New York City is suing the architects behind the Hunters Point Library for tens of millions of dollars over portions of the structure not being accessible to people with handicaps, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. [...]
The city’s lawsuit was filed May 17 in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. The defendants are Steven Holl Architect, PC, aka Steven Holl Architects, and the individuals Steven Holl and Christopher McVoy.
— Queens Chronicle
The original lawsuit was brought to Federal court in November 2019 by a local disability advocate named Tanya Jackson. The project debuted just two months prior and drew the immediate ire of critics who were quick to point out the flaws in its $41.5 million non-universal design. Steven Holl Architects senior partner McVoy has defended the project as "incredibly successful" since that time and now faces a total of $10 million in potential damages alongside Holl. Another $20 million could be assessed against the firm depending on the lawsuit’s outcome.
According to the complaint: "As designed and built, the Library failed in multiple ways to comply with the design requirements set forth in the requirements contract and Task Order 1. The areas of noncompliance included several primary design elements of the building, as well as ADA standards for bathroom layout, door clearances, and the like."
At this time, neither Holl nor his firm or the plaintiffs have yet to provide public comments in response to the city’s new action.
89 Comments
it is frankly unbelievable to me that *no one* in Steven Holl’s office looked at this plan and didn’t think that the tiered platforms would not be accessible to a wheelchair if there was not an elevator. It’s astounding.
I wonder how it went through the plan check. It's really unfortunate.
Wait, reading this, it seems like it is more than the tiered ramp - which I am just going to ignore for purposes of this comment - but includes bathroom layouts and door clearances.
How. The. Fuck. Do you not get door clearances right? It's so easy.
Sounds like they didn't work with an executive architect who might have been more proficient with code compliance? I'd expect Holl to do his water colors, his principals to develop them into schematic design, and then the executive to do drawings ... unless Holl's office tried to do it all in house and they don't have the ability to do so.
Maybe the permit office was so impressed by the design that they forgot to check the plans?
I haven't had a chance to look at this thoroughly but just from what I have read so far.... daaaaaammmn.
You know, there's this thing called reviewing the plans (even digitally) before stamping and sending it off. I'm not being too sympathetic to the firm because these are supposed to be experienced professionals.
@mono I've worked at a firm quite similar to Holl's and there were enough competent architects there that this kind of thing would not have slipped through, except on the most poorly run projects. Maybe that's what happened though.
It's important to understand that the permitting office does not have to identify any ADA violations. In addition just because a permit office doesn't comment on an ADA violation doesn't mean the architect isn't liable for it. Complying with all relevant building codes are the responsibility of the design team, not the permitting office.
That's what I thought. Their perview is life safety and even then if they miss something the architect is still liable.
Actually their purview is that of the police powers granted to them by the U.S. Constitution, and state constitution which includes not just health, and safety, but also welfare (general welfare). The big glaring issue isn't just a discrimination issue but also a safety issue. How is a person in a wheelchair going to safely go up those stairs to access the books on two or three of those steps in the picture below?
The law requires they have access to all the shelves. This was a new building being constructed not an old existing building. They are also entitled by law to have safe access to the resources of the library.
PS: It is the state, counties, and cities with the "police powers" to enforce health, safety, and welfare. An architect is not a legitimate public official just because they have an architect license. Whose's responsible for exercising the police powers? Public officials of the public entities. The Constitution did not grant the "police powers" to the American citizens as their individual rights.
You may point to the sovereign immunity doctrine. It needs to be challenged as unconstitutional as it is based on false legal basis that has no applicable basis as there are no such thing as kings in the United States. In addition, such immunity would allow the government to entirely and totally disregard every law including the constitution and not care about one iota about enforcing any of it. A narrower and more acceptable premise is that public employees may not be directly sued but the government entity itself can be sued... on the same basis that you sue the government of the U.S. with regards to actions of a federal employee versus the employee. The substitution principle. The government itself has the responsibility to execute its laws and to do so competently. The government as the employer would be responsible for the employee. So he government substitutes itself for the employee. The employee can later be laid off or something.
Important case, Juliana v. United States.
Maybe the architect has a backup plan ready for "if" someone complained about the access. Otherwise, pay through the nose!
When you screw, you're not going to be given a chance to fix it. Someone else is going to be hired/contracted to fix your mistake and then you would be sued. Exactly what NYC, as it appears, is doing.
I could be mistaken. I don't know if SHA is going to be trusted to correct the design or they contract some other architecture firm. I wouldn't blame the city if they chose to go with someone else than SHA to fix the design.
Here's the court filing (I have not read through it all) https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=vfyuynKCruBEvXsufzhtZg==
"SHA agreed in the Design Contract, Section 22.1, that it “shall be liable to the City for all losses, expenses and damage caused by [its] failure properly to perform its obligations” under the agreement. " Is this typical E&O language?
Can someone ELI5 how Holl and his lead designer may be held individually liable? The article says they are individually being sued for $10M each. TU.
(in addition to the $20M suit against the practice, a PC entity)
This is how: "Pursuant to Section 1505(a) of the New York Business Corporations Law, each “shareholder, employee or agent of a professional service corporation and a design professional service corporation shall be personally and fully liable and accountable for any negligent or wrongful act or misconduct committed by him or by any person under his direct supervision and control while rendering professional services on behalf of such corporation.” 58. SHA is a New York professional service corporation. 59. Defendant Steven Holl (“Holl”) is the principal of SHA, and is a shareholder, employee and/or agent thereof. 60. Holl rendered professional services on behalf of SHA in connection with the design of the Library as the principal in charge of the project. Holl had lead responsibilities for SHA’s design work for the Library and supervised other SHA professional staff." A good thing to keep in mind if you practice in NY.
Ah, I see the post to the filing above but this does answer my question. Thank you!
Wow. I don't think I was ever totally aware of that. Is it a state-by-state thing?
I declare bankruptcy!
How did the plans even get approved?
politics, and possibly bribery. What do you expect?
New buildings for public accommodation are supposed to be 100% ADA compliant. Not 99% and most certainly not less.
Ensuring that the building is complying with all relevant building codes are the responsibility of the design team, not the permitting office.
The permitting department 'reviewing' your drawings is only a courtesy. The permitting office does not have to identify any code violations. In addition just because a permit office doesn't comment on a code violation doesn't mean the architect isn't liable for it.
It is a mutual responsibility. The permitting office has a responsibility to not issue permits if the plans submitted for review are not compliant with the applicable laws. They are the final review before permits are made. They are supposed to reject the plans as not compliant with code. The design team is responsible to make the correction.
This is why BOTH are mutually responsible for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare with regards to the built environment. It was instituted when it was known that architects, even though they are licensed, do fuck up. This is why the plan review process was instituted all those years ago. This is why plan reviewers should be professionally competent to review such plans thoroughly and reject the plans and not issue a permit when someone submits something that violates the laws, codes, etc. It is the responsibility of the design professional to make the corrections.
Once permits are issued, making changes can be a problem and getting timely approval by the building department for changes can be a problem. Contractors would be required to continue according to the already approved plans until the changes are approved. Architects can't just have changes made without going through the plan review process especially like what would have been required to be done to correct the issue.
While it is true that the plan review process might not tell where you fucked up but they are supposed to tell you the permit is not issued... which would be reasonable to assume means the plans didn't meet the codes and you are to make the corrections. This doesn't mean they necessarily tell you exactly where you fucked up but they aren't supposed to issue permits if they had already identified the plans did not meet the code. They are supposed to do plan reviews thoroughly in a good faith effort within a reasonable standard of care for the sake of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. So does the architect. The architect is supposed to make the correction. Yes, it is possible for the plan reviewer to fuck up in the review and miss something. However, both the architect and the building department are supposed to do a good effort thorough review of those plans. This issue in this case is so glaringly obvious you have to literally be blind to not notice this fuck up in the plans. I can see this obvious issue in just minutes. How did this happen? Both need to be accountable in answering this question. Both would be on the hook. Not just the architect or the building department. BOTH.
Not true Rick. Only the design team has liability if the building wasn't designed to meet the appropriate building codes and ADA.
The city can be sued for not performing the required plan review. It an actual plan review was performed, this would resulted in a permit not being issued and remanded to be corrected by the architect. No plan reviewer unless the person was completely blind would have missed the most obvious ADA issue. It doesn't matter if the NYC's building department spells out what was wrong with the plans.
They should indicate 1) Plans failed plan review, 2) Permit is denied. 3) Review the plans, make the corrections, and resubmit.
This error in every city can be liable for this level of a fuck up. Cities do have a responsibility to employ competent persons by education and training and certification to be able to competently perform their job.
A person who pilots an oil tanker into Alaska on a clear sunny day is incompetent. A plan reviewer who couldn't see this error in the design during plan review is equally incompetent. An architect who failed to see this error is also equally incompetent. This incompetency is negligence.
The city should be responsible to have hired competent plan reviewers and assigned to review the plans for projects like this. The city is liable for the incompetency and negligence of their workers who injured people with disability by discrimination due to having allowed this to take place. The Architect is liable for failure to perform the architectural services in accordance with the professional standard of care by not designing in accordance with the code.
If you simply do some legal research, you will know cities can be held liable for the negligence of their workers. They do have a liability to the public to perform their work competently. This plan review is most certainly NOT competent. Then compound that with building inspectors' failure to cite the code violation. The city building department is not innocent. The Architect should be held accountable for his/her/their failure. Architects plans are to be reviewed through plan review just like it is if plans are prepared by a non-licensed person. Your stamp does not mean you get to skip the plan review process. If it was like how you say it is, there would not be any plan review for technical submissions stamped by the architect.
Once upon a time in the early days of building codes, back before World War II, that may have been true. It is not like that. The cities have a responsibility to review the plans for compliance with the codes before permits are issued.
The point of plan review is to determine whether the plans meet code (to the standard of reasonable care not to strict liability standard of guarantees). Builders are required by law to build according to the approved plans especially those prepared and stamped by architects/engineers. If the plans are not compliant, the builder is not allowed to deviate. A deviation would constitute the builder engaging in the practice of architecture without an architect license because those changes would be deemed architectural design decisions.
The city is to be the gatekeeper reviewing the plans and determine if the plans meet the code. Passing plan review is part of the checklist before a permit is permitted to be issued. That is how it is supposed to function. Has it been fucked up and corrupted by local jurisdiction throughout the U.S.? Perhaps.
The only way for the city to uphold the statutory requirements of safeguarding public health, safety, and welfare is to perform a competent and reasonably thorough plan review of technical submissions before permits are issued. Then they must do inspections to make sure it does get built according to the code. A city's building departments and the Building Official and their subordinants very reason to exist is its mission of safeguarding public health, safety, and welfare. Otherwise, they have no legitimate public purpose to exist. Building Departments stems out of the function of state police powers and the police powers of the subpolitical bodies of a state (county/parish, municipalities).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) - for a general understanding.
For example: "the police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants."
Second source: https://www.cato.org/pandemics-policy/state-police-powers-constitution
and a third source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/police-power
There is even a potential constitutionality problem with the architectural licensing and placing this "police power" to private individuals who are not elected, appointed, or employed by the state or county, or municipality. Licensing is one thing, but shoving state powers off to a private person who is not employed by the state is a potential constitutional problem. States and cities can not hand off their powers and responsibilities to pure private interests. An architect by mere architectural license is not a genuine public official (elected, appointed, or employed) unless they serve as a public employee, or on some commission or something. The state and cities adopts and enforces the building codes. The person must work for the state or city to enforce the codes. The architect is not, by mere licensing as an architect, duly elected, appointed, or employed by the state or any subpolitical body of the state.
I don't have a problem with architects and other design professionals (licensed and non-licensed) under the general standard of care/negligence principles of law but I don't agree that states, counties, and cities can divorce themselves of their responsibilities including those that come from the "police powers" granted to them from the U.S. Constitution, and respective state constitution and local charter of the County or City. These special powers as with all powers come with responsibilities and the public expectation and demand of competence in the execution of those powers.
Under no circumstances are public employees to be absolutely perfect at their job. Competent and standard of reasonable care, not perfection.
The sad thing is that the tired old "continuous circulation" trope doesn't even work that well in this building, due to the cramped interiors. The route ended up real clumsy as it tries to navigate awkward landings and un-usable spaces. There are a couple of relevatory moments - a surprise peek down the atrium, a children's section tucked away under a wavy wall - but overall, the library was packed full of circulation that might have looked good in a watercolor diagram but just didn't pack spatial oomph when executed. And all that effort to avoid ADA compliance just to end up with a middling architectural experience.
Endless libraries have been around for decades. OMA's Jussieu was the grand-daddy and they actually realized one in Seattle, albeit with questionable programmatic success. But that one was cavernous enough to create dramatic vistas and public spaces. Hunter's Point was just too intimate a scale for such grand gestures to work. Stairs and ramps take up space. If you want them to perform spatially, then usually something programmatic has to give - not to mention ADA compliance.
For other typologies - I think Tschumi tried this trope at Columbia too, where he devoted a massive chunk of space and budget to a "community ramp" where students are supposed to chill ... but most people opted to use the elevators or stairs. Ditto Morphosis' giant stair at Cooper Union, which also ate up space but didn't really deliver as a gathering space. And OMA is still doing its takes on continuous circulations today.
There's always one student project per semester that puts its own spin on the continuous circulation device. Makes more nice diagrams ... but rarely as good real estate.
Well said. I had started a response that was getting to a similar point: this project is way too small and cramped for this approach to work. The entire interior experience has a slightly claustrophobic effect as a result. And a bunch of key features are permanently closed-off, most notably the rooftop auditorium.
Interesting, though accessibility concerns were written about in day 1.
Building departments would make accessibility comments relating to local codes but they will never catch everything. Meeting ADA which is a federal code, is ultimately the Architect's responsibility. It should really be baked in to the standard documentation practices of any office practicing in the US.
Personally I did visit this building and still think, compliance aside, criticisms are on the harsh side. It does have a very small foot print - as the comment pointed out above, it almost feels like it wants to be a bigger building, but miniaturized into the plot it had to live with.
How does this get past the City's approval BEFORE construction?
Ensuring that the building is complying with all relevant building codes are the responsibility of the design team, not the permitting office. City approval doesn't mean a design meets all relevant codes.
The permitting department 'reviewing' your drawings is only a courtesy. The permitting office does not have to identify any code violations. In addition just because a permit office doesn't comment on a code violation doesn't mean the architect isn't liable for it.
Not exactly. If it was a courtesy, it wouldn't be mandatory. Both the building department and the architect have their respective mutual responsibility. The building department has a responsibility that every permit issued has plans submitted and reviewed are compliant with the codes. The city doesn't make the plans submitted. The architect does, in this case. However, the building department is to make sure the plans the architect submit complies with the code and not issue a permit until it is. It's already 80 years too late to trust the architect's license alone. At first, it was thought that if architects were licensed profession, our problems with fucked up buildings with hazards would no longer be the case. Boy were they wrong. That is why building codes and building departments & plan review and permitting processes were instituted. To have a set of eyes other than the architect who prepared them look them over and spot errors to be corrected before permits are issued. It's not just a courtesy. It's about responsibility of public health, safety, and welfare that is the government's responsibility that can not be totally and entirely outsourced to private citizens which architects are. A license doesn't make you a public employee. It's a mutual responsibility for the architect and the building department having jurisdiction.
You are wrong. The AHJ doing the review for building permit don't have to review the design to determine that it's met the various codes and ADA. The AHJ will review the design to see that it meets their standards for issuing a building permit. The courtesy is that if the reviewer finds something violating code / ADA they let you know. Again, the review for building permits does not guarantee that all code / ADA discrepancies have been addressed or that the building meets the codes / ADA.
What are the standards for issuing a building permit? I don't consider a mandatory process of obtaining a permit such as plan review a courtesy. I agree that the review for permit does not guarantee that all code/ADA discrepancies have been addressed or the design meets every applicable code or requirement of the ADA. However, there is a requirement of due diligence in reviewing plans in accordance with the standard of reasonable care. There is a standard of care for plan reviewers of an AHJ. So is there for architects doing their job. My point isn't perfection but to miss what was so obvious as that was mentioned above and below that had been pointed out. It can be reasonably argued the plan reviewers were clearly negligent. This is not some small easily missed or overlookable thing. This would be clear and obvious to even non-professionals looking at the plans. Then you have the on-site building inspection which should have resulted in a stop work order. How did it get to this point? The City's building department AND the architect, both, respectfully FUCKED UP. they both should be respectfully held responsible and accountable for the fuck up. Anything less is chicken shit.
To the people out here saying “how’d it get though plancheck?” … I don’t know what AHJs you’re working with, but in my experience, they miss a LOT of items related to accessibility, and are often not that hard to persuade just by arguments (I’m not suggesting bribery). It’s always seemed like priority ten, after structure, life safety, etc, etc, etc. People also very much play games with the codes, and some of this works on really serious grey areas. Equal experience is one of those things where I’ve seen some really granular examples being discussed that I actually find pretty implausible and absurdist… but with what they did here it seems pretty obvious that they just thought they would get away with it. I’m curious about the restroom issues though, because to really muck them up seems like an unintentional failing, or did someone just start taking a really close look at stuff that they could probably find all over the place
Maybe we need a Federal department that reviews all plans for ADA compliance that becomes part of the mandatory permitting process where passing the federal review would be required before any local permit is issued... kind of like when you have to pass EPA/DEQ. Anyway, whoever plan reviewed this, is a moron. Honestly, I think plan reviewers should be licensed architects/engineers or otherwise a certified building design professionals... not just having the ICC certification.
Never met a planchecker who wasn’t an architect or engineer, have you? I’ve always presumed it was a requirement, or at least a soft requirement for the job. Accessibility is also a lot of stuff to look at, the platform thing is a bit surprising, but little stuff is going to get by reviewers. I think it’s pretty reasonable that they are more concerned with your 80’ dead end than the handrail extension being dimensioned to the inside of the return rather than the inside of the corner radius of the return (oops). This is why places like California are having more and more engagement and even requirement for projects to use CASp consultants, so that someone can just focus on accessibility review.
There are a lot of problems with the idea of a federal review, but fundamentally I thin the outcome would be an immense cost, time, and effort add into the process of review. A process which is already far too slow in many locations for reasons not related to quality.
I have but unfortunately, licensure or building design professional certification is not required. It should be. I would prefer that instead of some moron. Granted, not every plan examiner who isn't an architect/engineer are morons but this is a skillset I think would be better than the ICC minimum qualification. A CPBD with the ICC qualification should be about the minimum requirement. Other than CPBD, architects and engineers. Anything less would be concerning.
In some places, like NYC, I believe they should require plan reviewers to be architects or engineers give the highrise nature of that area whereas some other areas, a CPBD would be acceptable for residential and small commercial plan review where architects/engineers would be qualified for medium to larger commercial. That is what I would recommend to improve quality and competency in plan review.
I would have seen the issues this library had and flagged the faulty plans. Considering I'd review the plans and elevation views. Something was not right and too blatantly obvious. New construction would require every function area, ancillary function (say... restrooms, etc.) and egress areas (except stairs) to be ADA accessible. Those book areas next to the stairs failed that. An extra 5 minutes in the plan review could have flagged this before construction. There's incompetence in plan review but I blame the design professional who is supposed to address this and bear responsibility especially if they are some experienced person.
Natematt, I agree with you on using a CASp or something like it on a national scale with equivalent certification. Can be state-by-state or a national certification. Maybe it can be used other than a federal agency if it can be done with accountability. You made some good points there.
Doesn't matter Rick.
Ensuring that the building is complying with all relevant building codes are the responsibility of the design team, not the permitting office.
The permitting department 'reviewing' your drawings is only a courtesy. The permitting office does not have to identify any code violations. In addition just because a permit office doesn't comment on a code violation doesn't mean the architect isn't liable for it.
I agree the architect has responsibility but so does a building department. It's actually a mutual responsibility for the sake of public health, safety, and welfare.
The permit office is supposed to review the plans before permits are issued and reject the plans if they are not compliant. That is PRECISELY why there is a permit process invented in the first place. They are the last checkpoint before permits are issued and construction begins.
Otherwise, why even have building officials, plan reviewers, building inspectors, etc?
They have a responsibility but so do the architects. BOTH need to be held accountable.
You are wrong. If that was the case then the AHJ could be sued for any buildings that don't meet code / ADA. They can't.
The AHJ can and do and has been sued. This does depend on the jurisdiction. However, the public employee might not be with few exceptions. The actual public employee tends to be fairly well protected from direct lawsuits but they are not totally and entirely immune in many jurisdictions. Usually, you sue the city or county. They do need to do a reasonable due diligence plan review.
Granted, it will be difficult for a negligent architect to sue a negligent AHJ. In this case, SHA would be shit out of luck because they f---ed up what they should have done right and can't successfully sue the city for failure to detect SHA's f--- up. However, a third-party could sue both the AHJ and the Architectural firm to hold both accountable.
If there is blatant negligence then yes the city can bear some responsibility. There is a reasonable basis for such an argument to be made. This does not mean the architect is off the hook. The architect, as the preparer of the plans, would still be principally responsible. There are a lot of nuances with what one can do from one jurisdiction to another. So it isn't completely cut and dry.
It may not always be easy to sue the AHJ but that's not the same as can or can't type argument. We can agree the probability of success can be difficult.... nearly zero for the architect. A third-party that may be "injured" can file the claim to hold both accountable.
What counts for "injury" does not necessarily mean physical injury but can include any available "injury" claim under the civil court system in the governing legal system.
As to sovereign immunity, it's scope is applied unconstitutionally. On one hand, there is the separate sovereignty between federal and state. However, States as part of joining the U.S. is to adhere to the U.S. Constitution as long as it remains a member state. However, the element of the doctrine where the "sovereign can do no wrong" violates the fundamental tenet of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The sovereign immunity is not to be so absolute. Otherwise, you just wiped away the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as completely and utterly moot. How do you preserve the right to petition redress for grievances or the right to exercise due process for harm if government may held accountable for a prejudice assumption that the government can do no wrong, ever?
The waiver concept is bullshit. That leaves it up to be so fickle and up to interpretation. The right of a person to take civil action against a party for harm shall be absolute within the parameters of due process even if the party is the government. Certain absolute immunity shall exist between the separate sovereignty of the state and federal. However, between citizen and either federal or state (or any subpolitical body thereof), the sovereign immunity needs to be more limited so as not to violate the rights of the citizen to taken legal action. I can see limitations like, you must sue the city, county, or state or federal government for the tort and negligence of a public employee. The bullshit where the city government can self-declare sovereign immunity from any action because they decide not to waive any immunity. There should be already universal right to sue the federal, state, or local government entity for actions committed by the employee. Some actions of public employees may reach a point where the employee can be directly sued.
If the government can not be held accountable then it is in fact time for a revolution and reboot our country with a new Constitution and terminating some of the tenets of sovereign immunities so that the government can be held accountable without prejudicial barriers that are designed to functionally prohibit any legal actions so the government can be as freely sued for wrongdoings as suing a private person. The government will actually do its job when it can be sued. We need real accountability of every level of government.
Why should some private person be responsible for doing what the government is responsible for? The "police power" is not just a power, it is a responsibility as with any power. Every power is a responsibility. Whoever is granted these powers is enshrined with the responsibility of those powers.
The state is enshrined with "police power" and counties and cities within are likewise granted "police power" to the extent the state allows. It means, those counties and cities have responsibility. With responsibility is the accountability and liability. Root word of responsibility is "responsible". One can not be responsible unless they are accountable and bear liability to accountability for their actions and inactions.
By possessing police power, the state inherently has responsibility over the exercise and use of the police power. "Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There are very few "police power" of the people. One example is your right to establish "house rules" in your home but your individual rights, yet beyond that, it falls under the state's police power that enables them the right to make law, regulations, and duly enforce them.
With practically absolute sovereign immunity, what stops city police from just not showing up or enforcing the laws? How can you hold anyone accountable? The best we can do is recall elected individuals. Employees would enjoy unaccountability.
The founders of this country did not envision public servants to not be accountable and would be appalled by it. Worse, they would be appalled by the government entity not being accountable even if the employees are not personally responsible. Otherwise, there is absolutely no accountability or incentive to be responsible for anything.
No one wants a government that gives lip service about the governmental duty of safeguarding health, safety, and welfare yet has no responsibility for actually executing that duty. What's the root word for executive in executive branch? Execute, right?
In this case, the applicable definition is "to carry out..." or "to carry out fully..." or "to do". To perform, you can say. To take action and do. That is to exercise the responsibilities. Look to the Constitution. Look to the state Constitution. What is the role of the executive branch?
looks like the pritzker will yet again be a dream deferred..
rightfully so. Ignoring this building, I don't think his work rises to Pritzker-worthy in most instances. Chapel of St. Ignatius... sure. But every other building of his I've been in is somehow awkward, clunky, or poorly detailed.
Ah, Steven Holl, the purveyor of shadows, Whose work invites both praise and critique. Though hailed by some as a visionary, I find his architecture lacks the mystique.
His designs often strive for poetic form, With fragmented geometries in play. But alas, substance is oft sacrificed, As concepts overshadow the built display.
Holl's preoccupation with light and space, Can lead to spaces devoid of true use. The whimsical gestures and fancy tricks, Leave practicality in the refuse.
While his watercolors may seduce the eye, The execution oft falls short, I fear. The promised magic fails to materialize, Leaving disappointment and a sneer.
And why, you ask, will he never claim The coveted Pritzker Prize, so grand? Well, the reasons are not hard to discern, For it demands greatness, which he can't withstand.
The Pritzker seeks architects with impact, Whose work shapes cities and leaves a mark. Holl's designs, though praised by some circles, Fall short when measured against this mark.
His legacy, while celebrated by many, Lacks the weight and lasting influence required. The Pritzker Prize, elusive as it may be, Is for architects whose visions won't tire.
So, Steven Holl, your work may intrigue, But it falls short of the Pritzker's decree. To claim that honor, you must go beyond, And prove your architectural legacy.
The firm relied heavily on the founder of Open Architecture first, and then the current partners, to actually execute his watercolors. The founder was, after all, an artist-academic for decades before meeting the founder of Open, who elevated Holl's practice from one-man atelier to a full-fledged business. And when that expert left to start his own firm in China, the current leadership took over. There's always been a disconnect between the dreamy watercolors and technical execution. The leadership does their best to realize the namesake founder's watercolors but all too often, the lack of detail and spatial resolution suggests a fundamental split in the workflow and missing knowledge at both ends.
Good point. How's Steven Holl a licensed architect in New York without knowing basic ADA. Back then, we had the Architecture Barriers Act in 1968 and ADA back in 1990s, he should have had CE over the years that addressed that. Then there's Chris McVoy and others that may have been the AOR as the plans began to be completed. Every one of them should have addressed the ADA issue before submitting the plans for permits.
ADA regulationsare slightly different at every jurisdiction. It’s not hard to imagine the mighty Steven
Holl not looking up “pedestrian” and varying rules.
There's the Federal law requirements. At minimum, it must meet Federal ADA standards. All state and local variations would only increase the standard. For example, the federal standard may allow ramps slopes up to rise/run of 1:12 with a distance between landings of up to 30 ft. State or local may decide to reduce the distance between of ramp slope between landings to 25 ft. Hypothetically speaking, yes. The federal standard had to be met. If a state or local ada requirements were substandard to the federal, the federal standard for the specific requirement must be met. If the state/local ada requirements are more robust then it would be the state/local because the intent is to make it safer and more accessible for all people. This building failed even the most basic ADA standard. Since this is a public library and a new building that was being built, all areas of public accommodation has to be ADA accessible. This flunked "ADA 101". It's easy to miss the something like the handrails being an inch too high or too low. Little things but still something the architect was responsible to have designed properly. Acceptable error or omission threshold, yeah. However, it failed in some major ways. Yes, things that were so fundamental and visually obvious that it failed even the basics. How can a professional licensed architect exercising responsible supervision, control, and professional review of the plans. There is this thing called, don't stamp and submit plans you have not properly reviewed thoroughly. Yes, it takes time but you have a duty as an architect to do thorough due diligent review of the plans. While perfection is not required but due diligence requires it to be a pain in the ass task. It's not suppose to be something you can just go through it in just a half hour especially for this multistory library. You are the one that is in charge of when these documents (digitally or in physical print) leaves your office. Including when clients access or view the documents because you can control things like access to printing. Documents can be set with DRM to prevent copy and pasting or printing unless they have authorized access level to do that. Since this is a public entity client, its unlikely the city will begin plan review until the architects submits them. Part of covering their own asses. This clearly means the Architects have control over when the plans are released from their office. Why did the architects let this error get by?
For example, how the hell does a person in a wheelchair (especially a non-powered wheelchair) access 2-3 bookshelves because the only access to them would require going up and down stairs. There is no wheelchair stair lift. There are problems regarding the turn radius and clearances at the intermediate landings of the stairs and aisle of those bookshelves. So why are those bookshelves not accessible. Why are the book reading spots at those book shelf areas not accessible. If this was some historic building, I can understand accessibility limitations. This is a new building designed after the ADA Act was adopted. So there's a big fault on the architect for not meeting the requirements of any ADA/accessibility regulation anywhere in the U.S.
How many individuals with disabilities truly rely on and utilize ADA ramps on a daily basis? Is it worth the expenditure and the allocation of valuable architectural space to accommodate them? Perhaps it is time to reconsider our approach and redirect funds away from constructing ramps and ADA facilities. Instead, we could focus on developing wheelchairs that are capable of ascending regular stairs, which could be distributed free of charge to every person in need. By reallocating the resources saved from ramp projects, we could potentially accelerate advancements in technology, leading to the creation of artificial skeletons that enable individuals with disabilities to walk and function like able-bodied individuals.
Until that is reality and a reality that everyone with such disabilities can erase their disability that way for FREE. Yes. It has to be free so all can undergo this without discrimination based on wealth... then sure, we won't need to do such things anymore but until then follow the fucking law and make the place ADA compliant. It could have been but it isn't.
When an architect submits a project it is reviewed by the building department prior to permitting; this process is definitely NOT a courtesy. It is reviewed by the bureaucrats, gray areas are discussed by the team and redesigned by the architect, and at the end, the project gets approved and built.
I designed a high school pool complex with elevated bleachers; the ADA representative in Dade County decided a ramp to the spectator seating was too tempting to Bart Simpson wannabes who might skateboard into the water so we did a platform-elevator (normally approved only for remodelings). On another project we were asked not to show furniture because ADA (according to one of them) required both sides of a double have a 3' accessible path and a corner double bed would get the project stopped.
It is unfair to exclude the building department from responsibility when they actually have the final word interpreting codes and they participate in the negotiation that leads to an approved set of drawings; sue them, not the architect.
Sue both the building department and the architect. Both are statutorily responsible to these responsibilities. It's an error to assume in the legal system of today that only one party can be responsible. The architect license does not make an architect exclusively responsible but it does mean the architect can't just avoid responsibility but at the same time building departments are enshrined with responsibilities and therefore are accountable to their responsibilities.
I wouldn't go after or reference Holl's watercolors or his creative role in the process of procuring and designing architecture. He makes some beautiful watercolors of buildings his office is working on and for his personal growth. He also does journalism for Domus Magazine and is involved in many publications and Storefront for Architecture and other venues in the past. Do you think he should quit making them and concentrate on drafting stairs and ramps more? Yes, this could be avoided but these kinds of mistakes are part of the industry. Errors and Omissions anybody? Nobody is immune to it.
Next question:
Do you think they've figured out a fix at a 10mil cost and architects are the weakest link to get that from?
I also like this building and show it to my students for window/opening designs, light, and space. I was heartbroken to hear the space is really cramped. Any other opinions on that?
This is a problem of how the building was conceived, how it was imagined to function in it’s regulatory context; Far from an error or an omission.
E&O my ass. Some of the issues are minor but remember, if Steven Holl isn't able to provide competent oversight over the preparations of technical submissions, he is not to be the AOR. Someone is to be AOR and it is the AOR's responsibility.
If Steven Holl only wants to dream and conceptualize, with watercolor, so what. Someone else has to be the adult in the room making sure the responsibilities are competently taken care of while Steven can be a not-so-little kid playing with watercolors and conceptualizing. Who gives a fuck?
At the end of the day, the firm would require a responsible AOR in charge because it is the AOR's responsibility to make sure the plans prepared are executed with utmost care and diligent effort towards ADA compliance. I see the responsibility for this fuck up resides with both the AOR and the building department.
I don't know. Maybe you are right. I am not a lawyer. Can you fill us in on that?
I'll leave the lawyers to duke it out. I think in any case, there should have been an AOR in charge making sure this was ADA compliant as with the other code requirements. I think it's more than just a reasonable E&O screw up. In my opinion and you may agree if you looked at the matters more closely. When I look at the photo of the book shelves next to the stairs, something is not right from an ADA perspective.
...
I'm trying to find the photo where it also showed the elevator.
...
What appears to be an elevator is on the right side of the photo. Compare the photos above with this one and we can see a glaring issue.
...
This should highlight a problem I see right off the bat with the design.
how does a person in the wheelchair get access to the books and material on the two or three shelves other than the one on the level with the elevator. There is probably other issues as well but this is just some of the most glaring issues.
Regardless of the lawyers duking it out, it is fair game for us to critique and even criticize the design. I'm sure it has its pros and cons to the design. I think this issue could have been better addressed.
Instead of the three or so shelves there, I would have considered a single flat area with chairs and maybe a small table to read the books with the light coming from the window illuminating the area and maybe wall-mounted lights for nighttime to illuminate the area.
(I see RB has a bunch of comment replies to you Orhan, but I refuse to take him off ignore, thus this reply may be lost in his textual diarrhia)
I think the access problems are far, far more than an Error and Omission. This is foundational to the design of the building. It feels like Holl had a concept that he simply didn't want to let go of or use on another site, and shoehorned it into a too-small site with a too-small program.
This is an essential part of being a good architect - exploring multiple concepts and options, and discarding those which are not compatible with the present project, as much as it may pain you.
I agree. In short, a very good and succinct summary, if not more diplomatic, of what my essential point. Thank you archanonymous.
archanonymous's thought: "It feels like Holl had a concept that he simply didn't want to let go of or use on another site, and shoehorned it into a too-small site with a too-small program. " seems to be at the heart of the problem. Like archanonymous, I feel the problems are far more than an error and omission.
I don't hold the architect exclusively responsible. The City's Building Department, I hold responsible for their failure to execute their responsibility of proper plan review and failure to deny permit. This doesn't relieve the architect of his own failure to fulfill his responsibilities.
it's a little gem boxing the condominiums...
https://www.google.com/maps/@4...
"If Steven Holl only wants to dream and conceptualize, with watercolor, so what. Someone else has to be the adult in the room making sure the responsibilities are competently taken care of while Steven can be a not-so-little kid playing with watercolors and conceptualizing. Who gives a fuck?"
just wow!
There's a reason we have the ADA and the requirements are not just for making a place accessible. It is also the safety measure necessary for safe accessibility.
There is a higher standard of ADA compliance requirements for new buildings than there is for existing buildings. ADA was adopted so we are not discriminating people because they have a disability. The big glaring problem in the design, would never have met ADA requirements over the history of the ADA for new construction. This isn't just an oops. It's an "I care more about how the design looks than to complying with ADA".
The profession of architecture and the "Architect" title is a licensed profession. The public did not demand laws to be adopted to regulate the profession of Architecture, and those who are granted a license as an Architect, just so those licensed care only about how a building or its interior spaces look and disregard some law that just happens to maybe be an inconvenience.
If what I said was too harsh on Steven Holl, maybe I'll apologize. He's been licensed for a few decades at least. This isn't his first rodeo doing architectural projects so it is reasonable that he should exercise responsible control over the preparation of the technical submissions.
I'm not against an architect making drawings and watercolor art. That alone is not an issue but that alone isn't being an architect. Anybody can draw and make watercolor art. There is no licensing requirement for that. People don't hire architects to make watercolor art. That is not why people seek the architectural services of an architect. Watercolor can be a fine medium for visual communication. Nothing wrong with that. However, it is not the water-coloring that I am concerned with... unless it somehow interferes with the architect delivering competent professional service to the client. Logically, it should not.
How did this fuck up occur in the design?
That is the real underlying concern. It behooves me how something visually obvious does not get noticed and corrected. Did someone just not bother to check the plans and review them before sending them off to the building department?
If I had a dollar for every ADA plan check comment I had to respond to in Bay Area jurisdictions - I've worked on several libraries and the jurisdictions go over this thoroughly -
Yes, California is very thorough on accessiblity.
Agree to partially disagree. As far as my experience, it really depends on what you're building and in which Jurisdiction.
Also the AHJ just has to say something like 'verify this meets ADA' and that's it. They don't have to tell you what you did incorrect. Most AHJ reviewers will tell you though so you can get your design through permitting.
In New York, most public projects are managed by the City's Department of Design and Construction, short the DDC. I have recently had the pleasure of interacting with their ADA officers on a different project, even providing an opportunity to briefly chat about the Hunters Point Debacle.
Let's just say the DDC is now making a concerted effort to bring accessibility back into the main focus of projects. Clearly the Hunters Point library proved to be a major oversight on the part of the City as well, probably hinting at a far less than robust review process during the schematic design of the project.
My best guess on how this was missed is that the design team took a very loose interpretation of the ADA law/ANSI 117.1, probably likening the terraces to a feature stair, rather than a main space to be occupied. It is important to understand that there are certain grey zones in the ADA law and that the expectation of this law is not for every corner of every building to be accessible to everyone at all times. Otherwise we would not have stairs of any kind in our buildings.
The real issue seems to be that Steven Holl Architects didn't consider accessibility as a core design principle in their scheme and that in fact, the formal gesture was given far too much importance. It ultimately hints at a broken studio culture in which the idea of genuine collaboration is given only lip service, while in fact only the design genius of the firm's owner and perhaps the inner circle matter. In all likelihood this is a case of the Starchitect model having its "Titanic hitting the iceberg" moment.
Regarding new buildings being constructed:
With the exception of stairs (provided there is an accessible alternate egress) and toilet stalls that are not required to be ADA-compliant, all areas serving the public are required to be wheelchair-accessible / ADA-compliant. No exception except for religious institutions under the federal ADA act itself but states may still require religious institutions to meet accessibility requirements of the states' version(s) of the ADA.
Some spaces that might not need to be ADA-compliant are storage closets, for example.
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.