• Uncategorized 08.01.2014 No Comments

    Happy New Year, one and all!  Even though the Eagles lost, the year’s not a complete loss, yet!  And, 2014 seems to be looking especially busy for insurers and lawyers in the architecture industry. Here’s the latest on several high-profile projects they’re engaged in that will impact the glass biz.

    The Nasher Museum’s battle with sunlight reflecting off the nearby Museum Tower is still in the news.  The tower’s owner asked the Dallas City Council to broker an agreement for a fix, but there has been no apparent progress, according to ENR.

    As you’ll recall, there have been several other buildings with reflective “death rays “in the news: one reportedly melting cars in London and the Vdara in Las Vegas roasting sunbathers.  These cases bear watching as they could set legal precedent for designs that cause reflective “hardship” on neighboring properties.

    The Harmon demolition in Las Vegas was in the news again, recently. A judge pulled the demolition approval so the construction insurer can complete its in-house investigation.  The insurance policy is the owner’s, and could impact the pending lawsuits, as the investigation will “…impact the case by adding expert testimony,” ENR reports.   While not party to the lawsuits themselves, the insurer is obviously an interested party, so it remains to be seen if it can be objective.

    The construction contract required the owner, MGM, to pursue insurance relief before suing GC Tudor-Perini.  The insurance company thinks it has discovered “new issues” that haven’t been part of the lawsuits to this point, and that could impact the case or bring future action.  Again, this probably will take years to go through the courts, but the outcome is worth watching for the precedents it sets.

    Beyond the lawyers and insurers, tech continues to chug along and will affect the architecture biz in huge new ways. Notably, 3D printing is moving from prototype/part development to actually constructing buildings.  NASA is looking at it as a way of using materials on the moon to make a form of concrete, with which to 3D print buildings on site.

    A USC professor is already doing this with small-scale structures, and has offered it as a way of building economical low-income housing in developing countries.  One of the attractions is the reduced need for skilled trades to build the structure.

    Can you see the day when a curtainwall contractor further develops a BIM or other 3D model, wraps the actual jobsite in a hi-tech scaffold that has a continuous track running the full perimeter, and on that track, a 3D printer produces the building’s wall?  A few questions to ponder: Would anchors already be in place, or would they be printed separately, with a stronger material?  Would they be welded or fastened to the structure?  Would there be one printer for the framing system (with integral finish/color), including gaskets, and another for the infill, be it glass, metal panels, etc.?  Just think about all the technical issues we deal with every day, and how to automate all the various factors into a printed wall.

    And, who’s to say the building structure itself wouldn’t be built using a large 3D printer.  One question if using concrete:  if the concrete can be set WITHOUT formwork, wouldn’t that be enough of an attraction for a general contractor? I think the answer would be yes.

    Like the learning process most glazing contractors went through in the past, maybe the way to develop these systems is to start with simple storefront wall assemblies, and apply that knowledge to the next type of system, say stick curtainwall, then on to high-rise, high-performance curtainwall.

    As is always the case, experience of past events (Nasher, Harmon) teaches us how to move forward or to incorporate other criteria in design or development of new projects.  Somewhere there is someone who dreams, who takes new technologies and applies them to a new way of doing something that we take for granted can only be done the “old way.”  3D printing may be that, or it may lead to a new or different way that nobody’s thought of yet.  As smart as Leonardo De Vinci was, did he foresee that his self-propelled air screws would one day turn into helicopters?  I doubt the Wright Brothers could see, just 110 years ago, that 747s and Concordes would one day be possible.

    Someone’s going to push the building envelope “envelope” (curtainwall construction)?  Where do you see it going?

  • Uncategorized 12.03.2013 No Comments

    The Glass Association of North America’s Building Envelope Contractors (BEC) division wwill meet March 17-19 in Las Vegas. There’s a lot more that will come out of this event than just the annual meet and greet. For one, the Technical Committee is writing a “Curtainwall Fenestration Systems Manual” that’s meant to be a primer for new architects and industry newcomers on exterior glazing. We hope to have the first three sections published later this year. If you’ve been looking for a way to contribute to the industry, this is only one of many opportunities. Please contact Urmilla Sowell (usowell@glasswebsite.com) or Sara Neiswanger (sara@glasswebsite.com) if you’d like to contribute — even if you’re not going to Vegas.

    And, now for some random thoughts …

    BIM and Communication 

    According to one blog, BIM usage today is three times greater than what it was in 2010 – that’s a big change in only three years.

    And, the lawsuits are already starting to hit the courthouses. Check out this interesting post about a suit involving BIM and communication.  As good as BIM can be, the architect in this instance allegedly made an assumption about the construction sequencing and didn’t pass that on to the general contractor (GC). The GC sequenced the HVAC work differently than the architect envisioned, and the HVAC contractor couldn’t complete his work. Now, I don’t begin to understand how that scenario is possible, but it must have been pretty serious if it ended up at the courthouse. You can have the latest gizmos, whiz-bangers and ultimate software, but if communication doesn’t occur, it’s all a waste.

    As my boss frequently points out, “it’s like talking to your wife: nothing’s ever communicated by osmosis.” Give it another couple of millennia, and maybe our species will evolve to a higher level of communication where, “Forget what I did or didn’t say, you know what I was thinking” will work. For now, that response doesn’t cut it with spouses or the architecture industry.

    A similar point comes to mind when wrestling with the Third Rule of Customer Relationships:

    First Law:  The customer is always right.

    Second Law:  When the customer is wrong, see Rule 1.

    Third Law:  What do you do when the customer is wrong, punt?  Lord knows, telling them they’re wrong isn’t the easiest thing to do. What if they ask for something that really is not in your company’s best interest?

    My bet is most of us would try, to the best of our ability, to give the customer what they are asking for, within reason. But on occasion, a line is drawn that cannot be crossed when it goes against company standard operating procedure. In a case related to me by another project manager, the customer thought they knew the cause of a glass stain, but had made incorrect assumptions. Their claim was not even remotely possible.

    Again, the key here is communicating the situation to the customer in what I can only describe as “the most polite manner possible.”  Not that I’m the one to give lessons on this, but I’ve been fortunate to have worked for project managers or sales guys who are really good at doing this, and they’ve helped smooth the way through difficult situations.  Take advantage of those resources; they are priceless.

    So, too, are your suppliers, if they can lend credibility to the discussion regarding the matter in question.  Don’t squander their technical expertise; they are most willing to help.

    One past employer had the quintessential in-house communication form; they called it an “AVO” for Avoid Verbal Orders. You may have talked to everyone about a problem and the resolution, or given clear and concise verbal direction, BUT if it wasn’t put in writing, it never happened. Copies of the AVO went to all concerned/involved in the matter. It was great documentation; it never resulted in one of those, “he said/she said” conflicts.

    Quoted in a previous blog is the classic line said by the warden in Paul Newman’s movie, Cool Hand Luke: “What we have here …” Our spouses will hopefully forgive an occasional “failure to communicate,” but it is an essential problem to avoid in the glazing/construction industry.  Don’t let a lack of communication lead to disaster.

USGlass Magazine

USGlass Magazine

Archives