Re: Amphibious Codes

On         Sat, 14 Jan 1995 david sucher <dsucher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:


   David,

   (Absent Lebbeus who will shortly speak for himself.)

   My view of codes is that they are a red herring for the designer
   and the property owner, a way for both to excuse meeting
   their obligations to the people who live, work and try to lead
   better lives in myopically underdesigned structures, built too
   often to satisfy the ambitions of either designer or owner, or
   both in collusion against the needs and aspirations of the
   long-suffering public.

   No matter that designers and owners avow public interest; that's
   just hollow drumming to divert attention from their indifference,
ineptitude.

   Codes here in NYC, for example, are far more flexible for
   creative use than the myths of designers and property owners
   allege.  It's just that attorneys and lobbyists and code
   consultants do the creative work far better than designers or
   owners who crocodile-tearily bemoan the impositions, in feigned
   injustice.

   These deft code turners will shape the clay according to who
   pays them the best -- designer or owner, usually both, to
   hoodwink the public via massaging the public officials
   overloaded with special pleading.

   Some of the fattest cats in the city are those who have cycled
   careers through government and on to the rewards of private
   lobbying and favorable treatment.  Some of whom are architects,
   planners, urban designers and preservationists, say, Alex
   Cooper, Stan Ekstut, to name two of the more namous whose 0-60
   drag-racing careers I've tracked.

   Neither the designer nor the owner should be privileged, in my
   opinion -- both should be more considerate of the people who use
   their goods.  Fake fights between designers and owners are a
   smoke-screen to camoulflage irresponsibility, or more
   charitably, to hide willful ignorance of the consequences of
   their self-serving practices and conceits.

   They are chumps themselves for wasting time on their internecine
   petty disputes and not notice the effect of their neglect the
   cities and locales.  They become part of the heavier smoke of
   lethal financial-legal minds and greedy land grabbers on the
   urban range, say like Trump and his new surge of foreign
   underwriters -- part of a long tradition in NY real estate well
   documented in archives of development.

   These self-blinders are not limited to any political position,
   I see it in all persuasions of the spectrum.  Making political
   accusations is more smoke-blowing; it's done by all sorts of
   nefarious phoney victims -- the Durst family geek, say, who runs
   those screwy tiny ads on the front page of The Times (like me
   only much more often).

   Designers and owners should spend a lot more time in the
   maintenance and operation field to see how buildings and
   furnishings and equipment and people interact and deteriorate
   and fail over the long haul, not just how well they photograph
   or sell in the initial offering honeymoon of design,
   construction or production, career and product promotional
   hoopla.

   Perhaps codes and standards should require designers and owners
   to be responsible for their joint products in perpetuity,
   responsible for all consequences, as David Eisenberg recounted
   in his brief history of building codes.  And maybe both should
   post irrevocable bonds to assure 100% compliance.  Build that
   cost into the product, don't covertly pass it on to the public
   till as health costs, or diffuse it in liability insurance
   costs, or translate it into sad disaster testimony in court and
   at tearful graveside ceremonies.

   It seems to me that this would be fair: build the building or
   make the prototype, put it to a seatest with the designer and
   owner on board for, say, a generation.  If it still works well,
   then offer it to the public.  Forego experimentation at others
   risk; that's too much like generals waging war against the
   innocents.

   So here I think I agree with you, David, that to exceed code
   requirements should not be done to put others in harm's way
   anymore than to create hazards by undercompliance.  What is
   permissable should be negotiated openly by designer and owner,
   but there should be a place at the table for the end user as
   well.

   I'm uneasy with the designer, owner and code official claiming
   they speak for the absent public.  Humm.  Why absent, why does
   the public not understand codes and standards, why are the
   documents so arcane?  David Eisenberg suggests a model
   demystification that sounds good to me.

   I say watch codes and standards as closely as the big guys watch
   treaties allegedly detering war -- they are filled with tricks
   for the cocky designer and owner who may be be sucked into a
   conflict bigger than their own, by unwary association with less
   honorable miscreants.

   So I read Mr. Woods, Mr. Sucher, code officials and standards
   associations.

   Will Jeanette Glieser please comment on product design
   responsibility to the end user and maintainer -- to get beyond
   architecture and real estate?

   Anyone wish to comment on the public responsiblity, or lack
   thereof, of the artist, artist-designer?  Say, for the life-
   threatening work of Serra or SRI?