have known - that the code does not measure from center of door to center of door - it measures from nearest edge to nearest edge - and that cuts about 2 feet out of that distance. Yes I understand that there is one door not two - I measured from the nearest edge of a 3 foot wide centered door.
As for the space under the stage: it makes no difference whether they use the whole space or one square foot of space under the stage for storage - it would still be storage. And I know there's no electrical service under the stage - that's why they run extension cords. You can see instances of that in some of their photos.
The fact that the building originally wasn't sprinklered at all is entirely irrelevant. Originally it was a business or mercantile use. You changed it to an assembly use. When you did that you triggered requirements for a new assembly use.
And you still seem to be missing the point that if they have to add type X gyp board to the underside of the stage then they won't be allowed to have the trap doors and use those as an element in their performances. The trap doors are constructed properly as-is - they don't have tight seals or the required hardware.
It's really quite astounding that you managed to pack so many code problems into a tiny, wide open building.
You're not going to be able to "reverse some issues" at this point. You don't have any agency to do so. What's going to happen now is that the fire marshal and the city are going to be all over the poor community theater company and your infractions may cause their downfall if they can't afford to fix this mess.
Rick that is not the code that was in place at the time that you did this. That diagram did not exist in older editions of IBC, and the annotated directions indicated "nearest edge".
You yourself have chastised people in this thread a few times for referring to current codes that didn't exist yet when this project was designed - so why are you doing that too?
May 7, 16 8:12 pm ·
·
Aluminate, (post 973)
There was a commentary version for IBC 2006 which does apply. The code requirement is verbatim in the 2006 version as it is in the 2009 version of IBC and in the 2007 OSSC.
" If two doors or exits are required from the room or building (see Sections 1015.1 and 1021.1), the straight-line distance between the center of the thresholds of the doors must be at least one-half of the maximum dimension."
Therefore, even analyzed today, it is still the case.
The wording in the Oregon-specific annotation to that paragraph, that were in place at the time is: "The distance shall be measured in a straight line between the nearest points."
I don't think you're even looking at the right code edition of the Oregon Structural Code. You claim you're quoting IBC 2006, but the 1015.1 paragraph in IBC 2006 (and Oregon Structural Code) is about buildings requiring 3 exits, and does not contain the language that you posted.
Anyway, I just did the trigonometry and it doesn't make any difference - you're under half of the diagonal even if you measure center line to center line of doors. It's like the 20'-0" building height issue: you're quibbling over fractions of an inch, but your math is wrong and you're really off by much more than you think.
And I'm tiring of doing the math that you should have done back when you designed this nightmare. Piece of advice for you: don't renew your AIBD membership, and use that money instead on a decent basic math class.
May 7, 16 8:32 pm ·
·
Does it matter when the building official makes the call?
You keep fucking forgetting that this is an existing building. The door on the east side is actually about 44.5 to 45 ft. center to center. It would still be about 42' even on the nearest point to nearest point.
Rick I have a drawing that was done for the bathroom addition that the theater is planning to do. It has all existing openings dimensioned to the quarter inch. Given that I'm 2000+ miles from you that's the closest to "exactly" that I'm going to get - but unless their measurements are off by more than 18" or so it wouldn't matter anyway because the hypotenuse will still be too short.
May 7, 16 8:50 pm ·
·
I just drafted in CAD some days ago the building wall section with correct 5:12 pitch. It's not 22.62. It's 22.61986495 degrees. There is ONLY 48.5 bricks. There is only 3 bricks rows above the CMU. The bottom chord of the truss is less than 8". It's like 7-1/2". The purlins are 1.5 x 3.5" (S4S). You don't keep counting the interior ceiling height along an imaginary line to the peak. The ridge is two nominal 2x4s forming a V. From base of pilaster to highest overhead interior finish is about 19'-8" to 19'-8.25". Even if the floor slopes 3" to lowest point in floor.... it is about 19'-11.25".
Each brick is 1/3 of the 8" CMU nominal height. That's 2.666666666666666667 inches including the mortar. Half a brick is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333 inches. So to assume we are running around 1.25" to 1.5".
I think we are talking about two different points of the height. I'm going from the highest point were the ceiling is exposed not the little concealed pocked formed by the ridge boards in a v form and roof sheathing. The bottom of the V of the ridge boards comes together.
What are you talking about? You asked if I knew exactly where the east door was located. Why are you back on the height thing? You've already been proven wrong on that one - you're off by 8" - there's nothing more to discuss about that.
May 7, 16 9:48 pm ·
·
post 982
Aluminate,
Measuring the opening is easy to measure. That's just a quick measurement. However, without seeing the plans for a addition that you are referring to, there isn't much I can really compare where the measurement lines.
I can not exactly compare drawings and field notes without seeing that other source.
I have to set a schedule sometime to get inside the building.
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
jla-x,
All appendages he is not lifting up or out.
Have a nice day!
You on the other hand have done nothing with your life. In fact every time you open your mouth you tend to decrease the opportunity you ever will.
"Quantity not quality." Rick Balkins PBD since 1980 something...
955
957
can we get a 21st page?
#k4l
How long before Balkins tells us we are counting posts incorrectly?
K4L
960 brick courses are only 19'-8 1/2" high in Astoria. It has very high gravity that densifies things like bricks and brains.
961 inches is 19.99' in Astoria.
Balkins is king and he has very tiny thumbs.
964.
Balkins you didn't do the project because the documents filed by the 'client' are from a contractor and an engineer. Lisa may not have been around when the project was built, but she knows who you are and mentioned that you were a mostly harmless pest, and was very clear that she has never seen you actually file anything with the city.
Dangermouse,
I don't file permits for the clients. The permits are filed by the client or their contractor.
The client or client's contractor are always the parties responsible for filing permits. Filing permits when you are not the property owner/tenant or have a contractor's license is practicing as a construction contractor without a license (property owner... albeit has an exemption provision). An owner's authorized agent may file permit as such.
However, ASOC didn't request authorized agent services. I don't do that stuff unless I am being paid and also providing full construction observation services.
Design professionals do not file the permits unless they are the contractor or operating as the Client's Authorized Representative. Being the Architect does not mean that.
They did not have actual construction documents filed. They had submitted numerous drawings at different phases of the design process but none of them were Construction Documents. At the time, I didn't put my name on the plans. I would have had my name/title block on 24x36 full set sheets and I would have physically signed the prints in print out. On preliminary stuff (at the time), I didn't put name or full out title blocks on the sets because they are often on a reduce size sheet set and therefore not much room available for the drawings themselves if they had title blocks consuming up the sheets.
965.
Balkins, when I mentioned the trap doors my point was that if they have to add 5/8" gyp bd to the underside of the stage now, to meet the fire rating, so that this counts as a fully sprinklered building, so that they don't get shut down because their exits are too close together, then they won't be able to use the trap doors in any plays any more. Do you understand now? I was not saying the trap doors have anything to do with storage. I was pointing out that because you didn't bother to understand the code and located the exit doors too close together the theater will now have to change its performances to never use the trap doors.
I do think it's naive of you to think they'll never store anything under the stage though. Somebody is going to get the not-so-bright idea to put some access panels into the font skirt of the stage - if they haven't done that already - and then they'll be stuffing folding tables and Christmas decorations and scenery flats and old costumes under there and then it's just a matter of time until someone also runs an extension cord octopus under there, which overheats, and then you've got a smoldering fire situation.
Balkins isn't this theater only a few blocks from you? Why don't you just call them and explain that you're a former volunteer who would like to get some photos for your portfolio, and ask when a good time to stop by would be. Then you can measure the height, snap some clear pictures of the full lengths of the pilasters, and see what they've actually done and not done, so you can stop guessing at all of these things.
Aluminate,
The doors are located in pre-existing locations or literally existing door. It is actually 43'+ from center of north exit door (one door... not two... ONE) and the center of the door on the east side. The diagonal for the main theater room is 82.5' including stage itself. That's 41.75'.
The back stage/dressing rooms area is its own space served by its own exit.
Lets remember, this building was not originally sprinklered at all.
There's no electrical service under the stage.
You do realize that what you said is still a risk even on a new construction building built 100% to code.
Let me repeat, there is NO ELECTRICAL SERVICE UNDER THE STAGE. NO ELECTRICAL WIRING OR OUTLETS OF ANY KIND HAD BEEN PROVIDED UNDER THE STAGE. This was not part of the electrical system when it was installed. No part of it goes under the stage. If ASOC had subsequently added that since that time without permits, that would be entirely news to me and done by some other party.
It's just about impossible to use the whole space under the stage. It's about 4'-10" x ~38 ft. of space. There is all these stem walls with no practical way to maneuver anything through these spaces. You have maybe 14.5" x 18" to 19" space between the studs. I totally doubt there is much of any form of real storage capability. Just saying, man. It's not really functional for storage.
Remember, if they alter the stage, then they are liable for altering an already built stage. I know there was no access panel when it was built in 2008. If they do add it along the front.
Getting around the standpipes requirement is easy. A fire rated door assembly installed between the backstage and stage (if it hasn't been done already). The CMU wall assembly would meet 1-hr rating and we know that. As for adding sprinklers to cover the under side of the stage, it's doable. The sprinklers was being done by engineers who never consulted me nor contacted the parties familiar with how the stage structure was framed. Had that been done, this is probably be a non issue. Since the sprinklers was designed by an engineering company and I didn't try cobbling some addition to their sprinkler system for the stage. I didn't even see the whole sprinkler plans until recently when I looked at the permit files.
post 969 of this thread:
I may just derive (preliminary) a limited area sprinkler system for the stage.
It was my understanding that it was to be done by the engineer. Now, it maybe back on me to get that straighten out but that takes some looking over stuff and also reverse some issues that may have occurred. There is stuff that I have to look over.
The sprinkler heads has to have fairly wide spread area given the low height of the stage. It has to be much wider then 45 degree spread. It may have to spray up and than back down. Spraying directly at the concrete floor might be ridiculous. It would be interesting task, nonetheless.
970
I already explained to you - and you should have known - that the code does not measure from center of door to center of door - it measures from nearest edge to nearest edge - and that cuts about 2 feet out of that distance. Yes I understand that there is one door not two - I measured from the nearest edge of a 3 foot wide centered door.
As for the space under the stage: it makes no difference whether they use the whole space or one square foot of space under the stage for storage - it would still be storage. And I know there's no electrical service under the stage - that's why they run extension cords. You can see instances of that in some of their photos.
The fact that the building originally wasn't sprinklered at all is entirely irrelevant. Originally it was a business or mercantile use. You changed it to an assembly use. When you did that you triggered requirements for a new assembly use.
And you still seem to be missing the point that if they have to add type X gyp board to the underside of the stage then they won't be allowed to have the trap doors and use those as an element in their performances. The trap doors are constructed properly as-is - they don't have tight seals or the required hardware.
It's really quite astounding that you managed to pack so many code problems into a tiny, wide open building.
You're not going to be able to "reverse some issues" at this point. You don't have any agency to do so. What's going to happen now is that the fire marshal and the city are going to be all over the poor community theater company and your infractions may cause their downfall if they can't afford to fix this mess.
971,
http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009f2cc/icod_ibc_2009f2cc_10_sec015.htm
LOOK for yourself.
What does the picture show?
Center of door to center of door.
Rick that is not the code that was in place at the time that you did this. That diagram did not exist in older editions of IBC, and the annotated directions indicated "nearest edge".
You yourself have chastised people in this thread a few times for referring to current codes that didn't exist yet when this project was designed - so why are you doing that too?
Aluminate, (post 973)
There was a commentary version for IBC 2006 which does apply. The code requirement is verbatim in the 2006 version as it is in the 2009 version of IBC and in the 2007 OSSC.
" If two doors or exits are required from the room or building (see Sections 1015.1 and 1021.1), the straight-line distance between the center of the thresholds of the doors must be at least one-half of the maximum dimension."
Therefore, even analyzed today, it is still the case.
The wording in the Oregon-specific annotation to that paragraph, that were in place at the time is: "The distance shall be measured in a straight line between the nearest points."
I don't think you're even looking at the right code edition of the Oregon Structural Code. You claim you're quoting IBC 2006, but the 1015.1 paragraph in IBC 2006 (and Oregon Structural Code) is about buildings requiring 3 exits, and does not contain the language that you posted.
Anyway, I just did the trigonometry and it doesn't make any difference - you're under half of the diagonal even if you measure center line to center line of doors. It's like the 20'-0" building height issue: you're quibbling over fractions of an inch, but your math is wrong and you're really off by much more than you think.
And I'm tiring of doing the math that you should have done back when you designed this nightmare. Piece of advice for you: don't renew your AIBD membership, and use that money instead on a decent basic math class.
Does it matter when the building official makes the call?
You keep fucking forgetting that this is an existing building. The door on the east side is actually about 44.5 to 45 ft. center to center. It would still be about 42' even on the nearest point to nearest point.
Aluminate, 978
Do you know exactly where the east door is?
Rick I have a drawing that was done for the bathroom addition that the theater is planning to do. It has all existing openings dimensioned to the quarter inch. Given that I'm 2000+ miles from you that's the closest to "exactly" that I'm going to get - but unless their measurements are off by more than 18" or so it wouldn't matter anyway because the hypotenuse will still be too short.
I just drafted in CAD some days ago the building wall section with correct 5:12 pitch. It's not 22.62. It's 22.61986495 degrees. There is ONLY 48.5 bricks. There is only 3 bricks rows above the CMU. The bottom chord of the truss is less than 8". It's like 7-1/2". The purlins are 1.5 x 3.5" (S4S). You don't keep counting the interior ceiling height along an imaginary line to the peak. The ridge is two nominal 2x4s forming a V. From base of pilaster to highest overhead interior finish is about 19'-8" to 19'-8.25". Even if the floor slopes 3" to lowest point in floor.... it is about 19'-11.25".
Each brick is 1/3 of the 8" CMU nominal height. That's 2.666666666666666667 inches including the mortar. Half a brick is 1.33333333333333333333333333333333333333 inches. So to assume we are running around 1.25" to 1.5".
I think we are talking about two different points of the height. I'm going from the highest point were the ceiling is exposed not the little concealed pocked formed by the ridge boards in a v form and roof sheathing. The bottom of the V of the ridge boards comes together.
What are you talking about? You asked if I knew exactly where the east door was located. Why are you back on the height thing? You've already been proven wrong on that one - you're off by 8" - there's nothing more to discuss about that.
post 982
Aluminate,
Measuring the opening is easy to measure. That's just a quick measurement. However, without seeing the plans for a addition that you are referring to, there isn't much I can really compare where the measurement lines.
I can not exactly compare drawings and field notes without seeing that other source.
I have to set a schedule sometime to get inside the building.
I have to set a schedule sometime to get inside the building.
Dude, be careful, you will probably be citizen arrested by Archinect Safety Section.
post 984
How many bricks could a Balkins count if a Balkins could count brick?
Answer? So many.
987
K4L
The number of bricks he can count depends on what number is convenient to his agenda for the current scenario. Anything else is beyond reality!
989 Kangaroos on the wall... 989 Kangaroos on the wall, take one down and pass it around, 990 Kangaroos for Life on the wall.
990
991
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNY3i6MybpU&time_continue=100&ebc=ANyPxKqNMhvGPgvlUNhovDWVlZiSjaFnQ3eIVXddjCJTabytSnIG4sgk12KyxeFZ39AIiCzP8LUzz3wg8ki1gv3KCmhFddbWSw
so cuddly.
joey!
995.
so close.
at 1k i vote this shitposting train comes to a halt
996
Kangaroo Fact: Kangaroos re-gurgitate their food and then eat it up again like cows. Gross
997,
I second Dangermouse.
998....
Wires up the explosives.
1000,
3....2.....1....
LOCK THIS THREAD.
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.