so, more on work..
so i meant to post this last time, but i dont have much time these days... im putting in close to 65 hours a week, and spending the rest of the time seeing sam and watching baseball and reading...
anyways,
here is a fun story to go along with why i dont liek architects:
one day, i was out to lunch with pretty much the whole office. there is a lady that works there named lisa johnson, she is in her mid to lat e30's, and single... she is very nice, but extremely opionated, and ultimately very stupid (actually, as a whole, im not happy with the lack of knowledge held by the office as a whole. granted there are only 12 people including myself, but all of them aside from the 3 interns are registered architects, and have been practicing for a long time... yet none of them have ever heard of architects that are FAMOUS... like, renzo piano... how can anyone who half pays attention to the built environment NOT know piano? he is one of the msot prolific architects of today, and he has THREE HUUUUGGGGEEE offices... anyways, even beyond that, we have presentations that we give to the rest of the firm on improving technology in the field, and how we need to stay up to date... today was about moisture barriers (which is moderately complicated, but not because of science, only because of wording and drawings) and good ole lisa gave the presentation and basically said that moisture barriers are not needed in exterior wall systems in michigan because water needs a way out (she didnt acutally say that, but made a circular argument that ended at that point logically). idiots. its not hard stuff, i can tell you right here the thing to do every time.... masonry construction = vapor barrier on warm side of air cavity, vapor retarder on warm side of insulation. concrete construction (pre-cast or site cast, non-masonry applications) insulation on cold side of concrete, vapor retarder on warm side of concrete wall. thats it 99% of the time... but they insisted on making it much more complicated... OH and the reason they did this presentation is because there is a current vapor barrier issue with a building of ours that is almost completed with construction... and its WRONG! they put a vapor barrier on the cold side of the insulation, and a vapor barrier on the warm side of the gypsum wall... which seems like it would keep water out completely right? sure.. if construction methods were perfect and you could 100% be certain water couldnt get into the construction... instead they made a swimming pool on any summer day that it rains (brick masonry construction on exterior of wall... brick soak up water, then heat up, driving vapor into the wall construction with tremendous force, where it remains due to double barrier construction not letting it out, anywhere, ever... great job guys... i have never even spec'd a vapor barrier in the real world and i know how this works than registered architects... why?
anyways, back to lunch...
so on our way back from lunch lisa sees a free press with headlines of the demolition of tiger stadium and says something like "oh they started demo on tiger stadium" to which mike thompson and i say "its about time".
lisa then replies to me that im obviously not a sustainible or ecological thinker. i play it off because ive only known her for two weeks and dont want to get into it.
so we keep walking, and about 2 minutes later she says to me "so you think they should rip down every old building?"
"they have been trying to no avail to get investors to renovate that building for years, it has cost tax payers over 4 million bucks to keep it standing and locked up, i see no purpose in doing that any longer"
"what about the train station or the book caddliac?"
(now pissed off that she wont let it go and is getting increasingly loud)
"sure knock em down, what good are they?"
"thats not very sustainible"
"it has nothing to do with sustainibility"
"IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SUSTAINIBILITY"
"well, yes it does, but not in the sense you mean. it has to deal with real sustainibility, which has nothing to do with carbon emission or solar energy, it has to do with making a viable building."
"it creates less waste to renovate than to knock down and build over"
"did i say i want them to knock it down so they can build on top of it? have you been to old tiger stadium anytime since it closed? it is surrounded by vacant lots, burned down houses, and an expressway. the reason no one decided to renovate is because it makes absolutely no business sense to open a building in that area."
"you are obviously not a sustainible architect"
"unless you are arguing that it is somehow BETTER for the environment for a shut down building to sit on a lot, displacing and polluting rain water, potentially poisoning the ground with corrosion from steel and concrete, and the decomposition of numerous plastics, and taking up land that could otherwise naturally spout wildlife, i dont see how it has ANYTHING to do with sustainibility"
we both walk into the office and dont speak another word about this ever again.
i hate that mentality
i hate the everything for some moral or ethical position no matter the cost. because that mentality ALWAYS blinds a person.
would i prefer tiger stadium got renovated instead of demolished? yes i would, of course. it is much better in terms of waste and pollution to renovate than demolish, plus you can maintain what a lot of people feel is a sacred building in detroit (which if it is it has to be the ugliest building of that type in the world), so whatever, that is the best option
but it didnt happen. 10 years, no plans ever made it beyond bidding.
at least with the train station viable ideas keep coming up and get shot down right before the green light goes up.
i dont see a point in keeping old for olds sake, especially when it costs millions of dollars.. millions the city doesnt have, especially when you are going to lock out the people who are paying for it....
anyways,
here is a fun story to go along with why i dont liek architects:
one day, i was out to lunch with pretty much the whole office. there is a lady that works there named lisa johnson, she is in her mid to lat e30's, and single... she is very nice, but extremely opionated, and ultimately very stupid (actually, as a whole, im not happy with the lack of knowledge held by the office as a whole. granted there are only 12 people including myself, but all of them aside from the 3 interns are registered architects, and have been practicing for a long time... yet none of them have ever heard of architects that are FAMOUS... like, renzo piano... how can anyone who half pays attention to the built environment NOT know piano? he is one of the msot prolific architects of today, and he has THREE HUUUUGGGGEEE offices... anyways, even beyond that, we have presentations that we give to the rest of the firm on improving technology in the field, and how we need to stay up to date... today was about moisture barriers (which is moderately complicated, but not because of science, only because of wording and drawings) and good ole lisa gave the presentation and basically said that moisture barriers are not needed in exterior wall systems in michigan because water needs a way out (she didnt acutally say that, but made a circular argument that ended at that point logically). idiots. its not hard stuff, i can tell you right here the thing to do every time.... masonry construction = vapor barrier on warm side of air cavity, vapor retarder on warm side of insulation. concrete construction (pre-cast or site cast, non-masonry applications) insulation on cold side of concrete, vapor retarder on warm side of concrete wall. thats it 99% of the time... but they insisted on making it much more complicated... OH and the reason they did this presentation is because there is a current vapor barrier issue with a building of ours that is almost completed with construction... and its WRONG! they put a vapor barrier on the cold side of the insulation, and a vapor barrier on the warm side of the gypsum wall... which seems like it would keep water out completely right? sure.. if construction methods were perfect and you could 100% be certain water couldnt get into the construction... instead they made a swimming pool on any summer day that it rains (brick masonry construction on exterior of wall... brick soak up water, then heat up, driving vapor into the wall construction with tremendous force, where it remains due to double barrier construction not letting it out, anywhere, ever... great job guys... i have never even spec'd a vapor barrier in the real world and i know how this works than registered architects... why?
anyways, back to lunch...
so on our way back from lunch lisa sees a free press with headlines of the demolition of tiger stadium and says something like "oh they started demo on tiger stadium" to which mike thompson and i say "its about time".
lisa then replies to me that im obviously not a sustainible or ecological thinker. i play it off because ive only known her for two weeks and dont want to get into it.
so we keep walking, and about 2 minutes later she says to me "so you think they should rip down every old building?"
"they have been trying to no avail to get investors to renovate that building for years, it has cost tax payers over 4 million bucks to keep it standing and locked up, i see no purpose in doing that any longer"
"what about the train station or the book caddliac?"
(now pissed off that she wont let it go and is getting increasingly loud)
"sure knock em down, what good are they?"
"thats not very sustainible"
"it has nothing to do with sustainibility"
"IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SUSTAINIBILITY"
"well, yes it does, but not in the sense you mean. it has to deal with real sustainibility, which has nothing to do with carbon emission or solar energy, it has to do with making a viable building."
"it creates less waste to renovate than to knock down and build over"
"did i say i want them to knock it down so they can build on top of it? have you been to old tiger stadium anytime since it closed? it is surrounded by vacant lots, burned down houses, and an expressway. the reason no one decided to renovate is because it makes absolutely no business sense to open a building in that area."
"you are obviously not a sustainible architect"
"unless you are arguing that it is somehow BETTER for the environment for a shut down building to sit on a lot, displacing and polluting rain water, potentially poisoning the ground with corrosion from steel and concrete, and the decomposition of numerous plastics, and taking up land that could otherwise naturally spout wildlife, i dont see how it has ANYTHING to do with sustainibility"
we both walk into the office and dont speak another word about this ever again.
i hate that mentality
i hate the everything for some moral or ethical position no matter the cost. because that mentality ALWAYS blinds a person.
would i prefer tiger stadium got renovated instead of demolished? yes i would, of course. it is much better in terms of waste and pollution to renovate than demolish, plus you can maintain what a lot of people feel is a sacred building in detroit (which if it is it has to be the ugliest building of that type in the world), so whatever, that is the best option
but it didnt happen. 10 years, no plans ever made it beyond bidding.
at least with the train station viable ideas keep coming up and get shot down right before the green light goes up.
i dont see a point in keeping old for olds sake, especially when it costs millions of dollars.. millions the city doesnt have, especially when you are going to lock out the people who are paying for it....