Some (but not all) of the Code-compliance problems Cornell is experiencing with their Rand Hall Fine Arts Library proposal result from the large floor area of the combined Rand-Milstein-Sibley Hall building. This combined area far exceeds the allowable area, even if all the buildings were of Type IIB (non-fireproofed steel) construction, like Rand Hall and Milstein Hall. I’ve outlined some of the false statements made by Cornell and its Code consultant in order to get Code variances for this project. But it turns out to be relatively easy to build a 3-hr fire wall between Rand and Milstein Hall, which would allow Rand Hall to be considered as a separate building with its own construction type (IIB) and a compliant floor area. Cornell considered a bizarre and difficult-to-build 2-hr fire wall in its schematic design proposal, which would have been noncompliant in any case since a 3-hr fire wall is needed, but this fire wall disappeared in the design development phase, replaced by a noncompliant 2-hr fire barrier. In order to use this noncompliant fire barrier, a Code variance was needed. It’s actually much easier to build a 3-hr double fire wall, as shown schematically below, since Rand and Milstein Halls are already structurally independent, and each half of the double fire wall only needs to have a 2-hr fire rating. Links to all my blog posts and articles on the Fine Arts Library proposal can be found here.
The New York State DCEA Syracuse Regional Board of Review will determine whether or not to reopen Petition No. 2016-0269, Cornell’s request for a third Code variance for their Fine Arts Library proposal in Rand Hall, at their monthly meeting on June 15, 2017. I sent them a summary of false statements made by Cornell and its Code consultant in their application (petition) for the variance. You can check it out here. Links to all my blog posts and articles on the Fine Arts Library can be found here.
[Update: June 20, 2017] I was just informed that the Hearing Board has declined to reopen Petition No, 2016-0269.
Milstein Hall, Cornell’s architecture building designed by Rem Koolhaas and OMA, has been experiencing problems with its green (vegetated) roof as far back as 2011, when leaks began to appear both at skylights and at the intersection with the brick wall of adjacent Rand Hall (shown in this video). Just about two years ago, in April 2015, an extensive roof repair effort was undertaken, requiring the removal of vegetation and soil medium, as well as rigid insulation panels, in order to examine and repair the roof membrane. For some reason, unknown to me, the green roof was never reassembled, and piles of vegetated soil medium, removed to access the membrane, remain piled up around the edges of the roof along with panels of rigid insulation.
Aside from aesthetic considerations, leaving the rigid insulation boards exposed to the sun, especially with the printed side up, will cause permanent damage to the boards. Here’s some guidance from the manufacturer’s product data sheet (pdf) for their Owens Corning FOAMULAR® 404, 604, 404 RB and 604 RB extruded polystyrene (XPS) rigid foam insulation:
XPS Insulation can be exposed to the exterior during normal construction cycles. During that time some fading of color may begin due to UV exposure, and, if exposed for extended periods of time, some degradation or “dusting” of the polystyrene surface may begin. It is best if the product is covered within 60 days to minimize degradation. Once covered, the deterioration stops, and damage is limited to the thin top surface layers of cells. Cells below are generally unharmed and still useful insulation.
FOAMULAR Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) Insulation is a thermoplastic material with a maximum service temperature of 165°F. In horizontal applications, FOAMULAR XPS Insulation may experience greater solar exposure than in vertical applications and it may be damaged by heat buildup. Simple precautions during construction can minimize the potential for heat related damage. Install only as much FOAMULAR XPS Insulation as can be covered in the same day. For horizontal applications always turn the print side down so the black print does not show to the sun which may, at times, act as a solar collector and raise the temperature of the foam surface under the print.
Some background material can be found in Figure 12 of my Critique of Milstein Hall (Water and Thermal Control).
[Updated below: May 2, 2017, May 10, 2017, and May 22, 2017] Cornell has made transition plans [or try here (pdf) if Cornell’s link is no longer working] for the construction of a Fine Arts Library (FAL) in Rand Hall in order to accommodate the various library, wood shop, metal shop, and digital fabrication functions, currently in Rand Hall, that will be out of service during the two-year construction period. Not mentioned in these transition plans are two items that actually affect Milstein Hall: the 2nd-floor Rand Hall toilet rooms that are used by faculty and students in Milstein Hall (since no toilets were provided on the 2nd-floor Milstein Hall studio level) and a third required exit stair for Milstein Hall’s 2nd-floor level, currently in Rand Hall. I’ve asked the AAP Dean and the FAL project manager what plans are in place for temporary toilets and egress, but have not yet gotten a reply. In the meantime, I’ve published a Cornell Chronicle parody on that subject.
There are other transition issues as well. A temporary digital fabrication lab is being constructed across from my office in E. Sibley Hall. It will house, among other things, 3-D printers, at least one of which uses toxic and carcinogenic materials. The room itself appears to have no ventilation system that supplies fresh air, in apparent violation of the 2015 NY State Mechanical Code. I’ve written a series of emails to Cornell’s mechanical systems designer as well as the director of facilities for the College to try to get some answers to my questions and concerns. After three weeks of waiting and promises of a reply (“The project team, including Facilities Engineering and Environmental Health & Safety, is reviewing the information you have provided and will respond to your concerns once the review has been completed.”), I still haven’t heard anything. Here is the last email I wrote to Cornell’s mechanical designer, dated April 19, 2017:
I haven’t received a reply to my last email, dated April 10, 2017, so I’ll repeat my main questions and concerns. Since the questions are technical in nature, and since you are the responsible mechanical engineer for this project, I would appreciate a response directly from you.
The safety data sheet for the “Stratasys” printer says that it should be used “only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area,” and the 2015 NYS Mechanical Code seems to require that “Ventilation systems shall be designed to have the capacity to supply the minimum outdoor airflow rate.” Your plans for 240 E. Sibley don’t seem to have any mechanical ventilation system for outdoor air—only transfer grilles that pull in return air from the adjacent spaces.
(1) Where is the required outdoor air coming from for this room?
(2) How is your design consistent with the manufacturer’s recommendation that the printer be used “only outdoors or in a well-ventilated area”?
(3) How can you be sure that particulate matter containing toxic or carcinogenic byproducts from the printer will not be exhausted directly in front of the rear entrance to Sibley Hall and a short distance from the food truck?
The context for my concern is that the material used by the printer is both toxic and carcinogenic, and nanoparticles are created as a byproduct of the printing process, some of which are so small that they pass through HEPA filters.
The manufacturer’s safety sheet says:
This chemical is considered hazardous by the 2012 OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200)
Suspected of causing cancer
Suspected of damaging fertility of the unborn child
May cause respiratory inflammation
May cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure
Carcinogenicity: Classification based on data available for ingredients. Contains a known or suspected carcinogen.
Reproductive toxicity: Classification based on data available for ingredients. Contains a known or suspected reproductive toxin
SARA 311/312 Hazard Categories
Acute health hazard: YES
Chronic Health Hazard: YES
From http://www.uvm.edu/safety/shop/3d-printer-safety: Nanoparticles (ultrafine particles less than 1/10,000 of a millimeter) are one of the by-products emitted during the 3D printing process. Recent studies have shown that 3D printing using a low-temperature polylactic acid (PLA) feedstock can release 20 billion particles per minute, while a higher temperature acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) feedstock can release 200 billion.
Nanoparticles are of concern for the following reasons:
• They are very small,
• They have large surface areas, and
• Can interact with the body’s systems, including the skin, lungs, nerves and the brain.
Exposures to nanoparticles at high concentrations have been associated with adverse health effects, including total and cardio-respiratory mortality, strokes and asthma symptoms. While PLA feedstock is designed to be biocompatible, the thermal decomposition products of ABS feedstock have been shown to have toxic effects on lab rodents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Links to all my writings and blog posts on the Fine Arts Library can be found here.
[UPDATE: May 2, 2017] I still haven’t heard back from “the Project Team”; meanwhile construction is underway, and one can easily see how any fresh air originating in the existing duct outside the room that manages to find its way through the grilles (at the top of the storefront partition) will be sucked directly into the existing return grille, also at the top of its wall, without providing much benefit to the occupants within the so-called “breathing zone” (Figure 1 below). In fact, it’s possible that particulate matter from the 3-D printers will find itself in a zone with no air movement at all, given the geometry of the room and the placement of grilles only at the top of the walls.
[UPDATE: May 10, 2017] I just received an email response from the AAP Dean indicating how Cornell intends to deal with Milstein Hall toilets (still trying to figure it out) and egress (temporary stair through the glass curtain wall) during the construction of a Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall:
Thank you for your question regarding the transition. Regarding egress, my understanding is that an egress stair will be provided directly from the Kwee studios by removing a glass panel and providing a temporary egress stair. I am told this will be part of the CD drawings.
Regarding the bathrooms, the project team is working with the city to determine the number of accessible and non-accessible fixtures not including Rand Hall. A solution is not yet final, but the team is aware of the issue.
[UPDATE: May 22, 2017] On May 19, 2017, I received a copy of a “health review,” concerning the Sibley Hall Digital Fabrication Lab, jointly written by Cornell’s Director of Occupational Health, Safety, Fire and Emergency Services and Cornell’s Director of Facilities Engineering. I emailed the following reply today to the AAP Director of Facilities (copied to other relevant parties):
Thanks for stopping by today and confirming that each 3D printer will now be placed in a separate “box” that filters air for nanoparticles and VOCs before returning the air to the room. This seems better than the original design in which the 3D printers were placed in the temporary digital fabrication lab (240 E. Sibley) without any specialized exhaust system. Still, even if 99.97% of nanoparticles are captured in this way, the 0.03% that escape constitute a potential release of 20,000,000,000 x 0.0003 = 6,000,000 toxic and carcinogenic particles into the breathing zone per minute. (“Recent studies have shown that 3D printing using a low-temperature polylactic acid (PLA) feedstock can release 20 billion particles per minute” – http://www.uvm.edu/safety/shop/3d-printer-safety).
Question 2 and its answer… confirm that the digital fabrication lab is not directly provided with outside air, but instead: “The Makeup Air Unit in Room 200UA delivers fresh air to the second floor. This air is then transferred into Room 240 through grilles located at the top of the glass partition wall.” Based on a conversation I had with Senior Technical Staff of the International Code Commission (ICC), transferring outside air from a corridor into the digital fabrication lab would not be compliant with the 2015 Mechanical Code. However, since the corridor seems to be now labeled as a room (“collaborative area”), it’s probably legal, but barely. The opportunistic and ad hoc manner in which such design decisions are, and have been made, does not inspire confidence.
Relatively little is known about the risks of exposure to 3D printers. A recent study says: “It is well-known that both gases and particles are emitted during thermal processing of many thermoplastic materials. However, little is known about the types and magnitudes of emissions from desktop FFF 3D printers and how they vary according to filament material or printer characteristics. In 2013, we published the first known measurements of emissions of ultrafine particles (UFPs: particles less than 100 nm in diameter) resulting from the operation of a single make and model of commercially available desktop FFF 3D printer using both ABS and PLA filaments. These findings were crucial, as exposure to emissions from thermal decomposition of thermoplastics has been shown to have toxic effects in animals, and exposure to UFPs from other sources has been linked to a variety of adverse human health effects.” (Parham Azimi, et al., “Emissions of Ultrafine particles and Volatile Organic Compounds from Commercially Available Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers with Multiple Filaments,” Environmental Science & Technology, at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b04983, emphasis added).
It saddens me that students, faculty, and administrators in AAP feel the need to introduce toxic and carcinogenic materials into the educational environment. The competition to keep pace with our peers, and to prepare our students for professional practice in architecture, has apparently reached the point where even Monty Python’s prescient “Architect’s Sketch,” featuring “rotating knives” in a corridor where “blood pours down these chutes,” seems like a quaint anachronism.
On another note, I was told by the AAP Director of Facilities that no new toilet rooms will be provided for architecture students during the time when code-mandated toilet rooms in Rand Hall become inaccessible due to construction of the Fine Arts Library. Instead, a code variance will be sought.
The City of Ithaca just sent me a 3-page excerpt from a New York State Variance document* related to Cornell’s Fine Arts Library proposal (links to all my writings and blog posts on this subject can be found here). This was in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request that I had made on March 8, 2017. No records of any meetings or correspondence related to this project were provided, even though City officials attended numerous meetings with Cornell staff, provided specific fire-safety recommendations to them, and even wrote a letter stating that Cornell’s proposal was “acceptable.” That there is no City of Ithaca paper trail for this project—violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the FOIL legislation—did not surprise me, since I had the same experience with the earlier Milstein Hall project at Cornell. Nevertheless, I sent the following email to the City of Ithaca, asking that they investigate how it is possible that no records of meetings and correspondence exist for the Fine Arts Library proposal:
From: Jonathan Ochshorn
Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:26 AM
To: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Your FOIL Request has been granted – ID 20170263
RE: ID 20170263
Thank you for sending a 3-page excerpt including the decision rendered by the Capital Region – Syracuse Board of Review for petition 2015-0432. However, I had requested “all documents, including records of meetings or phone conversations, related to the proposed Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall at Cornell University (863-883 University Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850) beginning in Jan. 2014 and continuing up to the present date…”
How is it possible that there is no documentation of meetings attended by representatives from the City of Ithaca in connection with this project, or even of a letter written by the City that was specifically mentioned in the transcript of that hearing?
Are important records being destroyed or deleted by the City, or are records of meetings—in which City officials make important life-safety recommendations to Cornell—either not made, or not maintained? Either way, this seems like a serious ethical and legal problem, and I ask that you investigate why letters written by and meetings attended by Mike Niechwiadowicz, City of Ithaca Director of Code Enforcement—including those that were specifically cited in the transcript of the hearing for petition 2015-0432—are not being provided under the Freedom of Information Law.
The New York State Committee on Open Government states: “All records are subject to the FOIL, and the law defines ‘record’ as ‘any information kept, held, filed, produced or reproduced by, with or for an agency… in any physical form whatsoever. . .’” Please investigate whether the Freedom of Information requirements are being faithfully executed by City of Ithaca agencies, that is, whether key records are being willfully deleted, or—even more troubling—whether meetings are being attended and key decisions are being made and communicated to outside parties (like Cornell University) without any record-keeping at all.
Following are excerpts from the Hearing transcript (petition 2015-0432), attended by Mr. Niechwiadowicz, that provide evidence of letters and meetings for which no documentation seems to be available. Key passages are highlighted.
Mike Niechwiadowicz, Director of Code Enforcement for the City of Ithaca, provided the following testimony at the 2016 Variance Hearing in Syracuse: “…I’m the one that made the determination that the levels 2 and above resulted in three stories as opposed to two stories. And the reason being is that per Building Code section 505.2.1, a mezzanine is limited to one-third of the area — of the floor area of the room or space containing the mezzanine or mezzanines.”
Question from the Hearing Board about why the 2015 Hearing didn’t catch the mezzanine assumption error: “So we didn’t catch it in 2015?”
Response from Cornell’s code consultant Deruyscher: “No, it was discussed at that point that it looked like, and our determination and our discussion was that it looked that way. The City did go through, and this is a very fine, I want everybody to understand, it’s a very fine detail of exactly how those measurements are done. We had an opinion, that we met the code. The City said, not sure. It went to a number of different people, and I guess I would let the City talk about that specific item if there was a question.”
Question: “There was mention in the analysis that there was a letter from the City [of Ithaca] that everything was acceptable. I didn’t see that in my packet. Is that still the case, is that in the record?
Mike Niechwiadowicz: “I can address that, it unfortunately didn’t get to the packet, however, let me get into slightly more detail… So we’ve been involved in cooperatively working with Cornell and the designers, so we’re very aware of what’s going on here.”
* I had already received complete records of the 2015 and 2016 Code variance hearings related to the Fine Arts Library through a FOIL request to New York State, and I placed these variance documents online (scroll down to the bottom of this document).
Links to all my articles and blog posts concerning the Fine Arts Library proposal can be found here.
In a prior blog post, I described false testimony provided to the State Hearing Board by Cornell’s Code consultant as part of a 2016 Variance Hearing related to non-conforming aspects of the proposed Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall. As I described in an “update” to that post, Cornell actually brought this false testimony to the attention of the State of New York Division of Building Standards and Codes; the State, in turn, determined that the “transcript, Findings of Fact and Determination and it’s conditions do not mention nor rely on the language used in Exhibit A to describe the occupancy (publicly accessible vs. card access controlled entry) of the Fine Arts Library facility” and that therefore “no action is needed.”
I found it interesting that Cornell took it upon itself to ask forgiveness for this minor sin, while completely ignoring the more egregious false and misleading statements made at that same Variance Hearing. I therefore sent the following email to the Division of Building Standards and Codes on April 25, 2017, outlining these more serious transgressions:
Dear Mr. Collier,
RE: Petition No. 2016-0269
Hugh Bahar of Cornell has asked you to reconsider the 2016 Variance granted to Cornell’s Fine Arts Library proposal (Petition No. 2016-0269), in light of false testimony provided by Cornell’s fire-safety consultant, Tim DeRuyscher of GHD Consulting Services. I would like to bring to your attention several other instances of false or misleading testimony provided by DeRuyscher at that same Hearing. Unlike the instance you have just considered, the examples I provide below are extremely important, and have a direct impact on the Findings of Fact that form the basis of the Variance decision. In light of this pattern of false testimony that affects the Findings of Fact, I believe it is appropriate for you to consider rescinding the granting of this Variance request.
Finding of Fact No. 1. “The petition pertains to the renovation to the existing Rand Hall Fine Arts Library, Type 2B, three story academic building, A3 second and third story occupancy, F1 first floor, Type 2b, four story Library space in Rand Hall, thus creating non-conforming space. Refer to previous variance 2015-0432.”
DeRuyscher statements at hearing relevant to Finding of Fact No. 1:
“The prior two variances [2013 and 2015] dealt specifically with the ability of this building to be treated as a separate building.”
“…this building currently, and as designed, is using Type 2B non-protected structural steel, concrete construction.”
“We wanted to make sure that the previously granted determinations in 2013 and the one in 2015 are not nullified, voided or having any kind of problems treating this building as a separate building.”
“..this project is a renovation of an existing building…”
Problems with Finding of Fact No. 1:
First, the Variances granted in 2013 and 2015 that are cited by DeRuyscher are not germane to this current project, since they both requested relief from the 2010 NYS Building Code, a Code that is applicable neither to the current proposal nor to the 2016 request for relief. DeRuyscher acknowledges this implicitly by asking that those prior determinations not be “nullified, voided or having any kind of problems treating this building as a separate building.” In other words, he seems to be requesting relief from the requirements for a fire wall to separate Rand Hall from Milstein-Sibley Hall in this latest Variance request (from 2016), and this request is reiterated, albeit ambiguously, in the Finding of Fact (“Refer to previous variance 2015-0432”). This is important in understanding why DeRuyscher’s statements about the results of the Performance Compliance Method are false (more on that later).
Second, DeRuyscher’s assertion that these two prior variances “dealt specifically with the ability of this building to be treated as a separate building” is false: the 2013 Variance permitted the height and area of the Fine Arts Library to exceed Code limits for the combined Rand-Milstein-Sibley Hall building, but neither requested, nor was granted, the right to consider Rand Hall as a separate building.
Third, the building is not Type IIB construction, as alleged by Cornell and reiterated in the Finding of Fact, but is Type VB construction. This construction type was confirmed by the Hearing Board in their Findings under the original 2013 Variance for this project. The Board wrote at that time: “Due to the connection with Sibley Hall, the aggregate building is downgraded to a Type VB construction. The three buildings are considered one building under the Code.”
It is not possible to use the 2015 Variance as a basis for considering Rand Hall a separate building with Type IIB construction, as this Variance was granted under the 2010 NYS Building Code, which is no longer applicable. Had the project been built under the 2010 Code, then the 2015 Variance would, of course, be “grandfathered”; but since the project has not been built—a building permit has not even been issued (and the project has not even entered the construction document phase)—any variance request must be made with respect to the current, 2015 NYS Code. For that reason, Cornell has requested that relief from the requirements for a fire wall—no longer valid on the basis of the 2015 Variance—be granted (reaffirmed) as part of the 2016 Variance request.
Fourth, this project is characterized as a “renovation” by DeRuyscher and that characterization is reiterated in the Finding of Fact (“The petition pertains to the renovation to the existing Rand Hall Fine Arts Library…”). This characterization is false. In fact, the proposal is both a Level 3 Alteration and an addition to the existing building, as defined in the 2015 NYS Existing Building Code. The Code defines an alteration as any “construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition.” An addition is therefore not an alteration, but rather is defined separately as an “extension or increase in floor area, number of stories, or height of a building or structure.” This mischaracterization is crucial in understanding why DeRuyscher’s testimony about the Performance Compliance Method is entirely false (more about that later).
Findings of Fact No. 2 and No. 3.
Finding of Fact No. 2. “The existing Building Code, Chapter 14, allows for a compliance method evaluation to access code compliance. When a code compliance method review has been performed, the design professional has provided proof that the structure meets the requirements, then that section is deemed compliant. As provided, GHD has provided such a review.”
Finding of Fact No. 3. “The Board finds that the assessment of the Chapter 14 review offered by the architect GHD, along with the alternatives provided with smoke control and elevator size and distance of travel pertaining thereto; the Board finds the Authority Having Jurisdiction/Fire Department supports the granting of the petition.”
DeRuyscher statements at hearing relevant to Findings of Fact No. 2 and No. 3:
“The second page of Exhibit D shows that we do indeed have positive results down at the bottom [based on the Performance Compliance Method], which in fact is quite high for a lot of the ratings. We have plus 14 for fire safety, 1.3 for means of egress. And general safety I think is the last one, is 3.3. So we’re all positive above zero. Zero or above. That by itself is the basis for code compliance.”
Problems with Findings of Fact No. 2 and No. 3:
First, the Performance Compliance Method cannot even be used for this project, since the Fine Arts Library building proposal contains an addition and, under the Chapter 14 Performance Compliance regulations, additions to existing buildings must “comply with the requirements of the International Building Code… The combined height and area of the existing building and the new addition shall not exceed the height and area allowed by Chapter 5 of the International Building Code…” In other words, all of the so-called scores that consultant DeRuyscher calculated under Chapter 14 (Performance Compliance Methods) of the 2015 NYS Existing Building Code are irrelevant. This is because under Chapter 5 of the Code for new construction, invoked under the Performance Compliance rules, an A-3 occupancy in Type VB construction cannot be built above the 2nd story; and the maximum floor area cannot exceed about 21,420 square feet. Both of these values are not met in the proposal, so the Performance Compliance Method fails. It is important to note that the Construction Type for this method must be VB, since this is the actual construction type of the building.
Second, the values used by Deruyscher in his calculations are incorrect, since they are based on the assumption that the construction type for the building is Type IIB. However, as demonstrated above, the two prior Variances granted in 2013 and 2015 are no longer applicable to this project, since they were based on relief requested from the 2010 NYS Building Code. The 2013 Variance Findings confirmed that the construction type for the combined buildings is VB, and not IIB.
It is highly inappropriate, and a form of circular reasoning, to use values in the Performance Compliance Method based on having applied for a 2016 Code variance that would effectively make Rand Hall a separate building with a IIB construction type, since the results of the Performance Compliance calculations are supposed to support that Variance, not to presuppose that it already has been granted. It would be like claiming that a 50-calorie cookie is really the same as (equivalent to) a 100-calorie cookie by applying for a “cookie variance” that allows you to label the 100-calorie cookie as a 50-calorie cookie, and then citing the lower number based on the variance to “prove” its equivalency. As I have shown in my Performance Compliance Method calculator [scroll down to bottom of webpage], the Performance Compliance Method fails when the correct construction type is used. But even if the Method “worked,” it would not apply to this proposal, since the proposal contains an addition, and the addition exceeds the height and area allowed by Chapter 5 of the International Building Code.
Finding of Fact No. 4. “The City of Ithaca has determined that the alteration constitutes the addition of a fourth floor or story, triggering the requirement for the elevator car to accommodate an ambulance stretcher.”
DeRuyscher statements at hearing relevant to Finding of Fact No. 4:
“So therefore the 2A versus 2B construction we don’t consider an issue, because effectively we met the requirements using the compliance performance method.”
“We are 2B construction, but in reality we’re a lot closer to Type 2A construction. But we can’t call it Type 2A because we don’t have every single member traditionally done.”
Problems with Finding of Fact No. 4:
First, the Findings of Fact make no mention of any evidence supporting the request for relief from the requirement to use Type IIA, rather than Type IIB, construction for a 4-story sprinklered building with an A-3 occupancy.
Second, as already shown, the Performance Compliance Method cannot be invoked to justify reductions in fire safety since the proposal has an addition which does not conform to Chapter 5 of the Code for new construction.
Third, Deruyscher’s contention that “we’re a lot closer to Type 2A construction” is false: the entire floor area for all the library stacks is made of, and supported by, non-fireproofed steel elements, including floor beams for the stacks, cables to suspend them, and transfer girders above them—none of which have any fire-resistive ratings. In other words, this proposal [is] not even close to being Type 2A construction, but is correctly classified as Type IIB construction [if Rand Hall were considered as a separate building; otherwise, the correct construction type would be VB].
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. A more detailed description of these and other errors in the Variance applications can be found here.
It’s possible that cost cutting exercises now underway may eliminate the “hat” (an entire floor level containing book stacks and a seminar room) that was proposed for the roof level of the Rand Hall Fine Arts Library at Cornell. Because many of the fire-safety building code issues that continue to plague this scheme hinge on the number of stories and floors, on the definition of mezzanines, and on the use of an atrium designation for the open volume, it might prove useful at this point to assess the implications of this possible change.
First, the distinction between stories and floors is important because an atrium space can only have 3 floors open to it; any other floor must be separated from the atrium volume by some form of protection. Even if the newly configured volume (without the hat) only has 3 stories, it still has at least 4 floors, as can be seen in the sections below. (There are actually 4 stories and 5 floors, as explained below.)
I am assuming that the mezzanine level shown in the section actually counts as a mezzanine; the AAP Dean recently mentioned that these floor levels might be made larger to carry more books in compensation for the loss of books in the “hat.” If the mezzanine level exceeds 50% of the room or space below it, then it no longer counts as a mezzanine and therefore would add one additional story to the atrium space.
There is a proposed exit access stair on the east side of the building—not shown in the sections, but shown in the bottom right corner of the renderings below—that links the 1st and 2nd stories and is open to the atrium; for that reason, the atrium actually contains four stories and five floors. In any case, the newly configured space violates Section 1006.3 of the 2015 NY State Building Code, which requires that the “path of egress travel to an exit shall not pass through more than one adjacent story.” In fact, the exit access from the highest level of the building passes through the 3rd story, the 2nd story, and then through the 1st story, before finding an exit. In addition, there are five floors open to the atrium, while only 3 open floors are permitted. I’m counting not only floor #1, which is open to the atrium because of the open exit access stair, but also the raised stack portion of the 2nd story, which counts as an additional floor (see the section).
The image below shows the architect’s rendering of the lowest stack level, hovering about 4 feet above the lower part of the 2nd story. Because the floor under this stack level can be used in various ways, and is a potential storage area for combustible material, it needs to be counted as a floor, even if it does not count as a story.
What is not shown in the architect’s rendering are two potential uses (abuses) of this space, both of which require that the floor under the hanging stack level be designated as a “floor.” The first possible use of the space is for storage of books or other items, as shown in my altered rendering below.
Second, the architect’s provocative inclusion of rolling carts can only have one intention. As shown in my animated video below, students will invariably use the carts as recreational devices to navigate under the hanging stack level.
Links to all my articles and blog posts about the Fine Arts Library can be found here.
[Updated below] I sent the following email (dated March 30, 2017) to Cornell’s project manager for the Fine Arts Library proposal, in order to find out whether the proposed library card-access control is seriously intended to be implemented. I’ll update this post if I get an answer.
Cornell’s libraries are supposed to be open to the public. According to the Cornell library website: “Any person may visit the libraries and use materials, databases and resources on-site.”
In opposition to this policy, the proposed Fine Arts Library (FAL) will not be a public facility and instead will be card-access controlled. At the 2016 Variance Hearing before the State of New York Capital Region Syracuse Board of Review (Petition 2016-0269), Cornell’s Code consultant stated: “Other factors include that this facility is not necessarily public. I couldn’t just walk in there. It’s card access controlled for students… It’s almost like an indirect or a direct supervision correctional facility. Not that that’s what this place is, just as a side note.” (Emphasis added.)
The provision for card-access control in the FAL proposal is intended to limit the number of people who might use or visit the proposed library in order to justify “relief” from Code-mandated fire-safety requirements, in particular, atrium smoke control measures.
Could you let me know if Cornell provided false information to the Hearing Board in order to justify their request for a Code variance, or if the FAL is really intending to violate longstanding Cornell library policy regarding visitor access?
I’ve written a detailed analysis of this latest FAL proposal and Cornell’s Code variance requests here.
[Updated March 31, 2017]
I received this email reply on Friday, March 31, 2017, not from the FAL project manager to whom my email was addressed, but from Anne Kenney (University Librarian) and Kornelia Tancheva (Associate University Librarian), both of whom are leaving Cornell.
The various Cornell Libraries, including the Fine Arts Library, are open to the public during all their business hours. In support of the land-grant mission of the University, any person can visit the libraries and use materials and services on site. No library unit can be card-controlled during its normal hours of operation. Any form of restricted access is allowed only after normal hours. We are not sure what the consultant had in mind, but the Library’s position on this is and has been very clear. Since today is the last day of work for both Kornelia and me, we are copying Xin Li, who will work with Ezra on the Fine Arts Library project.
I responded as follows:
Thank you for confirming that Cornell provided false testimony to the State of New York Capital Region Syracuse Board of Review (Petition 2016-0269 for the proposed Rand Hall Fine Arts Library). You state that you “are not sure what the consultant had in mind.” As I wrote in the email that you responded to: “The provision for card-access control in the FAL proposal is intended to limit the number of people who might use or visit the proposed library in order to justify ‘relief’ from Code-mandated fire-safety requirements, in particular, atrium smoke control measures.” That is what Cornell, through its consultant, had in mind.
Of course, the question I asked in my email was entirely rhetorical, since the answer is self-evident. Furthermore, this is hardly the first false statement made in support of the library project. I hope that your successors will no longer remain complicit in this Trumpian universe where “fake news” is used to support dangerous anti-regulation policies. My detailed critiques of the proposal can be found here.
[Updated April 24, 2017: a flurry of emails to correct the record]
I was just copied on an email from the NYS Division of Building Standards & Codes to Cornell’s project manager. Apparently, Cornell had written to the DBS&C to correct the record, admitting the error in their testimony, and asking for confirmation that the Code variance that they had obtained was still valid. Here’s the body of the NYS response, dated April 24, 2017:
Regarding your letter of April 17, 2017, no further action with respect to a revision of Exhibit A is required. Your letter correction will added to the variance petition Exhibits as an amendment.
The transcript, Findings of Fact and Determination and it’s conditions do not mention nor rely on the language used in Exhibit A to describe the occupancy (publicly accessible vs. card access controlled entry) of the Fine Arts Library facility.
I trust this meets with your request for confirmation that no action is needed. If you have questions feel free to call me at 518 473 8947.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Neil Michael Collier RA CEO
Division of Building Standards & Codes
New York Department of State
Shortly thereafter, I received a copy of this puzzling email from the City of Ithaca Fire Chief (puzzling because it’s not clear whether his understanding is that the occupant load will be restricted, or will not be restricted):
It was my understanding that regardless of key access or public access, the occupant load would not be restricted beyond limits established by the BCNYS/FCNYS for the area and exiting of any A3 occupancy.
City of Ithaca
I followed up on all this with an April 25, 2017, email to the New York State Division of Building Standards and Codes; read about it here.
Cornell’s 100% design development (DD) drawings for the proposed Fine Art’s Library have been completed. The scheme continues to have serious fire-safety deficiencies, continues to be non-compliant with the New York State Building Code, and continues to be problematic for non-Code reasons as well: it destroys a flexible “low-value” industrial-type building that was extremely useful for the department of architecture and replaces it with a spectacularly useless mausoleum for the display of books. You can read more of my articles and blog posts about this project here.
Today, one day before the anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, I offer two more reading options: first, a detailed analysis of the latest 100% DD drawings (and Cornell’s Code variances) and second, a Cornell Chronicle parody covering the same material.
Links to all my writings and blog posts about Cornell’s proposed Fine Arts Library can be found here.
The Fine Arts Library proposed for Rand Hall at Cornell University has two stories, each with a mezzanine floor, for a total of four levels all linked by a single continuous vertical opening. Vertical openings in buildings are—with some important exceptions—prohibited by Building Codes because they present a serious fire and smoke hazard if not properly designed or protected by a continuous and fire-rated shaft enclosure. The most common exception to the general prohibition of vertical openings states that any two stories may have a vertical opening between them. This much is clear. However, when mezzanines are introduced, things get more complicated and additional exceptions to the general prohibition against vertical openings must be analyzed.
The 2003 and 2007 versions of the New York State Building Codes—the first that were based on the International Building Code (IBC)—state in Section 505.1 that: “A mezzanine… shall be considered a portion of the floor below.” This is important because the exception allowing two-story vertical openings (in Section 707.2 of the 2010 NY State Code or Section 712.1.9 of the 2015 NY State Code, for example) specifically allows such openings to connect two stories, but only as long as they also are separated from other floor openings. Because mezzanines were previously defined as being part of the floor below, they were not considered as separate floors, and therefore didn’t count as additional floor openings under the terms of this exception. In other words, the four interconnected floors in the Fine Arts Library proposal might have been acceptable under these older Codes (assuming that all other requirements governing maximum mezzanine size were satisfied). However, in all subsequent versions of the New York State Building Code, including those from 2010 through 2015, a single word in Section 505.1 (or 505.2 in later versions) was changed, so that a mezzanine is now considered a portion—not of the floor below—but of the story below.
With this seemingly innocent change—from floor to story—the exception in Section 707.2 of the 2010 Code (or Section 712.1.9 of the 2015 Code) allowing floor openings connecting no more than two stories as long as they are also separated from other floor openings now has a very different meaning. With mezzanine floors no longer included as part of the floor below, but still considered as independent floors, the requirement that any vertical opening linking two stories be separated from any other floors is no longer satisfied if mezzanines are present. It is no longer possible to ignore the mezzanine floor levels by claiming that they are part of the floors below them.
There are only two other potentially viable options for designing “vertical openings” for a new Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall, per Section 712.1 in the 2015 NY State Building Code. The first such option—having a vertical opening between a mezzanine and the floor below—clearly doesn’t work for the Fine Arts Library proposal, since only a single mezzanine and floor can be linked together using this option. The only other viable strategy is to design the vertical opening as an atrium.