A contractor installed a stair with landing in such a way that there is a 2" gap between the landing and the wall in which there is a door that swings onto the landing. The space/building is EXEMPT from all accessibility requirements. I am looking to cite this condition as an issue in my field report to the contractor, but I can't find a code section that limits gaps in means of egress that are EXEMPT from accessibility requirements.
Agree. I would approach it from a contract perspective rather than a code perspective. Also, look into the State workmanship standards that govern contractors. It would probably be easier to just contact the licensing dept that deals with contractors and ask if any language in the standards is applicable to the issue.
Look for where the code requires flat landings on both sides of a door. In the 2018 IBC it is Sections 1010.1.5.
Jun 11, 20 12:24 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Its not a question of flat landings- that would be an "elevation change" issue. Its about the fact that there is a 2" gap between the door and the wall/door.
2014 NYC BC 1009.6.1 Exception 2: In Group F, H, and S occupancies, other than areas of parking structures accessible to the public, openings in treads and landings shall not be prohibited provided a sphere with a diameter of 1 1/8” cannot pass through the opening.
The walking surface of treads and landings of a stairway shall not be sloped steeper than one unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2-percent slope) in any direction. Stairway treads and landings shall have a solid surface. Finish floor surfaces shall be securely attached.
Exceptions:
1. Openings in stair walking surfaces shall be a size that does not permit the passage of 1/2-inch-diameter (12.7 mm) sphere. Elongated opening shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the direction of travel. 2. In Group F, H and S occupancies, other than areas of parking structures accessible to the public, openings in treads and landings shall not be prohibited provided a sphere with a diameter of 1 1/8 inches (29 mm) cannot pass through the opening.
Jun 11, 20 1:24 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Sorry, BB, trying to help and was slow.
Jun 11, 20 1:24 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Yes, I wrote in one of my replies above that I found it. Thanks!
This does seem odd to me that our profession and contracts have fallen so low that you can have a 2" gap and need a code requirement to look the contractor in the face and tell him to rip it out and redo it.
Jun 11, 20 2:02 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
When the client sees no financial benefit to it, what are we to do? We have no contractual ability to tell a contractor to rip anything out.
I actually find this as a sign our profession is progressing rather than something that indicates we've "fallen." By showing the regulation as the reason why it needs to be redone, we proved our value to the client and the project. It seems that otherwise it simply becomes a battle of authority to dictate why the 2" gap may be fine or not. The contractor and client could easily dismiss the architect's authority in such a matter, but it becomes much more difficult to dismiss this when it's a code issue. By directing back to the code, the architect has shown their authority is valid.
There was once a time when doctors could simply prescribe a treatment without patient consent simply because they were the authority. I'm glad the profession of medicine has progressed beyond that. I'm hopeful architecture will also progress beyond assumption of authority because of title or license status.
Rick, it's an issue of informed consent and avoiding claims of negligence. The decision is always up to the client to make the contractor fix it or not. The client doesn't have the knowledge and training and expertise an architect has. The architect's duty is to inform the client of the issues so they can make an informed decision to either consent to the changes or not. If the architect doesn't inform the client of the code violation, the client could make the claim that the architect was negligent.
If I'm a client, my decision might be different if I know it's a code issue versus something my architect simply doesn't like. I might be ok with the gap if it only upsets my architect, but I might want to fix it if I know it might jeopardize my ability to get a certificate of occupancy. As the client, I can't make that decision without the proper information. I've hired an architect to give me that information.
Still surprised by most of these responses, still dismayed by the state of the architect's roll during actual construction. We're not talking about structural no longer providing details for steel-pan stairs and the steel shops not providing a scribed flat-bar to cover small gap between the the stringer channel and a CMU wall.. we're talking about a 2" gap at a landing... 2 inches people.
I agree with Non, most likely I wouldn't get the owner to agree for replacement, not because of money, money's not a question here since it's the contractor's mistake, but because of time (though the compromise would be an extra wide flat bar covering the gap.. which wouldn't add much time, and better not add any cost). When the Contractors and Owners on my jobs go this route, I always get a dollar amount reduction, either on paper if the contractor has already gone petty with a bunch of PCO adds, or just with the PM/super's unofficial tally. "we let you go on this one, now I need you to add that ACT in storage room X that we forgot about at no cost"
^ Which is exactly why the architect can't just puff up their chest and claim their authority should be final when saying it needs to be fixed (even it's as simple as a different threshold). If anything, the profession's authority has been degraded over the years because we've been relying on that authority too much, and clients and contractors have been calling us out on it. Our failure has been not basing the claimed authority on anything concrete and therefore valid. Thus leading to the lolz from across the table if we tried to claim authority.
I'd lol at my doctor too if they tried to claim I should rely on some type of essential oil to cure whatever ailment I might have based only on their authority with nothing to back it up.
Bulgar, so your client is OK with paying full price for a shoddy job?
Jun 11, 20 4:11 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
No- that's the point: Its not shoddy if it is code-compliant after getting fixed.
Jun 11, 20 4:16 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
but they paid for it to be done right, why accept a bandaid? code-compliant is just another way to say "lowest effort legally allowed"
Jun 11, 20 4:21 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Because time is of the essence and the deficiency is important to address, but is in the a BOH space.
Jun 11, 20 4:26 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
I'm really confused about this entire conversation.
Jun 11, 20 5:23 pm ·
·
tduds
I too am confused about what we're talking about here.
Jun 11, 20 5:45 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur
Coles notes: contractor fucked up then convinced the client to accept the mistake because it would take too long fix. Architect is then forced to confirm it meets minimum code and accept work as is. Contractor remains a slimy contractor and client paid for
incorrect work
Literal first thing I thought is just cover the gap. Threshold, metal angle, reveal etc. Not that big a deal tbh...Yes code is code but suggesting to redo thousand of dollars of work over a 7/8” gap. Yikes. This is what we talk about when we say so much of the ‘design’ happens during CA. Small problem small solution. Your value as an architect is also in situations like this. GC made a mistake? Shame on him. Funky existing conditions? Here’s a quick simple fix that won’t hold up the schedule, cost an arm and a leg or be detrimental to the overall intent.
^ Good strategy, to which I'd add writing a letter, describing the error, who's responsible, and the architectural solution fixing said problem without holding things up. Copy everyone. This can be done in neutral (not a-hole) language and make you sound like a hero but not a dick.
Jun 12, 20 8:48 pm ·
·
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.
Code Question
Looking in the 2014 NYC BC:
A contractor installed a stair with landing in such a way that there is a 2" gap between the landing and the wall in which there is a door that swings onto the landing. The space/building is EXEMPT from all accessibility requirements. I am looking to cite this condition as an issue in my field report to the contractor, but I can't find a code section that limits gaps in means of egress that are EXEMPT from accessibility requirements.
Any ideas? Thanks.
Perhaps in the definitions of the elements? Look for words like continuous, even, level, etc.
I have that... but to me that's interpretive...
Does your drawings show the stair landing flush with wall? If so, who cares what could be allowed as per code.
Agree. I would approach it from a contract perspective rather than a code perspective. Also, look into the State workmanship standards that govern contractors. It would probably be easier to just contact the licensing dept that deals with contractors and ask if any language in the standards is applicable to the issue.
Look for where the code requires flat landings on both sides of a door. In the 2018 IBC it is Sections 1010.1.5.
Its not a question of flat landings- that would be an "elevation change" issue. Its about the fact that there is a 2" gap between the door and the wall/door.
Found it: 2014 NYC BC 1009.6.1 (Exception 2)
What's it say?
2014 NYC BC 1009.6.1 Exception 2: In Group F, H, and S occupancies, other than areas of parking structures accessible to the public, openings in treads and landings shall not be prohibited provided a sphere with a diameter of 1 1/8” cannot pass through the opening.
1009.6.1 Stairway Walking Surface
The walking surface of treads and landings of a stairway shall not be sloped steeper than one unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2-percent slope) in any direction. Stairway treads and landings shall have a solid surface. Finish floor surfaces shall be securely attached.
Exceptions:
1. Openings in stair walking surfaces shall be a size that does not permit the passage of 1/2-inch-diameter (12.7 mm) sphere. Elongated opening shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the direction of travel.
2. In Group F, H and S occupancies, other than areas of parking structures accessible to the public, openings in treads and landings shall not be prohibited provided a sphere with a diameter of 1 1/8 inches (29 mm) cannot pass through the opening.
Sorry, BB, trying to help and was slow.
Yes, I wrote in one of my replies above that I found it. Thanks!
^ Take that, ping pong ball. You're not goin' anywhere!
This does seem odd to me that our profession and contracts have fallen so low that you can have a 2" gap and need a code requirement to look the contractor in the face and tell him to rip it out and redo it.
When the client sees no financial benefit to it, what are we to do? We have no contractual ability to tell a contractor to rip anything out.
My client is the government.
Main benefit of design-build
I actually find this as a sign our profession is progressing rather than something that indicates we've "fallen." By showing the regulation as the reason why it needs to be redone, we proved our value to the client and the project. It seems that otherwise it simply becomes a battle of authority to dictate why the 2" gap may be fine or not. The contractor and client could easily dismiss the architect's authority in such a matter, but it becomes much more difficult to dismiss this when it's a code issue. By directing back to the code, the architect has shown their authority is valid.
There was once a time when doctors could simply prescribe a treatment without patient consent simply because they were the authority. I'm glad the profession of medicine has progressed beyond that. I'm hopeful architecture will also progress beyond assumption of authority because of title or license status.
BB, doesn't really change the reality. If the client doesn't want it ripped out for some reason, you have no recourse.
I've been forced many times to accept sub-par work simply because I couldn't convince the client to tell the contractor to do it right.
You've found a reason that the client MIGHT listen to.
My client, a state agency, doesn't want to accept any code deficiencies it is notified about in writing.
flip side, if the client agrees to keep the gap as is... get to contractor to issue a credit equal to their cost to demolish the sup-bar work.
All the client has to do is to put a wider threshold to solve the problem...
Rick, it's an issue of informed consent and avoiding claims of negligence. The decision is always up to the client to make the contractor fix it or not. The client doesn't have the knowledge and training and expertise an architect has. The architect's duty is to inform the client of the issues so they can make an informed decision to either consent to the changes or not. If the architect doesn't inform the client of the code violation, the client could make the claim that the architect was negligent.
If I'm a client, my decision might be different if I know it's a code issue versus something my architect simply doesn't like. I might be ok with the gap if it only upsets my architect, but I might want to fix it if I know it might jeopardize my ability to get a certificate of occupancy. As the client, I can't make that decision without the proper information. I've hired an architect to give me that information.
Still surprised by most of these responses, still dismayed by the state of the architect's roll during actual construction. We're not talking about structural no longer providing details for steel-pan stairs and the steel shops not providing a scribed flat-bar to cover small gap between the the stringer channel and a CMU wall.. we're talking about a 2" gap at a landing... 2 inches people.
I agree with Non, most likely I wouldn't get the owner to agree for replacement, not because of money, money's not a question here since it's the contractor's mistake, but because of time (though the compromise would be an extra wide flat bar covering the gap.. which wouldn't add much time, and better not add any cost). When the Contractors and Owners on my jobs go this route, I always get a dollar amount reduction, either on paper if the contractor has already gone petty with a bunch of PCO adds, or just with the PM/super's unofficial tally. "we let you go on this one, now I need you to add that ACT in storage room X that we forgot about at no cost"
architect's authority. lol.
Guys- see my response. No one is replacing anything. All they have to do is put in a wider threshold...
"architect's authority. lol."
^ Which is exactly why the architect can't just puff up their chest and claim their authority should be final when saying it needs to be fixed (even it's as simple as a different threshold). If anything, the profession's authority has been degraded over the years because we've been relying on that authority too much, and clients and contractors have been calling us out on it. Our failure has been not basing the claimed authority on anything concrete and therefore valid. Thus leading to the lolz from across the table if we tried to claim authority.
I'd lol at my doctor too if they tried to claim I should rely on some type of essential oil to cure whatever ailment I might have based only on their authority with nothing to back it up.
Bulgar, so your client is OK with paying full price for a shoddy job?
No- that's the point: Its not shoddy if it is code-compliant after getting fixed.
but they paid for it to be done right, why accept a bandaid? code-compliant is just another way to say "lowest effort legally allowed"
Because time is of the essence and the deficiency is important to address, but is in the a BOH space.
I'm really confused about this entire conversation.
I too am confused about what we're talking about here.
Coles notes: contractor fucked up then convinced the client to accept the mistake because it would take too long fix. Architect is then forced to confirm it meets minimum code and accept work as is. Contractor remains a slimy contractor and client paid for
incorrect work
Its called code enforcement
This is the condition.
Tell them to caulk it and then post the results here: Show us your caulk!
^ Good strategy, to which I'd add writing a letter, describing the error, who's responsible, and the architectural solution fixing said problem without holding things up. Copy everyone. This can be done in neutral (not a-hole) language and make you sound like a hero but not a dick.
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.