Category Archives: Architecture

Essay on complexity and contradiction

I’ve written an essay, just published in the open-access journal, AGATHÓN, that challenges the idea that complex building geometries reflect the complexity of contemporary life; it does so by examining Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, Robert Venturi’s seminal work from 1966, as well as later writings by advocates of a computationally-driven complexity. The essay shows that: a) complexity, rather than being defined absolutely, is relative in everyday speech; b) complexity, as defined in natural systems, cannot be extrapolated to human behavior; c) modern life is becoming simpler, rather than more complex; d) complexity is typically embedded within products and systems and, as such, inaccessible to ordinary consciousness; e) architectural complexity reflects a competitive drive for notoriety associated with avant-garde production, and leads to energy-inefficient buildings with an increased risk of control layer failure.

Jonathan Ochshorn in car with side-view mirror showing the warning: "Objects in Mirror are Closer than They Appear."

What something is and how it appears are perfectly compatible, not in contradiction with each other – being does not negate appearance: ‘Objects in mirror are closer than they appear’ (credit: J. Ochshorn, 2018).

Since the journal is open-access, a pdf of the essay can be downloaded here.

I’m Now a Certified Passive House Consultant

Having passed my written and design exams, I’m now a Certified Passive House Consultant (CPHC), and can be located on “Find a professional” website. This is a designation awarded by Phius, the Passive House Institute US. Essentially, Phius passive houses are designed and built to be air-tight and super-insulated, so they use very little energy. Heating and cooling is typically accomplished with small heat pumps. Air quality is maintained by using heat- or energy-recovery ventilation systems (HRV or ERV).

Logo for Phius Certified Consultant

I’m not sure at this point what I’ll do with this credential, but the coursework — including both self-paced online content and in-person via Zoom sessions — was extremely valuable: highly recommended! My first project, not necessarily one that will achieve Phius certification, will undoubtedly be my own house, which could use an energy/envelope upgrade.

Can we talk about urinals?

I criticize the urinals in OMA’s Milstein Hall (at Cornell University) in my book of the same name. The fixtures selected, presumably to match the stainless steel serpentine partitions separating the men’s and women’s rooms, are Willoughby UF-1438 special-order stainless steel single person floor mounted stall urinals, intended mainly “for use in security environments” — i.e., correctional facilities (fig. 1).

Stainless steel urinal in Milstein Hall

Fig. 1. Stainless steel urinal in Milstein Hall

They are embedded in the concrete floor slab which is problematic for at least two reasons: first, because it violates the principle of “shearing layers” whereby things that need to change or be replaced periodically should not be embedded in things (like a structural floor slab) that are intended to last for the life of the building; and second, because the concrete floor is in such bad shape that it violates the New York State Building Code requirement that “floor finish materials shall have a smooth, hard, nonabsorbent surface.” (ICC, “1209.2.1 Floors and Wall Bases,” in the 2020 New York State Building Code.)

These prison-grade urinals are not only dysfunctional in this academic context, but are also incredibly expensive — well over $1,000.00 each. And while it’s hard these days to find a functional urinal as beautiful as the so-called readymade that Duchamp tried to exhibit in 1917 (fig. 2a), except perhaps on eBay (fig. 2b), functional high-efficiency urinals can be found for well under $200 (fig. 2c).

Three images: (a) Duchamp's 'Fountain' (photo by Steiglitz); (b) Kohler urinal from the 1950s; and (c) Contemporary American Standard urinal.

Fig. 2. (a) Duchamp’s 1917 “Fountain” (photo by Stieglitz); (b) Kohler urinal from the 1950s; and (c) Contemporary American Standard urinal.

It is possible, at least for individuals whose gender identity aligns with the use of so-called men’s rooms, to see some beautiful urinals at Cornell. But to do this, you need to go to the basement of Barton Hall, which was built in 1917, about the same time as Duchamp’s readymade. I can’t say for sure if these urinals date from the building’s opening, or from some mid-twentieth-century renovation, but their similarity to Duchamp’s “Mutt” makes a trip to Barton Hall well worth the effort (fig. 3).

Urinals in the basement of Barton Hall, Cornell University

Fig. 3. Urinals in the basement of Barton Hall, Cornell University

Art or accident?

Last night, I stumbled upon this rectangle of light on the Cornell Arts Quad and wondered if it was an art installation or just the random result of an open window with a projector running in Goldwin Smith Hall.

Update (Nov. 26, 2024): The Cornell Council for the Arts confirmed today that “what you captured was an unplanned, serendipitous art happening as far as CCA is aware. But we think it’s very cool!”

Dangerous (lack of) guardrail at Uris Library

Because toddlers, older children, and foolish adults fall off unprotected ledges, model building codes (and codes adopted by the various states, based on the model codes) require that guard rails be placed at such dangerous edges. The actual 2020 NYS Building Code language is as follows (Section 1015): “Guards shall be located along open-sided walking surfaces … that are located more than 30 inches (762 mm) measured vertically to the floor or grade below at any point within 36 inches (914 mm) horizontally to the edge of the open side.” In other words, if there is a vertical discontinuity at the edge of a walking surface of more than 30 inches (762 mm), even if that drop of 30 inches (762 mm) occurs up to three feet (914 mm) away from the edge of the walking surface, then a guard is required. Furthermore, the guard must be at least 42 inches (1067 mm) high and it must be configured such that a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm diameter) sphere cannot pass through. This latter requirement is intended to prevent children from sticking their heads through the guard and getting stuck (yes, this really happens!).

Now, I haven’t been able to track down the NYS Building Code in effect when the addition to Cornell’s Uris Library, designed by Gunnar Birkerts, was designed and built in 1980–1982, but the lack of a compliant guard seems consistent with the standards currently in place and, presumably, with the standards in place in the early 1980s (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The addition to Uris Library at Cornell is altered using PhotoShop to show a more precipitous vertical drop from the walking surface (left); the addition is shown as it actually appears, still with a dangerous vertical drop from the walking surface (right). Photo and PhotoShop manipulation by Jonathan Ochshorn.

This is because, even though there is a vertical drop of much more than 30 inches (762 mm), this drop does not occur within 36 inches (914 mm) of the walking surface: there is a sloping ledge between the walking surface and the precipitous drop which appears to justify the lack of a code-compliant guard (the horizontal pipe rail at the edge of the walking surface does not comply with the requirement that a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm diameter) sphere, let alone a rambunctious toddler, cannot pass through. Yet, as can be seen in Figure 1, the condition is still quite dangerous, since a toddler or child (or spaced-out adult) could easily run through the open guard, slide down the inclined ledge, and fall to the ground below, possibly sustaining serious injuries.

Now, if the walking surface of the addition were at the top of a very tall building, as modeled in Figure 1, left, the architects may well have felt the need to make a safer guard rail, even though the building code would not have required that they do so! The as-built condition shown in Figure 1, right,  is also quite dangerous, and really should have a guard that meets the standards outlined in the building code.

It turns out that the International Code Council (ICC)—which writes the International Building Code (IBC), which, in turn, forms the basis of the New York State Building Code—has fixed this unsafe loophole in the 2024 IBC, not yet adopted in New York State (in fact, the older 2021 IBC has not even been adopted by New York State; as of this writing, New York State’s 2020 Building Code is actually based on the 2018 IBC!). The latest IBC adds “and at the perimeter of occupiable roofs” to the code section (1015.2) which describes where such guards are required. Since the walking surface at the top of the Uris Library addition is an “occupiable roof,” a safe guard rail would be required under that code.

Even though the current unsafe conditions are “grandfathered” under the older code, Cornell should modify the existing pipe rail and turn it into a real guard, as will eventually be required for new construction once the 2024 IBC is adopted.

New “vertical opening” calculator!

How does one make a vertical opening—a hole—in a single floor, or through multiple floors, while still being in compliance with the 2024 International Building Code (IBC)? This question is quite important, since architects like making holes in buildings. Even so, a code-compliant answer is surprisingly difficult to track down, especially since the fundamental fire-safety requirement for compartmentalization precludes the use of vertical openings and requires that all horizontal floor assemblies be continuous. In other words, at least at first glance, it appears that holes are not permitted at all.

An admittedly exaggerated image of a vertical opening (hole) in a floor. Image created by Jonathan Ochshorn using PhotoShop.

Fortunately, this basic prohibition of vertical openings is modified in countless ways. Yes, code language in the 2024 IBC, found in Section 711.2.2 of the IBC, starts with the requirement for absolute continuity of fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies (so that a fire is more likely to be contained within its floor of origin), but a rather important exception immediately follows: “Assemblies shall be continuous without vertical openings, except as permitted by this section and Section 712.” Practically speaking, Section 712 of the IBC provides the architect with various ways to create vertical openings that, at least in theory, provide protection against the spread of fire in ways that are more-or-less equivalent to the ideal of continuity in fire-resistance-rated horizontal floor assemblies. (Nonfire-resistance-rated floor assemblies, per Section 711.3.2, have similar requirements for continuity and allow the same exceptions.)

Of course, one can always make a hole or “shaft” legal by protecting it with a “shaft enclosure”—such things are covered in Section 713 of the IBC. But to make a real hole in a floor—to visually and spatially connect two or more levels by removing a portion of a floor-ceiling assembly—one of the protection methods listed in Section 712 must, in general, be used. Continue reading my paper on vertical openings in floors. Or go directly to my new and improved vertical opening calculator!

 

Book presentation at AAP Launchpad event

I presented my latest book, OMA’s Milstein Hall, at Cornell AAP’s joint book launch event, called Launchpad, on April 17, 2024, at 5:30 PM. Details here. Because I was in Madrid for the 2024 ASHRAE International Building Decarbonization Conference, my presentation consisted of a 7-minute music video. I was thinking of adding something like, “Be there. Will be wild!,” but will resist the temptation. Bad taste.

The video was released on YouTube at the same time as the book launch event. Why not subscribe to my YouTube channel to get notices of such things!

Finally: my new 2021–2024 IBC Allowable Area Calculator!

I had created a free online calculator to determine allowable heights, number of stories, and floor area, based on various criteria in the International Building Code (IBC). This calculator, however, was getting old and out of date, so I finally revised it, based on the 2021 and 2024 IBC (the latest iterations currently available). It’s free and (relatively) easy to use, so try it out, here.

Generic site plan showing various parameters for the calculation of the area increase factor (for frontage).

Adding insult to injury: Cornell deletes Rand Hall egress information

I’ve written about the many egregious fire safety violations in Rand Hall’s Mui Ho Fine Arts Library at Cornell, e.g., an article describing my “Appeal regarding building code violations in Cornell’s Fine Arts Library.”

So it’s entirely fitting that the college’s Spring 2024 events postcard would feature an image of the Rand roof deck with all egress information Photoshopped away!

Free open-access books on architecture

All three of my books are now available in free, open-access, digital versions — as well as low-cost paperback editions.

Read on the web, download free ePubs or PDFs, or buy a low-cost paperback:

The path to open-access wasn’t particularly easy. In the case of Structural Elements, I started with Elsevier (publisher of the first hardcover edition), then found a less onerous publisher (Common Ground) for a paperback second edition, and then took control myself for the third edition by self-publishing an inexpensive paperback ($19.95) and creating a free web version and PDF.

For OMA’s Milstein Hall, I had some preliminary conversations with the publisher, Routledge, but they seemed reluctant to publish a book critical of OMA without some sort of “reassurance” from OMA, which—naturally—wasn’t forthcoming. So I self-published the book ($19.95), also providing a free web version as well as free ePub and PDF versions.

My book, Building Bad, was initially published by Lund Humphries in 2021. I had some professional development funds in my Cornell account, partly from my status as professor emeritus at Cornell, and partly from my work as Speaker of the Cornell University Faculty Senate, and asked Lund Humphries if they would consider allowing me to create an open-access (free) version, with a subvention from these available funds. Apparently, they had no experience with such things, but eventually decided to place their hardcover edition “out of print,” disable their eBook edition as well, and revert all publishing rights back to me, for a modest sum of money. This allowed me to create a free web version as well as a free ePub, a free PDF, and a low-cost paperback version (only $14.95).