Category Archives: Milstein-Rand-Sibley Hall

Code compliance issues in E. Sibley Hall, Cornell

Leave a reply

Following is a transcription of an email that I wrote to the Dean of the College of Art, Architecture, & Planning at Cornell University on Sept. 6, 2010 (copied to the Assistant Dean for Administration, AA&P; the Project Director for Milstein Hall; and the Building Commissioner and Deputy Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca) [9/10/10 updates below]:

Portions of East Sibley and Rand Halls are in serious danger of being noncompliant with the NYS Building Code, and their ability to remain occupied for library, studio/classroom, and office use may be in jeopardy.

Once the floor/roof structure of Milstein Hall is in place, two things immediately occur that threaten the continued occupation of the adjacent, connected buildings.

First, all covered space under the structure of Milstein Hall counts as building area for Sibley Hall whether or not those spaces are enclosed, since a fire barrier is not yet in place to separate the two structures. Under these current circumstances, East Sibley Hall contains floors whose areas — that is, the combined, unseparated, floor areas of East Sibley and Milstein Halls — exceed that allowed by the Code, given the limits imposed by the governing V-B construction type for Sibley Hall.

Second, once the floor/roof structure of Milstein Hall is in place, the windows in Sibley Hall under these covered spaces no longer function as openable windows for the purpose of natural ventilation. I understand that Cornell and City of Ithaca Code Enforcement officials have challenged this contention, but I must insist that it remains true. As I pointed out previously, the Code limits natural ventilation to windows opening to “yards” or “courts.” Yards and courts must be “uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky” (see chapter 2 definitions in the Code). The Code does not permit windows used for natural ventilation to open into any other type of spatial geometry, whether or not “outdoor air” can somehow work its way to the window opening. The Commentary to the Code (written for the International Building Code, or IBC, from which the NYS Code derives) is absolutely unambiguous: “In order that adequate air movement will be provided through openings to naturally ventilated rooms, the openings must directly connect to yards or courts with the minimum dimensions specified in Section 1206” (Commentary for Section 1203.4.3 Openings on yards or courts). Since the openings “must directly connect to yards or courts” and since yards and courts must be “uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky,” the East Sibley windows at or below the second-floor of Milstein do not provide natural ventilation. Without mechanical ventilation that meets the criteria specified in the New York State Mechanical Code, the rooms are noncompliant and should not be occupied. In prior emails, I have outlined why the ad hoc provision of room air conditioner units or fans does not satisfy the requirements of the Mechanical Code. Yet aside from such rooms, it is clear that classrooms (e.g., 142-144 ES) or library spaces (e.g., the entire second-floor F.A.L. In E. Sibley) that have absolutely no mechanical ventilation will certainly not meet those Code requirements.

The second floor of Rand Hall, due to changes in the window configuration that have reduced the openable area, also has problems meeting Code criteria for natural ventilation. The current second-floor studio area (field measurements taken 9/3/10, excluding enclosed computer rooms, etc.) encompasses 5,259 square feet. The required vent area from openable windows is 4% of 5,259, or 210.4 square feet. However, the actual available vent area from openable windows, equal to 15 windows times 11.625 square feet of vent area per window, is only 174.4 square feet total. This is clearly noncompliant, and yet no mechanical ventilation is being planned for the studio space [see prior comments].

It is not my intention to speculate as to why East Sibley Hall and the second floor of Rand Hall are being occupied in spite of these apparent Code violations (lack of required ventilation in Rand and East Sibley Halls; and lack of fire barrier protection in East Sibley Hall). But whatever the reasons, the problems need to be addressed. It seems to me that either the noncompliant spaces should be vacated until Sibley/Milstein/Rand Hall is completed, or the twin problems of ventilation and fire protection should be corrected immediately.

Update 1 (9/10/10):

Two passages from NFPA 241: Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations (1996 version quoted here) support my argument about the immediate need for a fire barrier (the NFPA standard mentions “fire wall,” but the same logic applies to a “fire barrier” used as a substitute for a fire wall) between Sibley Hall and Milstein Hall:

1-1.1
Fires during construction, alteration, or demolition operations are an ever-present threat. The fire potential is inherently greater during these operations than in the completed structure due to previous occupancy hazard and the presence of large quantities of combustible materials and debris, together with such ignition sources as temporary heating devices, cutting/welding/plumber’s torch operations, open fires, and smoking. The threat of arson is also greater during construction and demolition operations due to the availability of combustible materials on-site and the open access.

6-6 Fire Cutoffs.
Fire walls and exit stairways, where required for the completed building, shall be given construction priority for installation… [and yes, the fire barrier is required for the completed building].

Update 2 (9/10/10):

I want to clarify that both of the actions I am recommending (mechanical ventilation for E. Sibley Hall rooms adjacent to Milstein Hall; and installation of a fire barrier in all E. Sibley Hall windows adjacent to Milstein Hall) are already part of the Milstein Hall scope of work. The issue is not whether they are required — they are both required and included in the Milstein Hall budget — but whether E. Sibley Hall can remain occupied during construction without these two items being put into place. In my view, the Code is clear on both issues: E. Sibley Hall should not remain occupied without adequate provision for ventilation and fire protection.

Furthermore, since both of these items are already part of the Milstein Hall scope of work, it is absolutely incomprehensible why the project’s phasing plan did not prioritize these two items so that E. Sibley Hall could remain safely occupied during construction. Well, actually, it is not so incomprehensible: the initial plans and specifications submitted to the City of Ithaca Building Department for a building permit included neither a proper fire barrier nor adequate mechanical ventilation for Sibley Hall. It was only after I raised objections through the FEIS comment process that the architects for Milstein Hall extended their fire barrier to the first and basement floors of Sibley Hall, and accepted the need for mechanical ventilation in Sibley Hall (after deciding to put fixed fire-rated glazing in all E. Sibley windows adjacent to Milstein). These architects still have not admitted that natural ventilation from windows under Milstein Hall is no longer a possibility given Code requirements for “yards” and “courts” adjacent to all windows used for natural ventilation; and continue to maintain that it is only because of the fixed glazing required for their fire barrier design that mechanical ventilation becomes necessary.

Construction of Milstein Hall

Leave a reply

I’ve just posted the first of a series of informal “construction” videos showing how Paul Milstein Hall (OMA/Rem Koolhaas) at Cornell University is being built. The homepage for the anticipated video series is here. Ultimately, I hope to add additional short videos dealing in turn with substructure, superstructure, and enclosure systems.

The first video, “Getting Ready,” shows some of the preliminary site work and underpinning of adjacent buildings that occurred prior to the actual start of foundation work.

These videos are purely educational and informative in nature: after all, in spite of the numerous problems that this building has, some of which I have discussed elsewhere on this blog (also here), it’s construction is actually quite interesting and in many ways unusual.

Given my prior and continuing criticism of the Milstein Hall design, I would like to acknowledge the support for this video project by the College of Architecture, Art & Planning (Dean Kent Kleinman) and the Construction Manager (Welliver McGuire). Of course, there is a contractual stipulation that some form of educational outreach must be provided along with the actual construction of the building — so my video project proposal, having little if any competition from other faculty initiatives, may have been viewed as a necessity to fulfill this contractual obligation. In any case, I appreciate the support I’ve been given. Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed on these videos are entirely my own (except where views or opinions are expressed directly by other people appearing in the videos), and are not necessarily the views of Cornell University, OMA, or any of the consultants, subcontractors, or construction managers involved in the construction of Paul Milstein Hall

Note: links to other Milstein posts updated May 5, 2011.

Cornell’s Fine Arts Library

3 Replies

[numerous updates below: 7/26/11 – 12/12/13; some nonfunctioning links re-directed Feb. 29, 2016]

It is often necessary to anticipate future developments and trends in order to make recommendations for the renovation of building space or the construction of new space. Paul Milstein Hall at Cornell University (Rem Koolhaas, OMA architects) is an example of new construction resulting from an analysis of spatial needs. It is also an example of what can only be called a squandering of resources since these needs could have been met with far less expenditure of such resources.

Part of what didn’t make sense in the planning of Milstein Hall was its connection at the second-floor level to the Fine Arts Library in Sibley Hall. For security reasons, this connection would have been difficult to implement, and it is likely that the doors between Milstein and Sibley Halls would have remained locked and unusable. Cornell would not permit such issues to be considered in the planning for Milstein Hall, so that the decision to link Milstein to the library space always seemed dubious.

2nd-floor plan, Milstein Hall, Cornell University

2nd-floor plan, Milstein Hall, Cornell University


On March 24, 2010, I was called to the Dean’s office to discuss his plan to move the Fine Arts Library out of Sibley Hall, replacing it with studio space and faculty offices that are now in Rand Hall. The ultimate aim is to house the Fine Arts Library in Rand Hall. This appeared sensible for at least two reasons. First, it resolves the embarrassment of having Milstein Hall unable to connect with Sibley Hall: with design studios in Sibley and Milstein at the second-floor level, there would no longer be a security issue forcing the interconnecting doors to be locked. Second, Rand Hall appears to be a much stronger building than Sibley, which has always had problems actually supporting book stacks (unless they are spread out in an inefficient manner). Rand, on the other hand, could house books quite efficiently. In other words, Sibley has a wooden floor structure appropriate for studios, classrooms, and offices; while Rand has a steel and reinforced concrete floor system appropriate for heavier loads like libraries. [10/1/11 update: Moving the Fine Arts Library into Rand Hall is problematic for another reason. See my more recent blog post here.]

But Cornell, in its wisdom, did not plan for such a move, and will not pay for it. Apparently, the only way to accomplish this is to use money already being spent by the college to rent space on Esty Street (downtown Ithaca). By implementing an elaborate phasing plan — in which Esty St. studios are moved to Rand Hall’s first floor, displacing faculty offices which are moved into the Fine Arts Library space, displacing books which are moved either into more dense stack areas under the dome, or into the library’s annex — it seems possible to take the Esty St. rent and apply it to the limited (and temporary) renovation of Sibley and Rand Hall as described above. Ultimately, fund-raising would need to occur so that the entire Fine Arts Library (or some portion thereof that is not housed in the annex) could be moved to a suitable home in Rand Hall, with faculty offices moved again (this time to the third floor of Sibley Hall), and studios moved from Rand Hall into Sibley’s second floor as well as into the soon-to-be-completed Milstein Hall.

But this plan raises another question about the future of libraries. When I talked to Dean Kleinman in March 2010, I suggested that the general strategy of reclaiming Sibley for studios and offices seemed to make much sense, especially since the Fine Arts Library could never logically connect directly to Milstein Hall from its current location in Sibley Hall. However, I made the point that, given the rapidly fading importance of physical books in academic life, it might be wise to reconsider whether fund-raising for a new library home in Rand Hall was an appropriate use of resources. Increasingly, books and journals are accessed electronically; this trend is clearly accelerating, especially with devices like Kindles and iPads becoming available in recent years. Many academic books and journals are already available online as “electronic resources” through Cornell’s library system.

A recent article in the Cornell Chronicle dated June 29, 2010 confirms that Cornell’s engineering library at Carpenter Hall is being dismantled effective next year, since it was discovered that “approximately 99 percent of the use of the collection consists of online materials.” [UPDATE 8/13/10: two additional libraries at Cornell are being “re-imagined”: see Chronicle article here.] In fact, what stands between a fully digitized world of knowledge and the ability to gain access to that knowledge is neither technology nor resources per se, but rather an unholy alliance of forces intent on preserving the infrastructure of what is called intellectual property so that the unfettered diffusion of knowledge can continue to be held hostage to the demands of copyright owners.

Here we see before us a classic instance of the relations of production (including the legal infrastructure defining intellectual property) falling far behind the actual means of production (including the digitization of what were previously physical books and journals). It can already be seen how these relations of production are changing in response to the developing reality of the Internet. See, for example, Google vs. Viacom.

Cornell’s College of Architecture, Art & Planning’s Fine Arts Library is one of the nation’s best. Implicit in Dean Kleinman’s plan to create a new mausoleum for the Fine Arts Library’s physical collection is an attempt to preserve this competitive advantage by renovating new space for the collection. But in an age when physical collections of books will have little utility, except as objects admired in book museums, this appears to be another questionable space-allocation decision and points to the past rather than the future. Instead, Cornell should be working to accelerate the digitization of its (and all other) collections, and to participate in movements aiming for the unfettered distribution of all scholarly works in open-access networks.

[July 26, 2011 update] A just-announced partnership between Cornell and Columbia University libraries is revealing in this regard. Anne Kenney, Cornell’s head librarian, characterizes this partnership as “choosing collaboration over competition” (See Chronicle Online 7/15/11 article) as if corporate mergers — increasing market share and operational efficiencies — are ever about “collaboration over competition.” In fact, an undated article on Cornell’s library web site [link no longer works, but article can be found here, dated Oct. 14, 2009] more accurately describes the motivations and results of such a collaboration: “to achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness” (James G. Neal, VP for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia) and “to improve the quality of collections and services offered to campus constituencies, redirect resources to emerging needs, and make each institution more competitive in securing government and foundation support.”

The point I made in the last paragraph of this post bears repeating. Treating academic information as property, intellectual or otherwise, is simply insane. It was insane when knowledge was largely embedded in physical objects (books and periodicals) and libraries competed to have the biggest and best collections; but when knowledge is now embedded largely in digital files, the degree of insanity is impossible to exaggerate. The potential exists now to simply share all knowledge. That the Cornell and Columbia libraries (and they are hardly unique in this regard) exploit this potential as a means for competing against all others — for excluding the rest of the world from these resources — is indeed sad.

[update: March 15, 2012] Thinking of knowledge as intellectual property, and therefore as a means of competition (through which one excludes others from that knowledge to gain an advantage), is apparently the lens through which many Cornell faculty view library resources. This came to light in an article in the Cornell Daily Sun today, which stated: “According to the UFLB report, in 2010 Cornell was ranked 43rd in expenditures proportional to faculty members, 15th to students and 35th to Ph.D. fields among the 116 research libraries as assessed by the ARL.”

The idea expressed by faculty members in that article is that “our collection budget needs to stay competitive“; if not, then “we will not have the best library and won’t be successful in bringing the best faculty and students to Cornell.” That this is undoubtedly true is not the point. Rather, what is striking is the apparent lack of interest in creating a free and open-access platform where such knowledge becomes available and universal. After all, much of this knowledge is actually created by members of academic institutions, created without the expectation of remuneration and constrained in its free and universal distribution, not by the wishes of its creators, but by the archaic system of credentialing and publication that has become one of the most counter-productive aspects of academia — except, of course, from the point of view of those few institutions that are able to use this cumbersome and insane system as a means of competition against their peers.

[update: Dec. 12, 2013] Another Cornell library is being reduced in size: “…Mann Library consolidated its stacks onto its second and third floors this summer. The library based its plans to move around stacks on a study that assessed factors like the reduced need for stacks space and the need for more functional office space…” See this Cornell Sun article from Sept 29, 2013 [pdf made from this low-res archival copy].

water in rand hall

1 Reply

While Milstein Hall construction has begun, Rand Hall (which will be connected to Milstein Hall, and which will contain mechanical equipment for Milstein Hall) is suffering from neglect. Storm water from two recent rains has backed up in the roof drain pipes and discharged through an eye wash fixture on the second floor, as can be seen in this short video. The water has worked its way down from the second floor into first floor offices (including my own). How is this possible? Somehow, someone has connected the waste pipes from a second-floor water fountain and eye wash fixture directly to the roof drain pipe, instead of connecting them to a sanitary sewer waste line with a proper vent.

milstein hall loses its barcelona chair

Leave a reply

In a stunning, though entirely symbolic, concession to economic pragmatism or, more likely, to mitigate Milstein Hall’s apparent extravagance and elitist sensibility at a time when workers are being laid off and faculty salaries are frozen, Cornell has eliminated the symbolic centerpiece of Rem Koolhaas’s design for its new architecture building: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s iconic Barcelona chair has been rendered out of the official rendering of Milstein’s glass elevator, replaced with a plain vanilla chair.
Misltein before and after loss of Barcelona chair
On the other hand, why one even needs this glass elevator in a two-story building remains unclear: Milstein will be physically connected to two adjacent buildings, both with elevators, so that ADA-mandated access is already available. Can it be that architecture students require the constant stimulation provided by such mechanical contrivances in order to be properly initiated into the wacky world of high design?

elevators connected to Milstein Hall

Shock and awe: Cornell attacks the building code!

1 Reply

In 2007, I wrote to Peter Turner, Assistant Dean for Administration of the College of Architecture, Art, and Planning (AAP) at Cornell, urging him to take action on two issues affecting the major lecture room in Sibley Hall, room 157. First, the construction of OMA’s Milstein Hall (Rem Koolhaas, architect) would eliminate natural ventilation, making the room, which is already unbearable, illegal. Since Milstein is an addition to Sibley Hall, it would not be able to be built unless the ventilation issue in Sibley was resolved. I have discussed this in more detail elsewhere.

Second, the lecture hall has only one exit, which is nonconforming with modern building code standards. As it turns out, a recent code interpretation makes it illegal to occupy the lecture hall with only one exit and more than 50 occupants.

Rather than fixing the problem, and improving the safety of these rooms, Cornell has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the code interpretation. According to the Ithaca Journal [link no longer works — payment now required to access news archives] (6/17/09), Cornell spokesman Simeon Moss said that “We’re quite confident in the safety of the buildings.” Really? For everyone else building 50+ occupant lecture halls in the United States, two exits are always required, based on considerations of safety and risk. Cornell, however, is “confident” that its lecture halls are safe with only one means of egress. [Update: the Ithaca Journal (8/19/09) reports that Cornell has lost its lawsuit (link disabled by the Journal*); see my short video about the almost immediate creation of a second exit for the room.]

It should also be noted that Milstein Hall is being built with less fire separation between its new construction and the existing Sibley Hall than would be required under the current building code. Thus a fire in the Milstein addition would not only threaten Sibley based on this reduced level of fire separation, but any occupants of the lecture hall in room 157 would only have a single egress path, instead of two. Way to go, Cornell!

Cornell’s attitude is clearly not based on fire science, but on a misguided set of priorities that revolve around money: what is particularly egregious in this attitude is that they have simultaneously decided to spend more than $50 million on Milstein Hall, at a cost of over $1000 per square foot (compared to $400 per square foot or less for normal university facilities) while using up the $20 million Thomas endowment gift — which was intended to support ongoing program development for the architecture department — to pay off additional debt incurred by the high cost of construction.

* Updated 5/23/13: This article in the Cornell Daily Sun describes the lawsuit that Cornell lost. And here is the State of NY Supreme Court opinion.

thoughts on milstein hall

Leave a reply

Milstein Hall is a proposed addition to the existing architecture facilities at Cornell University, designed by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (Rem Koolhaas). At the time of this writing, a building permit has been obtained, but there have been doubts raised about the propriety of going ahead with construction in light of the university’s financial crisis. I personally admire the design of this building, but recognize that this is a subjective judgment which may need to be tempered by more objective analysis. I also acknowledge that placing this project “on hold,” or canceling it entirely, may or may not be catastrophic for the department of architecture, depending on how Cornell responds.

In terms of an objective analysis of the Milstein Hall project, I seek to address several misrepresentations about the building that have been advanced by Cornell:

1. That the project is necessary for the continued accreditation of the department of architecture;

2. That the project “connects” the various programs of the College;

3. That the project is a sustainable building;

4. That the project takes appropriate consideration of the Landmark status of Sibley Hall and the Foundry; and

5. That the project provides flexible space for the college and university.

These concerns are addressed more thoroughly in this memo.

more on milstein code issues

Leave a reply

This continues a discussion that started with my blog entry from 17 December 2008, and then continued with entries on January 15, 16, and 21, 2009. Can Milstein Hall be changed in the future to accommodate library or lecture hall occupancies? City of Ithaca Senior Code Inspector John Shipe responded to my previous email as follows:

  • John Shipe wrote (1/22/09):

As you say, Milstein is an addition to Sibley hall separated per NYSBC ’03 Appendix K with a fire barrier per chapter 7 of the same code. And Milstein will be a Unseparated A-3/ B occupancy with the A occupancy being the most restrictive. So the A-3 sets the construction type, height and area for that occupancy and construction type, and all the other requirements for that occupancy such as detection , exiting, etc. throughout the building ( NYSBC 302.3.2 ). All of which are in compliance with the code in which it is permitted under.

As for your argument that you feel the second floor should most likely be a “B” occupancy really falls apart in your own email response:

“a large flexible space for studios that are conducive to improvisational interaction among the AAP programs. A variety of zones within the upper plate supports the college’s physical and programmatic vision for innovative and collaborative learning: AAP Forum, Flexible studio modules, Pin up/Crit, Seminar, Research, Technology bar, Study, Lounge.” [Note that this quote is not mine, but comes from Cornell’s Milstein Hall web site.]

This space is required to be flexible in order to accommodate many programs and situations, and so they permitted it as the most restrictive occupancy so that they would not have to worry about changes in occupancy every time there needs changed for that space . So we have Non Separated use A-3/B (NYSBC 302.4). If you read the entire section you will understand that the A-3 occupancy requirements apply to more than just the structural classification, but also dictates other requirements throughout the building. So even if they changed from a flex space to a library, it would be an equal change of occupancy and based on NYSEBC 812.4.2.2 the existing building would be fine in terms of Height and Area.

Furthermore:

Even if they were to call the second floor area a B occupancy and in the future wanted to change it to an A-3 space it would still be allowed since Milstein is being constructed with a separation of uses and fire areas from Sibley hall by the code required fire barrier so the height and area of Sibley hall does not figure into this equation (NYSEBC 812.4.2.3).

So in my opinion the university is covered by the code in a couple of different ways with the construction of Milstein hall and i know that is not what you want to hear, but those are the facts as i see them.

  • I responded (1/26/09):

Thanks for your response. I’m sorry that it took so long for me to reply, but I’ve had a busy week. I agree with many of your statements, but I do have a few comments:

1. I agree that if the 2nd floor of Milstein is permitted as an A-3 occupancy, that future changes within that occupancy group should not present any problems. I do think, however, that at least some of that floor, if not all of it, would fit better under the group B designation, especially since the proposed uses are quite similar to those in Rand Hall, which you agreed in a previous email would be best classified as group B. This especially applies to some of the small spaces, such as seminar rooms, but also, I believe, to the studio classrooms.

2. I think that the Code does require all uses to be individually designated, even in a nonseparated mixed-use building (Section 302.3.1 says: “Nonseparated uses. Each portion of the building shall be individually classified as to use.”). The Code also suggests that these designations must conform to the actual intended use, and not to a generalized use, even if that generalized use is at a higher hazard level (Section 302.1 says: “…Where a structure is proposed for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which the occupancy most nearly resembles…”).

3. It may be that the reason for designating each space by its actual use, and not giving the whole floor a blanket A-3 designation, is that the specific uses still trigger code compliance issues, even in a nonseparated mixed-use building which is governed in some respects by the higher hazard occupancy (Section 302.3.1 says: “…The required type of construction for the building shall be determined by applying the height and area limitations for each of the applicable occupancies to the entire building. The most restrictive type of construction, so determined, shall apply to the entire building.”) So the A-3 occupancy determines height and area limits for the whole building, but the A-3 occupancy does NOT determine all other requirements. The code section continues: “All other code requirements shall apply to each portion of the building based on the use of that space except that the most restrictive applicable provisions of Section 403 and Chapter 9 [exception for high-rise and sprinklers only] shall apply to these nonseparated uses….”. In other words, as an example, all the chapter 10 means of egress tables must still be checked for each separate occupancy, and not just for the highest hazard (A-3) occupancy.

4. I don’t think that the 2nd-floor could be easily modified to include A-3 uses in the future, if it is designated as group B now. The reason is that the code-required fire barrier you refer to is only legal under Appendix K of the old code. Any future change of occupancy to a higher hazard would not be able to claim compliance based on a fire barrier, since that code provision no longer exists (Section 812.4.2.1 says: “When a change of occupancy group is made to a higher hazard category as shown in Table 812.4.2, heights and areas of buildings and structures shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Building Code of New York State for the new occupancy group.”). Also note that Section 812.4.2.3, which you refer to, does not apply to a future change from a group B to a group A-3 occupancy within Milstein. It simply says that separated mixed-use buildings need proper fire barriers between the separated uses. But Milstein is not being designed as a “separated mixed-use building,” and, furthermore, the fire-barrier separation between Sibley and Milstein is intended to act as a “fire wall” under Appendix K of the old code so that height and area limits that would have been triggered by Sibley’s construction type do not apply to Milstein under the old code. But with any future changes in Milstein to a higher hazard occupancy, Section 812.4.2.1 requires that current Chapter 5 height and area limits be met, so that the Appendix K fire barrier from the old code would no longer count as a fire wall under the current code, and the proposed changes would be noncompliant.

Those are my main issues. I agree that the architects seek a flexible floor plan, but I think that all the uses that are listed on their plans (and on their web page), such as “forum,” “studio modules,” seminar,” etc. are best designated as group B uses, which would permit Cornell to modify the plan in the future, as long as the modified uses continue to be group B uses.

milstein code issues (continued)

Leave a reply

I received another email today from John Shipe of the City of Ithaca Building Department relating to my concerns about the “flexibility” of Milstein Hall to accommodate future changes. See posts from Jan. 15, 2009 and Jan. 16, 2009 to see how the conversation started.

  • John Shipe wrote:

The building is being built as an A-3/ B occupancy with unseparated uses, so  the entire building is being built to comply with the A-3 requirements. Since it is already constructed to the higher hazard standards the change of occupancy issue will not come into play in the future.

  • I replied:

Milstein Hall is an addition to Sibley Hall, and will be designed and permitted as a mixed-occupancy building with nonseparated uses. However, as I said before, those nonseparated uses must still be “individually classified as to use,” according to the code. Under the code, because the building is designed with “nonseparated uses,” the entire building must be built according to the most restrictive occupancy, which is A-3. I believe that we are in agreement with all of this, since this is taken directly from the NYS code.

The Existing Building Code also says that any future change in occupancy to a higher hazard (e.g., group B to group A-3) must be consistent with area-height restrictions under the current code. The fact that Milstein is designed with a Construction Type consistent with an A-3 occupancy is not the same thing as saying that the occupancy of Milstein is A-3 throughout. The proposed occupancy is mixed,  with a large area consisting of group B. There is nothing in the building code that permits you to decide that these group B occupancies can be later changed to a group A-3 occupancy without meeting the requirements of the Existing Building Code. In fact, the opposite is true: the Existing Building Code specifically requires that Milstein comply with the current New York State Building Code if any occupancy changes are proposed from group B to group A-3.

I believe that you are confusing Construction Type (which in Milstein is consistent with the most restrictive occupancy, as it must be to satisfy code requirements for nonseparated uses) and Occupancy (which in Milstein is mixed, and consists of both group B and group A-3). The Existing Building Code does have a specific exemption for (1) occupancies and construction types that were legal when they were built; and (2) changes in occupancy that go to a lower hazard from a higher hazard. These exemptions do not apply to the situation were are discussing.  What we are discussing is a proposed change in the future to a higher hazard occupancy. The Existing Building Code specifically requires that changes in occupancy to a higher hazard MUST COMPLY with the current code (Chapter 5, New York State Building Code). It doesn’t matter what the construction type is, or whether the proposed occupancy change would have been legal had it been built under an older code. All that matters, according to the Code, is what the occupancy is now, and what the proposed change of occupancy is.

None of this would matter if Milstein Hall were legal under the current building code. The entire problem arises because Milstein is nonconforming under the current code. As such, it’s current occupancy may be “grandfathered” into the future, but changes to that occupancy must be evaluated under the new (current) code.

milstein: the debate continues…

Leave a reply

I emailed a copy of the Milstein post dated 15 January 2009 to John Shipe, Senior Code Inspector for the City of Ithaca Building Department. Mr. Shipe responded to me (and others) via email today: I reprint his email, followed by my email reply.

  • John Shipe wrote:

You are incorrect that you will not be able to do any work after the building receives a Certificate of Occupancy due to height and area concerns. Once a building has a C of O it is in compliance with the Building code under which it was built, after that time you would use the Existing building code of NY, as you mentioned, to do any additional work in an existing building. The Existing Building code only talks about the height and area when there is a change of occupancy within the building and it only becomes an issue if you plan to go to a higher hazard occupancy based on table 812.4.2. In the case of Milstein which is being permitted as an Assembly (A-3) and a Business (B) occupancy the only higher hazard than the A-3 is an Hazardous occupancy (H)  with would not be allowed within this building for many other reasons.All new work in the building would have to be done in compliance to the new code, but height and area will not come into play in this case unless an addition to it is ever proposed.

  • I replied:

Thanks for the clarification. However, I still believe that my analysis is correct, for the following reason. The building code allows for mixed occupancies, as you suggest, but each portion of the building must still be individually classified as to use. If portions of Milstein are occupied for educational use (above grade 12), i.e., as a group B, then any change of that occupancy in the future to a library use (group A-3) falls under the Existing Building Code, and the logic of my argument remains valid.

An entire building cannot be classified as both group B and group A3, but rather must be broken down into individual portions, each of which falls under a specific and appropriate occupancy classification. And it is not appropriate to simply call the entire building A3 when, in fact, much of it is planned to be occupied as group B.

  • John Shipe then wrote back:

It is an unseperated A-3, B occupancy

  • I then responded:

Doesn’t matter: each portion of the building must still be classified as to use. My argument remains valid.

All that the nonseparated status does is make the most restrictive occupancy govern the buiding design; it does not change the fact that there are still separate (mixed) occupancies. The whole point of having this status “grandfathered” is that changes in the specific arrangments of occupancy WILL trigger a re-evaluation under the current code: the grandfathered status does NOT permit Cornell to claim that every potential future occupancy change is covered under an old code.  Occupancy is a different category than is construction type. All you can say is that an A-3 occupancy is permitted under the current permit; if Cornell decides to make new A-3 occupancies in the future in portions of the building that are currently group B, they would need to demonstrate compliance under the current Existing Building Code, as I stated in my initial email.

  • John Shipe then wrote back:

you are not correct, but you have refused to hear anyone side of this discussion unless it suits your purpose. The upper level and several other areas are being considered as an A-3 occupancy so there will be no need for a change in occupancy so that section will not apply in the future. If they were to change a B occ. to an A-3 then you would be correct, but it would have to be larger than 750 sq ft and over 50 people to make it an A occ. and i see no place they could do that without large scale modifications and that’s where your argument will come into play and a file note will provide direction for anyone review the file in the future to this situation.

Good luck with your campaign. Please remove me from your email list.

  • I then responded:

I wouldn’t have thought that the upper level of Milstein would be classified as an A-3 occupancy. The Building Code requires that structures “be classified in the group which the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.”  Given the choice between group B (specifically including “Educational occupancies above the 12th grade”) and group A-3 (“Assembly uses intended for worship, recreation or amusement and other assembly uses not classified elsewhere…”), it seems to me that Group B is a better fit for the proposed occupancy, which consists primarily of open classrooms (design studios) and related educational functions. However, I can see that the choice is not absolutely clear-cut.

If A-3 is the appropriate classification, I would assume that all other large studio spaces at Cornell have similarly been classified as A-3 (e.g., the Landscape Architecture studios in Kennedy-Roberts Hall, and the 2nd- and 3rd-floors spaces in Rand Hall), and not as group B. Could you confirm whether or not this is the case?

I am sending emails to you in your capacity as Senior Code Inspector for the City of Ithaca Building Department. You are not on a “list.” However, if there is another person in you department who would prefer to receive my questions and comments concerning building code issues, please let me know, and I will be happy to make the switch.

  • John Shipe then wrote back:

In the case of Milstein Hall the lecture room on the lower floor is being considered an A-3 based on the description in NYSBC 303.1 as is the upper floor area (libraries)  by the same section of the code. I cannot comment on the rooms at Kennedy- Roberts since that is under the jurisdiction of the State, nor can i comment on the designers intent for the spaces in Rand , but if was to do an evaluation of Rand i would say that the spaces in the upper floors are more of a B occupancy due to the fact that they are more “lab” spaces than an assembly space. That is my read on this. Code is a lot of interpretation and a person will typically interpret it in the way that best suits there needs , yours is to see to it that it does not get built, mine is to see to it that a proposed set of plans is in compliance with the applicable codes of the time and that  i have nothing to gain from it.  Your many point on it have been noted and in some case have caused the designs to be modified so that they are in compliance when or if this building gets built, so credit to you. But, at the same time I am the AHJ and i have a few things to say about it and i am the one who has to approve or not approve  the design based on the codes in front of me and its clear that we are interpreting the code a little differently in some respects.

As far as the emails, I have no problem with receiving them, but your constant refusal to hear my (or anyone else’s)  point on any matter concerning Milstein Hall gets a little hard to deal with. I am the point of contact for all Cornell buildings within the city of Ithaca and will continue to be.

  • I then responded:

I listen very closely to other’s viewpoints, including yours: I just sometimes disagree.

I understand that the Milstein auditorium is unambiguously an A-3 space, but where on the upper floor areas of Milstein is there any mention of a library? Cornell’s own Milstein Hall website describes the upper-level floor as being “a large flexible space for studios that are conducive to improvisational interaction among the AAP programs. A variety of zones within the upper plate supports the college’s physical and programmatic vision for innovative and collaborative learning: AAP Forum, Flexible studio modules, Pin up/Crit, Seminar, Research, Technology bar, Study, Lounge.” (https://milsteinhall.cornell.edu/content/view/building-design.html ) This sounds very much like Rand Hall’s studio floors, which you stated in your email are perhaps more consistent with a Group B classification. If Cornell were really putting a library in Milstein, I would withdraw my complaint, but if they are simply calling the upper level a “library” in order to circumvent the intention of the Building Code, then I think that would be problemmatic.

Also, for the record, I am not opposed to Milstein Hall being built: I would prefer if a more rational and less extravagent revision was proposed, but I agree with many others here that the added space for our department is sorely needed. On the other hand, I do have a problem with Cornell proposing a building when they knew from the start that it was nonconforming with model building codes, as well as with the soon-to-be-adopted 2007 NYS Buidling Code, and I feel that if they wish to continue down this path (which seems to be their legal right), they should at least meet Code standards in a rigorous manner.

[Update: the discussion continues here]