It sounds like a great idea- use the top of a building for outdoor living in an urban setting where you can sit outside in the summertime without the benefit of having a patio or balcony. Amidst the glass, steel, and masonry of the metropolitan skyline, these decks form an oasis of outdoor living space in any city, transforming simple roofs to a  backyard-feel country club setting. The perfect solution for urban dwellers- or is it? Anyone who rides the elevated trains in Chicago has seen hundreds of examples of rooftop decks on both residential and commercial buildings. Many decks have been built over the years, some following building code regulations, some not.

Rooftop decks can raise some serious concerns when trying to meet regulatory requirements. For example, you may need to have the rafter system of the roof re-engineered to carry the excess loads of the deck and the anticipated number of people on it. Also, building a deck over a roof never takes into account just how you will replace the roof in 20 years without deconstructing the deck to do it. At that point, will the deck be a like-for-like replacement (like a repair) or a reconfigured alteration to an existing building? What about the deck material itself?

Chicago Building Code Section 15-8-510, Roof Structures, indicates that except for certain other limitations, all roof structures placed above the roof of any building within the Fire Limits (essentially the downtown Central Business District) or above the roof of any building exceeding fifty-five feet in height, must be constructed of non -combustible materials and must be supported by construction of non-combustible materials.

Recent experience has shown that conventional flamespread treatments and intumescent coatings are NOT an acceptable alternative to the requirement that the deck be of non-combustible material. We have tried these both at the Building Board of Appeals and the Committee on Standards and Tests and have not been successful in either case. I do not believe the City will be changing its stance any time soon.

As a substitute product, composite/synthetic decking (manufactured from wood fiber and plastic to form a deck profile) is really no different than wood in terms of its combustibility. In addition, there have been problems with discolorations, de-lamination and mold when used in exterior applications. Many of these products are not chemically designed to withstand exterior exposure for an extended period of time.

However, the Chicago Department of Buildings has in the recent past, recommended and approved at least two substitute materials for high-rise decks the we are aware of: Ipe Wood and wood-glass composites. Although both still qualify as combustible, their physical properties are considered to be an acceptable alternative.

Ipe decking has been used in several large residential and commercial buildings, including LEED certified projects. Examples include the Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian walkway, the Treasure Island Casino in Las Vegas, and the boardwalks in Ocean City, NJ and Miami, Flordia.

Ipe is a Brazilian Walnut and has a Janka hardness of 3640.

Note: The Janka hardness test measures the hardness of wood. It involves measuring the force required to embed a 0.444 inch steel ball into wood to half its diameter. This method is used so that the result would leave an indentation 100 square millimeters in size. It is one of the best measures of the ability of a wood species to withstand denting and wear.

Ipe is also rated the same as concrete for flammability testing. This hardwood is so dense that it is resistant to mold, fungus even insects. No chemicals are required and no treatments are needed unless you want to to keep the tones of the wood from fading. If no treatment is used it will patina a silverish grey tone, otherwise a UV oil inhibitor can be used. The lifespan for Ipe decking is over 30 years old without treatment and over 100 years with treatment. Ipe is also available FSC certified with select approved companies. This certification guarantees the hardwood is harvested from a responsibly managed forest. Ipe is a renewable, recyclable, durable, biodegradable, energy efficient and versatile product.

Products that infuse glass into wood decking are another alternative. A chemical bonding of sodium silicate (a mixture of sand and soda ash used since the 19th Century in detergents and as an egg preservative) and wood soaked in this solution, then (literally) baked, becomes an insoluble matrix of amorphous glass, which hardens and essentially “shrink-wraps”  the wood fibers throughout. Due to this glass infusion, the wood is inert and will not rot. Because conventional fungicides like copper are not required to pressure-treat the wood, the resulting product is non-corrosive to nails and other fasteners. The fusion of wood and glass creates a product that is approximately twice as hard as conventional wood. As measured by the Janka Scale, the hardness of southern  yellow pine, for example, increases from 690-870 lbs-force (range depends on species) to 1560 lbs-force, approximately double. Since the deck material is many times stronger that composite products due to the glass portion fusing parallel to the grain of the wood, this insures that nails, screws and fasteners hold more firmly.

The best part, however, from a regulatory standpoint, is that the wood-glass matrix is not flammable. Years ago we would laugh when a note would appear on  construction drawings referring to the “noncombustible wood blocking”; since the only noncombustible wood in existence was petrified rock. Now that is no longer the case. Wood-glass composites carry a Class A classification and also for reduced levels of smoke, in accordance with the 30-minute extended ASTM E84 (Steiner Tunnel) flamespread test.

Both of these alternatives offer the look of wood with the added benefit of being safer and more durable than a conventional wood deck. Now if you could just do something about that bothersome requirement for a second exit off the deck (but that’s another story).

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipalities. he has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• Burnham Nationwide Keeps You Apprised of Building Code Changes
• Life Safety, Code and Politics – The Residential Sprinkler Debate
• NY Concrete Testing Laboratory
• To Swing or Not to Swing?
• Are Open Stairs Permitted in Chicago?

By Diana Urlaub, LEED AP

In February 2009, Burnham Nationwide began greening its Chicago headquarters by participating in the Department of Environtment’s very first round of the Chicago Green Office Challenge.  We took this challenge on along with 160 other office tenants, 14 property management companies and 45 buildings in the Central Business District.

The Green Office Challenge (GOC) was started as a way to engage the business community in the implementation of the Chicago Climate Action Plan.  To guarantee success, the City partnered with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to develop and deliver the program.  The ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development.

The provided tenant scorecard is broken down into 5 categories: Outreach, Energy, Waste, Transportation and Property Manager Engagement.  There is a maximum of 100 points, which are broken down into 4 tiers.  In the beginning Burnham started with a total 0f 31 points (Tier 3,) because some initiatives were already in place such as: providing reusable dishes in the break room, on-site bicycle parking for employees and a pre-tax transit benefit program.

For 12 months our Green Team looked for greener alternatives to implement and brought awareness to our coworkers on what they could do in the office and at home.  We adjusted many settings on our computers and printers to save energy and encouraged everyone to turn off their monitors at the end of the day.  Burnham participated in the World Wildlife Foundation’s (WWF) Earth Hour, Active Transportation Alliance’s Bike to Work Week, the Ronald McDonald House Pop Tab Collection Program and created the Burnham Nationwide Green Office Policy to ensure our initiatives continue beyond the GOC.  During this time we discovered that our building, the Burnham Center, was about to expand their recycling program from just paper to include plastic, glass, and aluminum.  One initiative we’re particularly proud of here is our Electronic Waste (E-Waste) Recycling Day, which we plan on making an annual event.  For this event we collected batteries, cell phones, computers and hard drives from the office and home, diverting a total of 750 pounds of electronic waste from the landfill.

In January 2010 we submitted our final scorecard, finishing with 54 points, placing us in Tier 2.  The Green Office Challenge was the perfect opportunity for us to look at ways to make our operation more sustainable.  The suggested strategies are reasonable, affordable, and don’t require a lot of time.  We highly recommend that you get your office involved in the next Green Office Challenge round.

Related Posts:

• Does Your Project Have Renewable Energy Features?
• What Can LEED Sustainability Offer Academic Institutions?
• The Value of Using Green Building Consultants for Your Next Project
• 6 Facts About Solar Energy You Didn’t Know
• Discount on Permit for Senior Citizens

By Leah Riley, ICC Accessibility Inspector/Senior Code Consultant

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed into law on July 26th, 1990. This was lauded as the first real declaration of equality for people with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, state and local government services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation.

To a person with a disability, the passage of the ADA opened doors that had been closed for a long time and acknowledged that a person with a disability had the right, just like anyone else, to participate fully in all programs and services available. While I am not a person with a disability, the passage of this law also impacted my life in ways that I never expected. Through some general awareness of the ADA, I have become directly involved in the enforcement of accessibility codes and laws. It has given me an opportunity to learn the laws, advocate on behalf of people with disabilities as well as educate and consult with architects designing spaces referencing these requirements.

Everyone can see the impact of the ADA as well as state and local accessibility codes, if they pay attention to the details. There are curb ramps at corners that also have detectable warnings. There are accessible parking spaces, entrances to buildings and toilet rooms. In addition to mobility disabilities, requirements also are included for blind, visually impaired and hearing-impaired persons. The ADA also has many other specific requirements that not only allow for access, but potentially benefit non-disabled persons. Elements such as a curb cut or ramp are helpful to a person using a stroller or cart. A push-button door operator or lever door hardware can easily be used by a person with their hands full.

The ADA and the corresponding Accessibility Guidelines set standards for not only new construction and alteration projects, but also existing buildings. It requires building owners to assess their condition and, where feasible, remove barriers in order to bring these to a usable level of accessibility for a person with a disability.

While the ADA requires compliance at a time of construction, design of large and small business and even government agencies to this day have neglected to include all required accessibility components. Unless a state of local municipality reviews drawings and inspects projects sufficiently, accessibility enforcement is challenging as the ADA is designed to be reactive. This has resulted in many lawsuits, which ultimately require compliance that should have been provided in the first place. In the past, some large hotel chains were required to provide upgrades at a significant additional cost because they failed to follow the accessibility code. After 20 years, it is surprising that compliance is not always being met.

The information regarding accessibility codes and laws is easy to find, especially with Internet access. The Access Board (an independent Federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities) posts requirements, bulletins and commentary to assist in understanding and complying with the code. The Design Professional must take responsibility to review, understand and design to meet compliance just like with exiting, occupancy and any other code requirement .

The Access Board has been actively involved in updating the ADA/ABA and Accessibility Guidelines.  This has been drafted since 2004 and is finally gaining momentum towards passage into law.  This may happen as soon as Fall of 2010.  Hopefully, 20 years later, the much needed updates to modernize the code and include elements such as Recreation and Children’s Facilities requirements will actually happen.  The passage of this should bring to light the fact that although 20 years have passed, there is still a ways to go.  There will be a number of new changes to learn and understand.  Per the 2000 census there are over 49 million persons with disabilities in the United States.  With the aging population, this number will continue to increase.

Think about it for a minute…what does the ADA mean to you, your family, your future?  What will you do to celebrate?

________________________________________________________________________

About the Author:

Leah Riley, ICC Accessibility Inspector/ Senior Code Consultant Burnham Nationwide, Inc./The Code Group.  Ms. Riley has over sixteen years of experience in interpreting and providing consulting services for a number of local, national and international building and accessibility codes.  She has gained recognition throughout the construction industry as one of the foremost experts in ADA interpretation through her years of service for the City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for Peoples with Disabilities.

Related Posts:

• Q & A About California ADA Requirements
• Current ADA Ramp Requirements
• A Look at the 2010 ADA Parking Requirements
• Questions and Answers About ADA Compliance Requirements
• ADA Consultants: How to Choose the Right One For Your Needs

By Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA

A funny thing happened on the way to an impending battle between opposing Green Building codes and standards: the two main opponents joined forces.

In January of this year, after a tumultuous, four-year development process that included the disbanding and reorganization of the committee charged with its creation, the long-awaited ASHRAE Standard 189.1-2009, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, the first ever code-enforceable green building standard in the nation was approved and published.  Developed by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), and modeled on LEED, the standard addresses site sustainability, water use efficiency, energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and the building’s impact on the atmosphere, materials and resources.  These five subject areas, as well as requirements for construction and high-performance operation, are each addressed in separate sections.  Requirements for construction and operation plans – including the commissioning process, building acceptance testing, measurement and verification, and reporting of energy use, water use and indoor air quality – are also specified to assist building owners in achieving high performance operation.  By some measures, Standard 189.1 could lead to site energy savings of between 10 and 34 percent over the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, based on the minimum prescriptive recommendations of the new standard – and possibly even higher.

Hot on their heels, in a remarkably swift nine-month development process, the International Code Council (ICC) released its own International Green Construction Code (IgCC) on March 15th.  Developed in partnership with The American Institute of Architects (AIA) and ASTM International, the IgCC had been anticipated to compete directly with Standard 189.  Instead, all six associations stood together to support IgCC’s launch at the press conference launching the public-comment version.  Rather than challenging Standard 189, IgCC has now included it as an alternate compliance path as a first step to greater integration, connecting it to ICC’s vast code network that reaches all 50 states and 22,000 local jurisdictions.

ICC began developing its green code last Summer, after realizing that some jurisdictions that would normally use their codes were pretty much stuck making up Green codes on their own, because they had no model code language to work from.  While the IgCC’s effort was playing catch-up with Standard 189 and, apparently, aiming to compete with it, many of the same technical experts were actually involved with both efforts.  Concern had developed that this parallel effort was leading up to an unnecessary choice for jurisdictions: either pick the ASHRAE standard or pick IgCC.

Remembering that the ICC was initially formed more than fifteen years ago as a result of mounting concerns about what competing codes do from a regulatory perspective, this is not a surprising move on their part.  Inconsistency in codes from one community to another has long complicated the work of designers and contractors, and competing options could easily have bogged down the entire Green code adoption process in many state and local jurisdictions.  Years of fighting have been avoided as a result in this pact.

The relationship between the two publications will likely be not unlike that of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, which date as far back as the 1980′s when they were known as the Model Energy Code (MEC) and Standard 90A.  Both were and still are separate, stand-alone publications.  When ASHRAE 90A became 90.1, it was, for a time, the leading standard for energy requirements in the U.S. and was frequently adopted by reference in state and local jurisdictions.  With the advent of the International Codes, however, it became much more likely to see the IECC be adopted – as part of the “International Code Family” that includes and works with the ICC building, fire, property maintenance codes.  With 90.1 included as an alternative compliance method within the IECC, both publications have thrived.

Version 1.0 of IgCC is currently available on the ICC website for download and possible adoption by state and local governments, after coming out of a committee process that included open public meetings and hearings.  At the same time, ICC is just starting a public comment process, with a first round of comments open until May 14, 2010.  Public hearings are scheduled for August, and the planned release of version 2 is in November 2010.  That version will stand until the 2012 code updates are released, at which point ICC will promote and manage the evolution of the IgCC alongside its other International Codes.

While Standard 189 is now an option within the IgCC, there are significant differences between the two.  However, the public comment process will provide an opportunity to increase their alignment.  ASHRAE will actually be submitting certain sections of the 189 for consideration by IgCC, according to one source.  Over time, all parties expect the two documents to influence and grow together.

A third influential green code, California’s Green Building Standards Code, or “Calgreen,” is not officially part of this union, but state officials have pointed to the use of Calgreen as one of the reference doc’s for the IgCC.  Dave Walls, executive director of the California Building Standards Commission, participated on the IgCC committee.  According to Owens, informal conversations may be underway about including Calgreen in the alignment effort.

State and local jurisdictions still have the option of adopting part or all of Standard 189, or the IgCC into their codes and regulations.  However, Standard 189 covers areas that can affect a communities’ zoning regulations in addition to their building codes, so adopting it wholesale would take some cross-departmental collaboration.  Regardless of the complexities, the partnership with IgCC gives Standard 189 a huge boost in the code adoption process, and it can be expected that Green codes will move forward nationwide much more quickly than anyone previously thought.

___________________________________________________________________________________

About the Author:

Christopher E.  Chwedyk, AIA, CSI is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago.  He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering.  With 33 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipalities.  An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• The LEED Certification Process – Part 1: Requirements
• Commissioning Confusion and the New Illinois Energy Conservation Code
• Questions and Answers About ADA Compliance Requirements
• Benefits of Using Green Construction Materials and Methods
• Green Governance Made Easier

By Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA

In mid-February of this year, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released a legislative update on their Fire Sprinkler Initiative Project – “Bringing Safety Home” e-mail blast, titled “Are Home Fire Sprinkler Opponents Threatening Safety In Your State?” Apparently, at least a dozen states in the U.S. have proposed state legislation that would restrict a community’s ability to make its own decision about whether to enforce the requirement to provide fire sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwelling units. These states include Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. In Kentucky, a circuit court recently rejected a bid to allow local governments to mandate the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new home construction.

The NFPA Building Construction (5000) and Life Safety (101) Codes have required sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwellings since 2006. However, for the first time the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) now contains a section R313.2 stating that “Effective January 1, 2011, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and-two family dwellings.” This provision was passed at the 2008 International Code Council hearings in a somewhat controversial manner (many fire officials were at the hearings only to vote on this particular issue) and attempts were made prior to the code’s publication to rescind this requirement, to no avail. Much of the current legislation mentioned above would specifically prohibit the inclusion of one-and-two family sprinkler provisions statewide, rather than allow each municipality to enact “more stringent” provisions than enacted by the state, as has been normally and traditionally allowed. In addition to the states already mentioned, Ohio has postponed adoption of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and IRC until at least June of 2011. Minnesota has decided to skip the adoption of the 2009 edition of the codes altogether.

Now, this reaction is clearly an attempt by legislation to ease the perceived threat to initiating new home construction in a slow economy. At the same time, it brings up questions regarding the very essence of why the model building codes are written in the first place. Shorty after this NFPA update appeared, David Collins of The Preview Group sent out a questionnaire to several architects asking them to weigh-in on the issue by choosing one of three possible responses:

• A. I don’t see this as any different from any other modifications that states and local jurisdictions make to the codes.
• B. This is the type of political pressure that a powerful group can exert locally to prevent change (regardless of whether it is right or wrong).
• C. We (as design professionals) should work with our partners and ICC to see that codes don’t wander too far from a path where consistent regulations can be supported and adopted.

The consensus from this small group wat that ‘C’ was the best answer, since the extraordinary efforts being mounted by opponents regarding one sentence in a building code clearly negates ‘A’, and ‘B’ is just a passive acceptance. The discussion then became one of suggesting that design professionals become more actively involved in the code making process. However, none of these responses, it would appear, gets to the heart of the matter – does this provision in the code actually make sense?

The general argument for providing sprinkler systems in homes is that most fires occur there and a significant reduction in fire loss and fire deaths would be accomplished if sprinklers were mandated in the code. One community that has had this sprinkler provision mandated for several years is Scottsdale, AZ. Their figures show that fire sprinklers in single-family homes reduced potential fire loss by 95% in the period between 1986 and 2001, saving at least a dozen lives. Another study, recently released by NFPA, entitled “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment“, concludes that the death rate per fire in sprinklered homes is lowered by 83% and that damage per fire is lowered by 40-70%. As far as increased costs are concerned, a 2008 report by Newhouse Partners concluded that the average cost of installing sprinkler systems by home-builders was only $1.61 per sprinklered square-foot.

The opposing side points to potential accidental sprinkler activation, the failure rate of non-maintained residential sprinklers, as well as issues related to the challenges faced by rural areas and limited water availability. Another school of thought is that passive fire resistance (construction using better fire-resistive materials and compartmentalizing floors of a building into fire areas) is superior to relying on active sprinkler systems. This has certainly been expressed in Chicago, for example, where it is unlikely that sprinklers will ever be mandated for any buildings under five stories, much less single family homes – this despite the fact that recent residential high rise fires (especially the Streeterville fire last December) have brought some question as to whether the City’s Life Safety Evaluation system for pre-1975 buildings has allowed too many existing residential buildings to be left without sprinklers. Ironically, politicians voted to extend the deadline for installing improved communication systems in residential high rises from 2012 to 2015, again as part of a perceived need to save taxpayer money.

There are no easy answers to these questions. However, the debate does bring into focus the fact that codes are laws and laws are made by politicians, whether appointed or voted into office. The idea that model codes are always based on good judgment and common sense for the common good and are enacted to save lives, or that they are always accepted without question, is simply not the case. The residential sprinkler issue is a prime example of where the prescriptive method of code compliance and the adoption of model code language appear to fall short of stated intentions. That being said, many believe that it should be up to design professionals and specifiers to look beyond the minimum requirements of the codes and, in some situations, to take some responsibility and recommend a higher standard by which to apply these requirements.

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipailites. He has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

• Burnham Nationwide Keeps You Apprised of Building Code Changes
• Are Open Stairs Permitted in Chicago?
• The Top Ten Reasons To Rewrite the Life Safety Chapters of the Chicago Building Code
• A Look at Why Building Code Compliance is So Important
• The Nation’s Largest Cities: Local Building Codes

The Environmental Protection Agency will require certification for contractors and companies, further supporting public health and safety when it comes to lead abatement. Contractors are required to obtain certification by April 2010 and time is running out. Certification information can be found on the USEPA website.

Although it is not clear how the EPA will enforce this rule, the intent to better secure public safety is obvious. Certifying your company and your employees will better support the profession and better serve our community.

PROFESSIONALS – Accredited Certification programs and  locations can be found here. Failing to meet the April 2010 deadline will result in fines and delays.

GENERAL PUBLIC – It is important for you to work with certified contractors to ensure your safety.  Be sure to have certification confirmation included in your contract.

A representative from the EPA stated certification for firms can be verified by calling 1-800-424-LEAD. Individual certification can be verified by viewing their certificate of program completion.

Related Posts:

• Demystifying the Construction General Permit

Written by Mike Foley

Although generally viewed as merely a national headcount, the census actually compiles a surprising amount of manufacturing and construction data. It also offers detailed data on residential building permits.

The site offers a host of national and state categories. You can even search by municipality. Permit data can be downloaded in both excel and PDF formats. It’s a handy tool for those seeking recent and historical data on building permits.

Related Posts:

• Avoid Fines and Penalties: Know Your Building Permit Requirements
• Glossary Series: Permit Expediter
• Self-Certification: The Good and the Bad
• Demystifying the Construction General Permit
• Discount on Permit for Senior Citizens

Written by Mike Foley

I just visited the newly christened Pritzker Park at State & Van Buren in Chicago. While it’s nice to have a little more green space in the Loop, it does feel like there is something missing…people! The absence of any seating definitely drives away the lunch crowd. A few people were sitting on concrete ledge along the State Street sidewalk. They didn’t look comfortable. I am told that the outfit that provided the bus shelters will be providing seating eventually and that should help. Much of the concrete appears to be permeable, adding a nice environmental touch.

OK, the park doesn’t exactly inspire awe, but in fairness, I don’t think it was ever intended to do so. I think the intent was to give State Street denizens some desperately needed outdoor space beside sidewalks. And although it’s been a recent haven for panhandlers and swarms of pigeons, the corner has potential. Situated between the Harold Washington Library and John Marshall Law School and across the street from DePaul and Robert Morris College it may well become a popular outdoor spot. It also offers a smaller venue for free concerts and cultural events.

But the spot is not without some challenges. It’s been a magnet for vagrants for years. The southwest corner of the park directly faces about twenty dumpsters from the Plymouth Restaurant. Without some form of screening, it’s hard to imagine that area of park flourishing. Some also worry the huge student population, coupled with so much concrete landscaping may inadvertently result in the Pritzker ‘Skateboard” Park. I’m uncertain if the park will receive 24/7 security once the full amenities are in place, but it would seem a prudent step to keep the park from being hopelessly marred by graffiti and vandalism. Critics question the advisability of locating a park next to a major L-stop, and the prevalence of concrete landscaping, but it’s impossible to make everyone happy. I’m glad to see a new park amidst the hustle and bustle of State Street – properly maintained, it may become a terrific addition to the State Street cultural landscape.

Related Posts:

• >Burnham Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple
• Burnham Celebrates It’s 20th Anniversary!
• Sprint Chicago Service Outage?
• How green can you go?
• Does Your Project Have Renewable Energy Features?

The NYC Department of Buildings is enacting a new zoning review process this month that is aimed at giving the public greater access to what projects are being proposed in the city. The review, called the “develpment challenge process,” allows for the general public to challenge zoning approval issued by the department.

This enactment is interesting for many reasons. For one, the process is proposed to occur after the initial zoning review has been completed by the Department of Buildings. This not only places a greater sense of accountability on the department plan examiner, but also gives an inventive to the public to understand the facets of the NYC Zoning Resolution. The possibility of a savvy resident disapproving a plan examiners approval based on actual references to an ordinance seems very possible and somewhat unprecedented and interesting. While such public review models may exist in some form within planning and landmarks departments across the country, I think most building departments have rarely used this type of open review for the community. The willingness of the department to open itself to public comment is commendable in this sense.

Written by Bradd Hout

Aside from the interesting scenario noted above, the programs true intention is to provide residents with an increased ability to review the proposed projects in their neighborhood. I would agree that the public has a right to know and comment on new buildings in their area and this only reinforces this right. The resolution of conflicts that could be caused with an overload of comments and/or delays in review times will ultimately decide how successful this program becomes. In any event, the NYC Department of Buildings has certainly taken a step forward in becoming more transparent and accessible to the general public.

Related Posts:

• NYC Improving Permit Renewal
• NY Special & Progress Inspections
• NY Concrete Testing Laboratory
• Questions and Answers About NYC Building Violations
• NYC Building Violations and How to Avoid Them

Written by Mike Foley

Check out the results of the 3rd annual Chicago Canstruction competition, which raised 70,000 cans of food for the Chicago Greater Food Depository. It’s another great example of people finding creative ways to make things better. I’m partial to the “make no small cans” entry. Click to learn more about Canstruction events in your area.

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts