DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Guide for Parapets: Safety, Continuity, and the Building Code

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Guide for Parapets: Safety, Continuity, and the Building Code I S S U E 4/2020 VOLUME 37 NUMBER 4 Journal of architectural technology published by Hoffmann Architects, Inc., specialists in the rehabilitation of building exteriors. Design Guide for Parapets: Safety, Continuity, and the Building Code Juan Kuriyama, AIA and Eric Au, LEED Green Associate O riginally designed to protect environmental forces by relying on the against enemy attack, the parapet in weight of the wall. Due to construc- modern construction is far removed tion failures and the development of from its antiquated roots. Though the new materials and building systems, word parapet is derived from the modern parapets, constructed of Italian parapetto, meaning to guard/ diverse materials from reinforced con- defend (papare) the chest (petto), the crete to masonry to steel, have since parapet serves many other purposes, incorporated provisions for structural foremost among these as a critical reinforcement, along with accommo- transition between the building facade dations for moisture mitigation, such and the roof. as in-wall flashings and vapor barriers. Characterized as a low wall, the para- Parapets serve not only as a functional pet projects above the roof plane and building component, but also as an typically spans around the perimeter aesthetic statement. By incorporating of the roof area. Historically, para- elements such as cornices, bands, pedi- pets were constructed of masonry, ments, balusters, and embattlements, a consisting of multi-wythe walls with parapet can provide a continuation of mortar-filled collar joints, capped with the facade, or a visual termination. a coping. Usually unreinforced, these masonry walls were built to withstand As building performance standards progress, today’s design profession- als face the compound challenge of balancing stringent building codes with the needs of the building owner. As underscored by the codes and standards dictating the design detailing of the critical transition between the facade and roof, this often-overlooked building element can have a big impact on the overall performance and lon- gevity of the structure. Design to Meet Code Requirements Parapets vary from plain to ornate, but all must provide stability and moisture protection. Fundamentally, the parapet serves many practical purposes beyond its Juan A. Kuriyama, AIA, Vice President and Director, Architecture with Hoffmann Architects, leads project teams in addressing building enclosure challenges for parapets, roofs, and exterior walls. Eric Au, LEED Green Assoc., Project Coordinator, develops engineering solutions that balance rigorous design with practical considerations. JOURNAL original function of protecting in- rest assured that Basic Parapet Components habitants from invasion. The modern the development parapet must provide fire protec- of precise details COPING tion, serve as a fall-protective guard, can promote transition and protect the roof/facade the longevity of interface, conceal rooftop equipment, a parapet and and contribute to the aesthetic char- prevent common acter of the building. As knowledge issues like freeze/ about building science has evolved, thaw deteriora- OUTBOARD CLADDING building codes have been developed tion from arising. INBOARD CLADDING to disseminate standards for the safe The goal is to di- and functional design of parapet walls, minish the impact and design professionals must consider of moisture on these regulations when designing or the wall assem- rehabilitating parapets. bly by redirecting IN-WALL FLASHING The International Code Council’s water away from International Building Code (IBC) is the the building. ROOF ASSEMBLY model code for the design of para- Copings pet wall heights, structural stability, resistance to the elements, configura- The first line of tion, and anchorage. However, each defense for a state and local municipality may adopt parapet is the coping. Somewhat different versions of the IBC, as well STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK as code requirements more stringent larger than the than or different from those found in width of the wall, the model code. the coping serves as a protective Weather Barriers and Moisture cap situated atop the parapet assem- coping in place. Other older parapet Management bly. Copings are usually constructed walls use steel anchors, which tend to of moisture-resistant materials, such corrode and expand when exposed At some point during their lifetime, as metal, terra cotta, stone, or precast to moisture. The force of the cor- parapets will experience some sort of concrete. Because moisture has an roding metal causes displacement and deterioration and will eventually face inherent cohesive property, or surface cracking in the surrounding masonry, a problems if not properly maintained. If tension, it is critical to provide ad- process known as rust-jacking. Stainless neglected, a parapet will evince com- equate slope on the top surface of the steel anchors offer an ideal solution, as mon building enclosure issues, such as coping to direct water onto the roof they resist corrosion when exposed moisture infiltration, corrosion, crack- and not the facade, and to prevent to moisture, while securely anchoring ing and spalling, displacement, open moisture from intruding into the para- joints, and failed flashings. the coping against sliding or blowing pet. Copings with drip edges break the off. For metal copings, non-corroding The central concern for parapet surface tension of water and diminish fasteners and cleats should be used walls is the mitigation and movement the risk of it running down into the in securing the sheet metal, includ- of moisture away from the building wall below. ing proper cover and under plates at facade. Older masonry walls were Insufficient or deteriorated coping an- joinery. It is important that all penetra- constructed without provisions for chors represent a potential fall hazard tions through the flashings be sealed moisture management, often leading in parapet wall assemblies. For ex- to prevent moisture infiltration. to water intrusion and freeze/thaw ample, traditional clay camelback cop- Cladding deterioration, whereby water trapped ings rely on the weight of the coping, within the wall freezes and expands, the interlocking connection between Historically, parapets were com- causing cracks, spalls, and displacement. units, and the mortar bond between posed of a single, monolithic element Concerned building owners should the coping and wall to secure the beneath the coping, serving the dual 2 VOLUME 37 NUMBER 4 Typical Brick Masonry Parapet Assembly that has softened, broken apart, or cracked is caused by thermal move- COPING ment of masonry elements and/or TRANSVERSE COPING JOINT freeze/thaw cycles. Openings in the COPING ANCHORS joints admit further moisture and gen- DRIP erate an ongoing problem that could MORTAR BED proliferate. SHEET METAL FLASHING Selecting an appropriate repair mortar VAPOR BARRIER that will match the existing mortar in color, profile, hardness, and tex- STEEL REINFORCEMENT BAR ture is key to long-term performance. Equally important, accurate mortar EXTERIOR FACE BRICK MASONRY matching maintains consistent appear- BRICK TIES & WIRE ance and performance, especially for REINFORCEMENT historic structures. The Brick Industry FULLY GROUTED Association (BIA) Technical Note CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (CMU) 46, “Maintenance of Brick Masonry,” provides guidelines for formulating, STRUCTURAL ROOF SLAB testing, installing, and tooling repointing mortar. INTERIOR FACE BRICK MASONRY ROOF ASSEMBLY Though repointing mortar joints may SHEET METAL FLASHING & COUNTER-FLASHING seem like a quick fix, issues such as unmitigated exposure to weather or moisture should be resolved first, to address the root cause of persistent deterioration. Otherwise, problems function of structural support and infiltration, so it is important to iden- are likely to recur and lead to wasted weather-resistive barrier. In modern tify and replace compromised sealant money, effort, and time attempting to construction, parapets tend to have joints promptly. chase after a systemic problem with short-term repairs. a structural core, often of concrete Conversely, installation of sealant for masonry units (CMU), brick, concrete, masonry applications is not always In-Wall Flashings steel, or metal studs, with outboard the appropriate solution and should Under-coping flashings are a sec- and inboard cladding that might be used conservatively. If a parapet ondary layer to further mitigate the consist of brick, stone, stucco, metal is designed for mortar, it is usually infiltration of water into the parapet panels, or exterior insulation and fin- a good idea to stick with mortar, as wall. Sandwiched between the coping ish systems (EIFS). These compound properly designed brick masonry walls stone and wall assembly, the flashing assemblies offer more design options are intended to get wet and dry out. should be comprised of corrosion- and integrate thermal and moisture Sealant at joints intended for mortar resistant metal. Any penetrations, such control layers, but they demand skilled will trap water within and promote as anchors in the flashings, should be detailing of the various components to freeze/thaw damage. sealed. provide an uninterrupted, continuous barrier against the elements. Mortar Joints While under-coping flashings pro- Masonry construction is especially vide an effective means of preventing Sealants susceptible to moisture. In the case of moisture from entering the wall, there Sealant and backer rods are typically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BROAD EXCHANGE BUILDING, 25 Broad Street (Aka 25-33 Broad Street and 44-60 Exchange Place), Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 27, 2000, Designation List 316 LP-2074 BROAD EXCHANGE BUILDING, 25 Broad Street (aka 25-33 Broad Street and 44-60 Exchange Place), Manhattan. Built 1900-02; Clinton & Russell, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 25, Lot 19. On May 16, 2000, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Broad Exchange Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing was duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Three people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of Council member Kathryn Freed, and the Historic Districts Council. The Commission received a letter of support from the building's owner and a resolution of support from Community Board l. Summary Located in the heart of Manhattan's financial district, the Broad Exchange Building was, at the time of its construction in 1900-02, the largest office building with the highest estimated real estate value built in Manhattan. Designed by the renowned architectural firm of Clinton & Russell, the Broad Exchange Building contained 326,500 square feet of rentable floor area and was estimated to cost $3.25 million. The builders of the Broad Exchange used all the new technologies introduced during the 1890s in order to create taller structures. The twenty story high building has a steel frame, elevator, and caisson construction. The design of the building is a tripartite composition, common to many of New York's tum-of-the century skyscrapers with a base, shaft, and capital.
    [Show full text]
  • CITIES SERVICE BUILDING, 70 Pine Street (Aka 66-76 Pine Street, 2-18 Cedar Street, 171-185 Pearl Street), Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 21, 2011; Designation List 443 LP-2441 CITIES SERVICE BUILDING, 70 Pine Street (aka 66-76 Pine Street, 2-18 Cedar Street, 171-185 Pearl Street), Manhattan. Built 1930-32; Clinton & Russell, Holton & George, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 41, Lot 1. On May 10, 2011, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Cities Service Building and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 1). The hearing was duly advertised according to provisions of law. Six people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of the owners, Manhattan Community Board 1, the Historic Districts Council, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy. Summary The former Cities Service Building at 70 Pine Street is a 66-story skyscraper, rising from a trapezoidal site bounded by Pine Street, Cedar Street, and Pearl Street. An icon of the lower Manhattan skyline, the building’s shaft terminates in a slender pinnacle crowned by an illuminated lantern and stainless steel spire. At the time of completion in 1932, this Art Deco style tower was the tallest structure in lower Manhattan, and at 952 feet, the third tallest structure in the world. Commissioned by a major American corporation, it was an expression of the owner’s success, escalating real estate costs, and the current zoning code that required buildings to diminish in mass as they rise. The Cities Service Company was chartered by Henry L. Doherty in 1910, and quickly grew to become one of the largest corporations in the United States, controlling approximately 150 energy firms in 38 states, including numerous oil and power suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street (Aka 54-58 Canal Street, 5-9 Orchard Street), Borough of Manhattan
    Landmarks Preservation Commission October 13, 2009, Designation List 419 LP-2363 S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street (aka 54-58 Canal Street, 5-9 Orchard Street), Borough of Manhattan. Built 1911-12; Rouse & Goldstone, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 294, Lot 8. On June 23, 2009, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building (Item No. 17). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Five witnesses spoke in favor of the building’s designation, including a representative of Council Member Alan J. Gerson; Joyce Mendelsohn, author of The Lower East Side Remembered and Revisited; and representatives of the Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, the Historic Districts Council, and the Museum at Eldridge Street. Two representatives of the building’s owner also testified, stating that the owner had no objection to its designation. Summary Called “the first strictly high-class tall bank and office building” on the Lower East Side, with a design “equal in every respect [to] the highest grade banking buildings throughout the city,” the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building was completed in 1912 as the architectural showpiece of one of the neighborhood’s most prominent bankers. Born in 1841 in what was then the Russian province of Lomza, its owner, Sender Jarmulowsky, established his business on the Lower East Side in 1873 and was operating at this location by 1878. Known for his honesty and conservative financial approach, Jarmulowsky grew wealthy over the following three decades providing steamship tickets and banking services to the immigrants of the surrounding neighborhood, which was unrivaled as the world’s largest Jewish community.
    [Show full text]
  • West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Designation Report
    Addendum to the West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Designation Report On October 30, 2013, the City Council of the City of New York modified the designation of the West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension, Designation List No. 465, LP-2462 (L.U. No. 918), City Council Resolution No. 1998, by deleting the following properties: 214 West 72nd Street Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1163, Lot 42 232 West 73rd Street [Display Address: 236 West 73rd Street] Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 1164, Lot 42 In addition, the areas of the street beds of West 72nd Street and West 73rd Street that are directly in front of these buildings are also deleted from the district. West End-Collegiate Historic District Extension Landmarks Preservation Commission W 79 St 6 West End-Collegiate 320 3 7 250 9 3 9 0 9 1 3 2 Historic District Extension 2 1 9 3 Borough of Manhattan, NY [LP-2462] Calendared: November 16, 2010 339 317 257 251 340 324 262 W 78 St 250 Public Hearing: June 28, 2011 Designated: June 25, 2013 Boundary of District Extension 2 1 3 5 6 8 0 Tax Map Lots, District Extension 1 0 343 323 233 273 W 77 St Boundaries of Existing Districts Tax Map Lots, Existing Districts West End-Collegiate 2 1 6 Deleted by City Council Historic District 9 October 30, 2013 241 235 3 260 W 76 St 230 3 Existing Historic Districts 6 Historic District Extension Bronx 2 1 3 9 259 235 H W 75 St e 304 228 A 5 W n 1 R m 3 r e y i B s v s r t H e e t o est Side/ r Upper W r E u a s d d d i n d a w s d Central Park West e m o a A n D y Manhattan A ric District v Histo r P v y 301 W 74 St 231 Queens 1 320 232 5 Brooklyn 319 251 234 232 (Display 320 W 73 St Address 236) 1 311 233 W 72 St 216 214 344 West 71st Street Historic District 357 353 303 213 352 342 308 W 71 St 212 2 1 2 2 250 0 2 Feet 303 211 ¯ W 70 St Graphic Source: MapPLUTO, Edition 09v1, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Year Book of the Brooklyn Chapter of the American Institute Of
    Ex ICtbrts SEYMOUR DURST When you leave, please leave this book Because it has been said "Ever thing comes t' him who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift or Seymour B. Durst Old York Library Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/yearbookofbrooklOOamer MOTT'S PLUMBING FIXTURES PLATE 1018-A BATHROOM "BARONIAL" We cordially invite those interested in plumbing fixtures to visit our new showrooms, where eleven complete bathrooms are on exhibition. Our booklet. " Modern Plumbing/' contains many sugges- tions for the treatment of bathrooms; it will be mailed on application. The J, L, Mott Iron Works FIFTH AVENUE AND 17TH STREET, NEW YORK 1 The Standard American Brand Atlas Portland Cement ALWAYS UNIFORM Productive Capacity Over 40,000 bbls. Per Day ATLAS PORTLAND CEMENT ^ ^ is manufactured from the finest raw materials under expert supervision in every department, and because of its high quality and perfect uniformity is specified by all leading architects and engineers. The Atlas Portland Cement Co. 30 Broad Street, New York. SEND FOR OUR BOOKLET ON CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION II ST. AGATHA'S SCHOOL WM. A. BORIXG, Architect FOUNTAIN & CHOATE BUILDING CONTRACTORS 110 EAST 23d STREET, NEW YORK III M. Reid & Company, inc. Build ers 114-118 West 39tK Street New York City REFERENCES < olurab < 'olumb New V< Barnard College. Cornel) Dnlvereltj Metropolitan Mus •inn of An. 32nd Si. and Br< idway, New York. Broadwav near :!i st SI.. New York. s HOSpitl 11th St. & 7th A •e.. New York. 76th si. & Park . iv?., New York. an Asylui Fordham, New V >rk.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Classicism in New York City's Architecture
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2014 Apotheosis of the Public Realm: Civic Classicism in New York City's Architecture Paul Andrija Ranogajec Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/96 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] APOTHEOSIS OF THE PUBLIC REALM: CIVIC CLASSICISM IN NEW YORK CITY’S ARCHITECTURE by PAUL ANDRIJA RANOGAJEC M.A., University of Virginia, 2005 B.Arch., University of Notre Dame, 2003 A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Art History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 PAUL ANDRIJA RANOGAJEC All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Art History in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Kevin D. Murphy, Chair of Examining Committee Date Claire Bishop, Executive Officer, Ph.D. Program in Art History Rosemarie Haag Bletter Sally Webster Carol Krinsky Supervision Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract Apotheosis of the Public Realm: Civic Classicism in New York City’s Architecture by Paul Andrija Ranogajec Adviser: Kevin D. Murphy In the years around the consolidation of Greater New York in 1898, a renewed interest in republican political theory among progressive liberals coincided with a new kind of civic architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues
    MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation CHAPTER 11: CULTURAL RESOURCES 11.1 INTRODUCTION 11.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES Cultural resources are an important part of the character of a community. Cultural resources may include historic features, such as buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts, as well as archaeological resources, which are physical remains, usually buried, of past activities on a site. Archaeological resources can include remains from Native American people who used or occupied a site, including tools, refuse from tool-making activities, habitation sites, etc. These resources are also referred to as “precontact,” since they were deposited before Native Americans’ contact with European settlers. Archaeological resources can also include remains from activities that occurred during the “historic period” (the period beginning with European colonization of the New York area), and include remains such as battle sites, foundations, wells and privies. This chapter presents the potential impacts on cultural resources from the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). The analysis of potential impacts was carried out in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C Section 470f and the implementing regulations under Section 106 that are codified at 36 C.F.R. 800. Section 106 and the Part 800 regulations require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, which are defined in the regulations as resources listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register can include both archaeological and historic resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmarks Preservation Commission October 13, 2009, Designation List 419 LP-2363 S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street
    Landmarks Preservation Commission October 13, 2009, Designation List 419 LP-2363 S. JARMULOWSKY BANK BUILDING, 54 Canal Street (aka 54-58 Canal Street, 5-9 Orchard Street), Borough of Manhattan. Built 1911-12; Rouse & Goldstone, architects. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 294, Lot 8. On June 23, 2009, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building (Item No. 17). The hearing had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Five witnesses spoke in favor of the building’s designation, including a representative of Council Member Alan J. Gerson; Joyce Mendelsohn, author of The Lower East Side Remembered and Revisited; and representatives of the Bowery Alliance of Neighbors, the Historic Districts Council, and the Museum at Eldridge Street. Two representatives of the building’s owner also testified, stating that the owner had no objection to its designation. Summary Called “the first strictly high-class tall bank and office building” on the Lower East Side, with a design “equal in every respect [to] the highest grade banking buildings throughout the city,” the S. Jarmulowsky Bank Building was completed in 1912 as the architectural showpiece of one of the neighborhood’s most prominent bankers. Born in 1841 in what was then the Russian province of Lomza, its owner, Sender Jarmulowsky, established his business on the Lower East Side in 1873 and was operating at this location by 1878. Known for his honesty and conservative financial approach, Jarmulowsky grew wealthy over the following three decades providing steamship tickets and banking services to the immigrants of the surrounding neighborhood, which was unrivaled as the world’s largest Jewish community.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places
    National Register of Historic Places Resource Name County Fort Schuyler Club Building Oneida Unadilla Water Works Otsego Smith-Taylor Cabin Suffolk Comstock Hall Tompkins Hough, Franklin B., House Lewis Teviotdale Columbia Brookside Saratoga Lane Cottage Essex Rock Hall Nassau Kingsland Homestead Queens Hancock House Essex Page 1 of 1299 09/26/2021 National Register of Historic Places National Register Date National Register Number Longitude 05/12/2004 03NR05176 -75.23496531 09/04/1992 92NR00343 -75.31922416 09/28/2007 06NR05605 -72.2989632 09/24/1984 90NR02259 -76.47902689 10/15/1966 90NR01194 -75.50064587 10/10/1979 90NR00239 -73.84079851 05/21/1975 90NR02608 -73.85520126 11/06/1992 90NR02930 -74.12239039 11/21/1976 90NR01714 -73.73419318 05/31/1972 90NR01578 -73.82402146 11/15/1988 90NR00485 -73.43458994 Page 2 of 1299 09/26/2021 National Register of Historic Places NYS Municipal New York Zip Latitude Georeference Counties Boundaries Codes 43.10000495 POINT (- 984 1465 625 75.23496531 43.10000495) 42.33690739 POINT (- 897 465 2136 75.31922416 42.33690739) 41.06949826 POINT (- 1016 1647 2179 72.2989632 41.06949826) 42.4492702 POINT (- 709 1787 2181 76.47902689 42.4492702) 43.78834776 POINT (- 619 571 623 75.50064587 43.78834776) 42.15273568 POINT (- 513 970 619 73.84079851 42.15273568) 43.00210318 POINT (- 999 1148 2141 73.85520126 43.00210318) 44.32997931 POINT (- 430 303 2084 74.12239039 44.32997931) 40.60924086 POINT (- 62 1563 2094 73.73419318 40.60924086) 40.76373114 POINT (- 196 824 2137 73.82402146 40.76373114) 43.84878656 POINT (- 420 154 2084 73.43458994 Page 3 of 1299 09/26/2021 National Register of Historic Places Eighth Avenue (14th Regiment) Armory Kings Downtown Gloversville Historic District Fulton Rest Haven Orange Devinne Press Building New York Woodlawn Avenue Row Erie The Wayne and Waldorf Apartments Erie Bateman Hotel Lewis Firemen's Hall Queens Adriance Memorial Library Dutchess Shoecroft, Matthew, House Oswego The Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Norcross, Fuller, and the Rise of the General Contractor in the United States in the Nineteenth Century
    Norcross, Fuller, and the Rise of the General Contractor in the United States in the Nineteenth Century Sara E. Wermiel Writing in 1917 about the changes in architectural practice since the beginning of his career in 1874, Boston architect Robert D. Andrews noted, “apart from the physical inventions which have added so much to the ease and convenience of modern life, the emergence of the general contractor constitutes the most significant change in professional practice” (1917, pp. 237-8). Given the tremendous amount of change in technology at the end of the nineteenth and opening of the twentieth centuries, it may be surprising that an architect would single out the growth of general contracting as a watershed event. But the emergence of the general contractor, part of the specialization in the building industry that flowered at this time, indeed fundamentally transformed the role of the architect in building production. Before the 1870s, buildings usually involved many contracts, one for each trade, and architects oversaw and coordinated the various tradesmen. Andrews wrote that in the bad old days, a “city house” might require ten to twenty different contracts. He recalled, “The architect had to correlate the working of all those trades and it required much tact and firmness to settle the incessant questions of responsibility arising under these conditions” (1917, p. 238). General contracting begins in the United States in the 1870s, when builders first took single, or whole, contracts to erect all, or at least the bulk, of large and complicated buildings. While single contracts were known earlier than this, these would have been for small projects, such as houses and small churches.
    [Show full text]
  • The Architectural Evolution of Lower Manhattan from About 1880
    The Architectural Evolution of Lower Manhattan From About 1880 Tour 2 Cedar Street to Stone Street Broad Street to Pearl Street Douglas R. McKibben Tour 2 Views of Extant Sites 1 Lords Court Building 2 Broad Exchange Building 23 Armitage Building 3 Lee, Higginson & Company Bank Building 24 57 Stone Street 4 55 Broad Street Building 25 New York Cotton Exchange Building 5 16 Beaver Street 26 76-78 Beaver Street 6 18 Beaver Street 27 80 Beaver Street 7 20 Beaver Street 28 Cocoa Exchange Building 8 22 Beaver Street 29 Munson Building 9 24 Beaver Street 30 Pacific Development Building 10 Stock Quotation Telegraph Building 31 Seamen’s Bank for Savings Building 11 American Bank Note Company Building 32 J. P Morgan Bank Building 12 International Telephone and Telegraph Building 33 Brown Brothers Harriman Building 13 Maritime Exchange Building 34 National City Bank Building 14 Goldman Sachs Building 35 Bank of New York Building 15 Block Hall 36 Kuhn Loeb & Company Building 16 17 & 19 South William Street 37 Germania Fire Insurance Company Building 17 13 & 15 South William Street 38 Church of Our Lady of Victory 18 William H. McGee Building 39 Caledonia Insurance Company Building 19 Seligman Building 40 Wallace Building 20 Delmonico’s Building 41 Downtown Association Building and Annex 21 William Beaver House 42 Cities Service Building 22 City Bank-Farmers Trust Company Building Tour 2 Views of Sites Since Demolished A Combustion Engineering Building S New York Cotton Exchange Building B Seaboard National Bank Building T Coffee Exchange Building
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: Cultural Resources 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Context and Key Issues
    MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS CHAPTER 11: CULTURAL RESOURCES 11.1 INTRODUCTION 11.1.1 CONTEXT AND KEY ISSUES Cultural resources are an important part of the character of a community. Cultural resources may include historic features, such as buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts, as well as archaeological resources, which are physical remains, usually buried, of past activities on a site. Archaeological resources can include remains from Native American people who used or occupied a site, including tools, refuse from tool-making activities, habitation sites, etc. These resources are also referred to as “precontact,” since they were deposited before Native Americans’ contact with European settlers. Archaeological resources can also include remains from activities that occurred during the “historic period” (the period beginning with European colonization of the New York area), and include remains such as battle sites, foundations, wells and privies. This chapter presents the potential impacts on cultural resources from the construction and operation of the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC). The analysis of potential impacts was carried out in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C Section 470f and the implementing regulations under Section 106 that are codified at 36 C.F.R. 800. Section 106 and the Part 800 regulations require Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, which are defined in the regulations as resources listed on or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Properties listed on or determined eligible for the National Register can include both archaeological and historic resources.
    [Show full text]