Core77

Design for Durability and Maintenance: We Have a Problem

By Rain Noe - May 11, 2012

in Architecture

Just blocks away from Core77's NYC offices is the latest location of the Museum of the Chinese in the Americas, handsomely designed by Maya Lin and opened to the public in 2009. I live in the neighborhood, pass it frequently, and have been inside the beautiful interior several times. But what I find distressing is that less than three years after its opening, the exterior is starting to look like this:

In short, the once-beautiful wood of the initially spiffy exterior is not standing up to the ravages of New York's brutal summers and harsh winters. So, I have a question for practicing architects: Whose responsibility is something like this—the architect's, the structural engineer's, the general contractor's, the building owner's? When an architect specs out a material like wood for a harsh urban environment, who steps in and determines the appropriate finishes required to protect it long-term? Is there a maintenance schedule handed over with the keys to the building, in the way that homeowners are advised to re-seal their backyard decks every few years?

I realize this problem is not limited to architecture, of course. A few feet in front of the Museum sits the row of parked cars common to every block in Manhattan, each bearing the scars of parallel parking:

Whose responsibility is that, the designers', the plastics suppliers', the car owners'? Surely these are not desireable signs of wear, and the manufacturer realizes their products will be driven in cities and parallel parked either by or among the clumsy or inconsiderate. Why is this acceptable? Do we simply accept, as with cell phones, that they must be protected by us purchasing aftermarket cases and "Bumper Badgers?"

In any case, these things occurred to me after reading about the sad and somewhat silly goings-on with the World Trade Center and its symbolic height. As a New Yorker unfortunate enough to experience September the 11th of 2001, it is not important to me how tall the new building is; it is only important that something be rebuilt. But it's of tremendous significance to the Government that the building be precisely 1,776 feet tall as the number coincides with the year of this country's founding. And that number is now looking doubtful due to technicalities and perhaps a design failure similar to the first two I mentioned, if those can be considered failures of design.The central issue, which reeks of absurd technicalities, is this: In building height, antennae don't count. The original plan was to build the WTC to a height of 1,368 feet and add the additional height by capping it with a mast. But this mast was to be clad in a "radome," an enclosure of fiberglass and steel; so even though the mast part wouldn't be occupied, it would technically be part of the building and not a mere antenna, thus hitting its target height.

However, building developer Douglas Durst has announced he's not going to add the cladding anymore, which means the building will no longer be considered 1,776 feet. And he's decided not to add the cladding because the design of it does not take repair and maintenance into account:

"There was no real method to maintain or repair the radome," Mr. Durst said [and colleagues] likened any such effort to something out of "Mission Impossible." They said that if one of the hundreds of fiberglass panels in the radome were damaged by lightning or ice, climbers would have to scale it, winches would have to be installed on the upper reaches of the tower, and cables would have to be lowered to the 9/11 Memorial plaza, where replacement pieces weighing thousands of pounds would await.

David M. Childs of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the chief architect of the building, has since stated the firm is willing to "work with the [Port Authority] on an alternate design," but at press time that was the latest development.

Left, with radome; right, without

Left, with radome; right, without

o

Favorite This
Q
13

Comment

Comments

thomas

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

As a designer & builder, I feel the weight of the responsibility to take the environment into account, absolutely. Especially in New York, which is somehow magically hard on EVERYTHING, you need materials that are going to patina & look better as the city gnaws at the work.
!Report as spam
Derek

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The responsibility lies with all members who deal with materials selection and handling for a project. This is key to any design/build project. The designer might have some knowledge of a materials properties, an engineer might have knowledge of the materials structural properties and the builder might have knowledge of how to actually use and process the materials. Failure in any of links of the project chain can result is disaster.

We can see examples of this in new construction projects in mainland China where architects might design the most green building, engineers will design clever structural tricks to leverage the materials, but the builder might not be fully aware of special handling requirements of new materials. It's too easy to finger point but when flaws arise the entire team needs to take responsibility.
!Report as spam
Mike

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

As a general contractor if I specify the part or product I feel obligated to instruct or inform the client about needed maintenance. If the client chooses not to perform needed maintenance that is their problem.

Often clients choose inferior products to build with. Given the pictures of the building this may be the case. There are very few finishes that give wood a natural look (stained) that hold up well. If it is a stained wood product outside you will be re-staining on an as needed basis.
!Report as spam
Vanessa Brady

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Whoever specifies the product - it must still be fit for purpose....this is not a finger pointing responsability shifting osition.

If a designer or engineer or architect or builder specifies a product, it simply has to be suitable ...it's not debatable
!Report as spam
scott

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

As an architect, it is my responsibility to my client to produce a design and spec that meets their needs. It it is also my responsibility to make sure everything is constructed true to the design and address changes that need to be made. If the wood is failing prematurely this may be due to a poor design or spec, poor construction or faulty matefrial. Whose responsibility it is now to determine fault is probably the owner since the project has been complete for some time. There may be a warranty for this product.

It is very possible to construct a durable wood cladding system for city applications and there are books and trade magazines dedicated to the subject with photos of projects, details and products.
!Report as spam
Rick Stephens

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

And I just wanted to add one more thing - Parking Sensors.
!Report as spam
Rick Stephens

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

North American Vehicles are deigned to meet Federal and Insurance standards that specify what amount of damage is acceptable (none). What is shown in the images may be considered general wear and tear. With the advent of self parking vehicles (audi/lexus etc) and mandatory back-up cameras on new vehicles in 2014 along with more durable paint technologies (nissan) this problem will be minimized. If you see what you may consider abnormal wear on your vehicle firstly it would first go to the manufacturer - at which point an investigation is launched through supplier quality to asses if components delivered from supplier are within specification and if the specification is robust.
I hope that answeres your questions.
!Report as spam
Jamie

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I'm with you all on the bumpers. Paint shouldn't be used on a bumper, it should just be a material that still looks fine after taking a beating.

I worked in shop fitting for a while, and it often comes down to the construction and specification from the architects. Usually the building owner will be told nothing in regards to maintenance.

Natural materials will always give you a better result.
!Report as spam
James Patrick

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

It is the responsibility of the designer to consult the engineers about what materials will work. The designer should then turn over maintenance specs to the builder, who hands them over to the customer.

In the case of the wooden exterior, the builder should know that exterior, possibly naval grade finishes will be required.

In the case of the cars, the engineers should know that most small commuter cars will be used in cities. Bumpers should be chrome or unpainted plastic.
!Report as spam
Michael S

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

With the cars, isn't that the reason they are called bumpers?
!Report as spam
Jeremy

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Some designers have great ideas to deal with car bumper wear and tear:
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Renault-4Ever/2041427
However, often these ideas like these are not implemented because manufacturers, contractors etc. are more interested in making money and keeping cost down... A repaired car doesn't generate much profit!
!Report as spam
Ken J

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Designers & architects should know the proper applications of materials and where they belong. There's no excuse for tossing poor decisions over the wall for engineers/contractors to struggle with.

If you want to be creative with materials in new applications, you have to solve the problems that limited those applications previously. You can't simply "decide" to make an outdoor hardwood eave and not have the supporting technology to make it happen. That's not innovative, that's ignorant.
!Report as spam
chris brandow

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I have been thinking about this "diffused responsibility" problem in products. two things in particular. First, how many products have been materially damaged by a price tag that couldn't be taken off without literally scraping and scrubbing the remnants. this is an item that costs fractions of pennies, is intended to be highly temporary, but at the very least often consumes plenty of time to remove properly, and sometimes damages the objects in question. Which leads me to the beautiful counterexample of ykk zipper company which supplies ~90% of the garment makers in America for just this reason. 100 years of reliability for a 35 cent part that could easily destroy the value of a $500 item, or consume lots of time in repair, maintenance and frustration.
!Report as spam