Introducing Students to the Building Envelope

Introducing Students to the Building Envelope

Elizabeth Grant, PhD, RA Virginia Tech 400F Cowgill Hall (0205), Blacksburg, VA 24060 Phone: 540-231-0609 • E-mail: [email protected]

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 1 1 Abstract

The education of architects and other design professionals has left them notoriously ill-prepared to deal with the challenges of building envelope design. This paper will include an exhibition of work from the two most recent student design competitions sponsored by the RCI Mid-Atlantic Chapter. Work from the third and fourth years of this competition will be shown, focusing on lessons learned by the students from a jury of building envelope consultants, architects, and engineers. Through their participation in these competitions, students began to understand building performance in terms of thermal comfort, durability, and sustainability.

Speaker

Elizabeth Grant, PhD, RA — Virginia Tech

ELIZABETH GRANT is an associate professor at the School of Architecture + Design at Virginia Tech. She is a registered architect, a member of RCI, and the associate director of the Center for High Performance Environments. She has published in Architectural Science Review, RCI Interface, the Journal of Architectural Engineering, and the Journal of Green Building. Her interests include environmentally sensi­ tive design, the building envelope, and building systems integration.

2 1 2 • G r a n t 3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 Introducing Students to the Building Envelope

ABSTR AC T much of architects’ expertise is deliberately While Virginia’s law reads: The education of architects and other shrouded in mystique, which gives them design professionals has left them notori­ some cultural cachet, but will eventually The following shall be exempted ously ill prepared to deal with the chal­ weaken the vocation. He likens an architect from the provisions of this chap­ lenges of the building envelope. Recognizing to a medieval “sorcerer,” or his modern-day ter [regulating architects, engineers, this, the author has teamed up with mem­ equivalent – the “IT guy” who fixes comput­ surveyors, landscape architects and bers of a local chapter of RCI to explicitly ers, both of whose means are inscrutable interior designers]: 1. Practice of bring building science concepts into the but seemingly necessary: professional engineering and land design studio of an architectural school. surveying by a licensed architect This paper includes an exhibition of work Because of the ways in which archi­ when such practice is incidental to from the two most recent student design tects are trained, incomplete knowl­ what may be properly considered an competitions sponsored by the RCI Mid- edge is often no barrier to a complete architectural undertaking.3 Atlantic Chapter. Work from the third and design. A design’s function is merely fourth years of this competition is shown, to convince. This often lulls us into Neither of these are enormously helpful. focusing on lessons learned by the students self-deception—especially where This is not a purely theoretical concern. from a jury of building envelope consul­ reality is too complicated or aggra­ Often the architect will be the one trying tants, architects, and engineers. Through vating. We cease to be transparent, to determine what is “purely incidental” their participation in these competitions, even to ourselves. As designers, we or “properly considered an architectur­ students began to understand the impor­ have the ability to conduct our work al undertaking.” Each practitioner is left tance of considering building performance in a way that deceives the client as asking him or herself, “Can I produce a in terms of thermal comfort, durability, well as ourselves. Both in the aca­ plumbing riser diagram? Can I design a and sustainability in tandem with their demic world and the professional simple mechanical system for a small office consideration of the building’s aesthetic world, architects have many incen­ building? How far do I draw outside that and spatial qualities. The competitions also tives to obscure any half-knowledge. imaginary 5-ft. (1.5 m) boundary around exposed students to RCI and its educa­ We are called upon to be experts in the exterior of the building?” Unless the tional offerings, and introduced them to situations where we’re clearly not, professional has a lawyer on retainer, which building envelope consulting as a viable and we are sanctioned for demon­ might not be a bad idea, it will most often be career option. Students, interns, emerging strating understandable ignorance. his or her job to draw the line at what he or professionals, and all those who hire them We are pushed into being sorcerers.1 she feels competent to design, or supervise and work with them will benefit from this another architect or intern in the firm to insight into architectural education and While the laws and statues within the design. Reasonable architects may conclude how it might be improved through RCI ini­ United States vary, they unfortunately do that a consultant is necessary, but there tiatives. not offer much guidance in reigning archi­ is nothing in the law to indicate that they tects in from overextension. They are, in must use one. BUILDING PERFO RMANC E practice, often required to decide for them­ IN ARC HITEC TURE selves the limits of their own professional BUILDING PERFORMANC E Eric Cesal’s book, Down Detour Road: knowledge. Following, for example, are two IN DESIGN EDUC ATION An Architect in Search of Practice, was snippets of code from the two states where Cesal believes architects are shooting published in 2010, in the aftermath of a the author has practiced as a licensed themselves in the foot to a certain extent recession that was particularly punishing architect. Florida’s statute states: because of false bravado that they can to architects. While he seems to have even­ handle anything, merely by ignoring whole tually found professional satisfaction with Notwithstanding the provisions swaths of information. He argues that this the nonprofit Architecture for Humanity in of this part [on Architecture and attitude begins in architecture school. He a range of capacities, the book was written Interior Design] or of any other law, writes: as a series of epiphanies he had about the no…registered architect, or employ­ profession during a period of protracted ee or subordinate under the respon­ Frequently, the student is not even unemployment. A main premise of the sible supervision or control of such required to confront the inconve­ book is that architects need to be more architect, [is] precluded from per­ nient. In designing his City for 3 open about their value to their clients and forming engineering services which Million Inhabitants, Le Corbusier about what they do well if the profession are purely incidental to his or her famously described his process thus: is to survive intact. He is concerned that architectural practice.2 “Proceeding in the manner of an

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 1 3 edent research on the original Central Library was being high-profile build­ demolished. OMA and LMN in collaboration ings, often limited won the same award in 2005, plus a 2005 to the informa­ National AIA Honor Award for Architecture, tion available on for the new facility. From this, it seems evi­ the Internet and dent that though they may be credited with periodicals that their visionary rethinking of what a library focus on generali­ should be in the twenty-first century, OMA ties, and end with relied on LMN’s specific understanding of designs that never the requirements unique to libraries to confront any of the pull off this project. But very few architec­ inconveniences Le ture students will consider the contribution Corbusier so glibly of LMN when thinking about the Seattle rejects. Central Library, or will have heard of LMN’s Cesal develops solo AIA/ALA award. the argument fur­ This brings us to Cesal’s description of ther in his descrip­ the other kind of architecture firms, the tion of the deepen­ ones who market themselves as experts ing schism within on a limited number of project types, and the profession. On thus possess the aforementioned “general the one hand, he technical knowledge” plus the “specialized describes archi­ technical knowledge” to provide a building tects and firms that suitable for their clients. They may design claim to possess competently and well, but their designs do “design skill” of a not often receive the exposure, and thus the caliber necessary professional and academic accolades, of the to produce highly firms purporting to excel in “design skill.” regarded and rec­ To draw a parallel to the sciences, ognized work, plus these “specialized” firms, and the building the “general tech­ envelope consultants on whom they often nical knowledge” rely, perhaps are working within “normal to get it built. He science,” by which Thomas Kuhn in The Figure 1 – Seattle Central Library. defines this general Structure of Scientific Revolutions means technical knowl­ “research firmly based upon one or more investigator in his laboratory, I have edge as the type of information gained dur­ past scientific achievements, achievements avoided all special cases, and all ing schooling, practiced during internships, that some particular scientific commu­ that may be accidental, and I have and tested in licensing exams; for example, nity acknowledges for a time as supplying assumed an ideal site to begin with” the basic understanding of site work, struc­ the foundation for its further practice.”6 (Le Corbusier, 1987, p. 164).4 It is tures, envelopes, building systems, and Conversely, the “design skill” firms are dis­ questionable whether Le Corbusier code requirements. pensing with old, and thus creating new, had ever been in a laboratory. The In many cases, such as the Seattle paradigms. Paradigm is a word that has average scientist would find such a Central Library that Cesal holds up as an fallen out of circulation a bit since Kuhn proposition absurd. Scientific inves­ example of this first approach Figure ( 1), introduced it. He defines scientific achieve­ tigation does not begin by avoiding the design firm and the executing firm, ments that rank as paradigms as follows, or ignoring special cases. Scientists or “architect of record” for the project are “Their achievement was sufficiently unprec­ may make efforts to exclude statisti­ not the same entity. It is perhaps of no edented to attract an enduring group of cal outliers, or marginalize random surprise that LMN Architects, with whom adherents away from competing modes of events that might compromise the the Office for Metropolitan Architecture scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was intent of the study. But such exclu­ (OMA) collaborated on the project, were sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of sions are done with rigor. These not only local to Seattle, but received problems for the redefined group of practi­ procedures are documented and an American Association of Architects/ tioners to resolve.”7 repeatable. They are not used merely American Library Association (AIA/ALA) Architects, engineers, and consultants to exclude information or phenom­ Library Buildings Award for the Seattle working within established paradigms are ena that the scientist finds incon­ Public Library Temporary Central Library in completing the vast majority of the built venient.5 the “Renovations” category of this award in work in the world, and thus their value and 2003 for their work in temporarily relocat­ importance should not be diminished. After Cesal goes on to lament academ­ ing the Central Library to the Washington all, if paradigms are constantly broken by ic projects that begin with quick prec­ State Convention and Trade Center while every new project, how can they have any

2 1 4 • G r a n t 3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 Figure 2 – The “living room” at the Seattle Central Library.

Figure 3 – James B. Hunt Jr. Library in Raleigh, North Carolina. value in the first place? We need design profes­ sionals who are willing to continue within the current paradigm, which Kuhn also describes as “works [that] served for a time implicitly to define the legitimate problems and methods of a research field for succeeding generations of practitioners”8 If you replace “research” with “design” in the previ­ ous sentence, you can imagine how many firms could, for example, design beautiful, func­ tional libraries that work within OMA’s new para­ digm of a library as a place where media and people mix in dynamic, interactive ways, Cesal, who has master’s degrees in ter are hamstrung by their very specificity, rather than a place where books are merely business administration and construction as they cannot branch out to new types of stored and retrieved (Figure 2). This in fact management in addition to his master of projects when their niche markets run dry. is occurring around the country in proj­ architecture degree, concludes by suggest­ He holds up companies such as Google and ects such as Snøhetta’s James B. Hunt Jr. ing that neither the “design skill” firms Apple as models for our profession. These Library on the campus of North Carolina nor the “specialized” firms are sustainable broad-based corporations are both purvey­ State University in Raleigh, which of course within the broader market. He states that ors of style and innovation, and suppliers was completed in collaboration with “execu­ neither will last in the long run; the former of the necessary products to ensure that tive architect” Pearce Brinkley Cease + Lee run the risk of falling out of fashion when they can meet the consumer desires they (now Clark Nexsen) (Figure 3). the next big thing comes along, and the lat- themselves have created. They possess both

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 1 5 the design prowess necessary to lead the site considerations, structural systems, some reason—they save our a***** industry and the technical knowledge to and electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and all the time. ensure a near-monopoly on the instruments acoustical building systems, instruction that help their customers achieve what they about the building envelope often receives Because of testimonials like these, and want. Their control over a wide, synthetic insufficient attention. While the curricu­ observations from the author’s own time in range of products and services makes them lum at the author’s School of Architecture practice, it is clear that architecture stu­ resilient. He calls for an approach to archi­ + Design, for example, includes building dents need more instruction in concepts tecture that acknowledges that while no one assemblies courses and addresses ideas of building integrity and thermal comfort. architect or firm can be expert in all three such as assembly dew point, window-to- These two building performance mandates, realms of “design skills,” “general knowl­ wall ratios, and insulation, there is still along with four others, were first defined edge,” and “specialized technical knowl­ much for students to learn. by Hartkopf, Loftness and Mill in a chap­ edge,” architects can use their skills in With the increasing focus both in schools ter of The Building Systems Integration framing problems to get their arms around and in the profession on rendering and Handbook.10 complex design challenges. He summarizes graphic skills and the ability to generate Thermal performance, according to his main point as follows: “the only thing spatially complex designs, many students Hartkopf et al., includes the ideas of air that is required is a resolve to design in a never get to the level of detail necessary to temperature, radiant temperature, humid­ way that does not consciously exclude the understand how a foundation, exterior wall, ity, air speed, and occupancy factors and inconvenient or the unpleasant”9 To do oth­ or roof are constructed, much less how they controls. All of these are measurable aspects erwise is to be irresponsible to our clients interact with one another. Faculty, some of that collectively contribute to an immea­ and to our profession. whom have either practiced architecture surable quality that Lisa Heschong calls Further, it is this author’s conten­ minimally, or many years prior, must play “thermal delight in architecture.”11 Beyond tion that all architects—not just the ones catch-up with the latest advances in build­ thermal comfort, their careful manipulation who purport to have “specialized techni­ ing technology and do their best to convey within occupied spaces also contributes to cal knowledge,” or who end up as build­ these to their students while also juggling energy management, which is a key ele­ ing envelope consultants—need to be con­ their research and service obligations. The ment of sustainability. To define building cerned with the responsibility of designing result is graduates who must learn almost integrity, Hartkopf et al. list loads of all buildings not to fall down, not to leak, and everything they know about the building types, moisture, temperature, air move­ not to make people uncomfortable or sick. It envelope while working as interns, and ment, radiation and light, chemical attack, is the obligation of architectural educators who experience a bit of a culture shock biological attack, fire, natural disaster, and to hammer this point home. It is not pos­ when they enter the workforce. One past man-made disaster as forces that build­ sible, within the context of a college degree participant of the RCI Mid-Atlantic Chapter ings must resist. These are challenges program, to educate architecture students Student Design Competition observed after that architecture students don’t often think on the full range of issues they will encoun­ his first few months of working post-gradu­ about, but are obligated to understand if ter in the future. Architects need ongoing ation in an architecture firm: they are to become professionals entrusted training and education over the span of with the health, safety, and welfare of their a career to enable them to adapt to new So far what I’ve learned from work­ buildings’ occupants. advances and changing conditions. What ing: First is that I feel like most In the spring of 2012, members of the is most needed in schools is for faculty to days, I’m stretched over a range of RCI Mid-Atlantic Chapter proposed hold­ instill a commitment in architects to appre­ things to do, rarely doing one thing ing a competition at Virginia Tech to get ciate basic building performance mandates, for an extended amount of time. architecture students excited about RCI to acknowledge what they do not know, and Working at a very different pace and careers in building envelope consult­ to seek assistance from consultants and than in architecture school, where I ing, and to reward them for work that con­ specialists where appropriate. could spend days (and some people sidered the types of issues that consultants their entire thesis year) in a stream deal with regularly. As the idea developed, THE RCI MID-ATLANTIC CHAPTER of thinking about one corner of a it became evident that such a competition STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITIONS building. I’ve found that it is much should entail more than a static judging The two student competitions discussed easier to make grand gestures than of completed projects, but rather should in this paper, and the two preceding com­ to design the intricacies that can include mentoring from building consul­ petitions presented at the RCI Inc. 30th make these gestures manifest. (I tants eager and able to share their expertise International Convention and Trade Show have a deep sense of appreciation for and insights with the students. The first two in San Antonio, Texas, were born out of the the attention to detail that I picked competitions were held in the fall of 2012 desire to introduce architecture students up from being in your studio...that and 2013 within third-year architecture to building science concepts while they are knowledge of green roofs and build­ studios, and the results were presented in still in school. Even in the age of specializa­ ing envelopes is coming in handy so San Antonio in 2015. This paper discusses tion, architects must still know a lot, and far.) Code really is super important the work of the third and fourth competi­ that need is reflected in their education. (...lost some hair). Things do cost tions held in the spring of 2015 and 2016, Unfortunately, with all the time devoted money. ... The culture in school respectively. to history and theory, cultural conditions, tends to look down at engineers for

2 1 6 • G r a n t 3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 THE THIRD COMPETITION The students created three 24- by 36-in. tency of the drawings—both individually In the third year of this competition, (610- by 910-mm) presentation boards and and collectively, clear rendering of materi­ held in the spring of 2015, third-year archi­ a physical model of a corner condition of the als, constructability and consideration of tecture students tackled a retrofit project building, from the ground plane through the forces of gravity and nature, and acces­ on a historic site. There is an abandoned the roof plane, at 1:24 scale. Entries were sibility and code compliance. building in Pulaski, Virginia, called the judged according to the following criteria: The first-place project Figures ( 4 and Dalton Theatre, which is on the National articulation of the building section (i.e., 5) considered the aging population of the Register of Historic Places. It was a Beaux- providing an unambiguous depiction of the town in a proposal for an orthopedic and Arts building constructed in 1921, but the building’s structure and envelope, includ­ wellness center. The jury noted that this theater portion collapsed in 1982 due to ing the components of foundations, floors, was the most complete, well-rounded, and neglect and disrepair. At the time of the walls, and roofs), coordination and consis­ realistic design that addressed the details competition, a developer had an option on the remaining portion of the building, and was looking for ideas for how to revive it. The students spent seven weeks document­ ing and then re-envisioning the building, with the help of as-built drawings from an architect who was concurrently working for the developer. They also met with represen­ tatives of the town and county government to discover what Pulaski most wanted and needed from this high-profile building sit­ ting dormant on a prime piece of real estate. They developed schemes ranging from bed and breakfasts to breweries, from coffee bars to hydroponic indoor greenhouses. Following this, the author enlisted the help of an architect who specializes in build­ ing forensics to help the students study the building’s makeup. Through a little destructive testing, we were able to discover the composition of the exterior walls: load- bearing brick with headers at every seventh course, with a plaster coat on the inside and a separate brick veneer layer on the outside.

Though all the wall and ceiling surfaces Figure 4 – First-place entry from the 2015 competition. were covered in plaster, we were able to verify the location of the bearing walls and understand the building’s structure. This gave the students a baseline to which they could respond. In the ensuing five-week-long competition, they were asked to consider the nature of the foundation, floor, wall, and roof structures and assem­ blies that they had begun to describe in the first seven weeks of the project. They were obligated to show how they would handle the separation between inside and outside, and to explain how the building meets the ground and the sky. Because there was already a building on the site—one that the town seemed eager to save—students had to show which components they were preserv­ ing, which they were adding, and how the two might interface. As before, they used the tools of the architect, such as plans, sections, elevations, details, models, and renderings, to accomplish this. Figure 5 – First-place entry from the 2015 competition.

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 1 7 while not losing sight of the big picture. The project dealt with both aesthetic and func­ tional obligations. While the butterfly roof structure needed some further development, its expressive character and the detailing of its connection to the adjacent wall were acknowledged. The second-place scheme (Figure 6 ) was ambitious; it included a luthier’s shop in the body of the existing building with an amphi­ theater occupying the currently vacant land where the theater itself once stood. The jury appreciated the combination of a program suited to the context of the place with the consideration of emerging building envelope systems such as the vegetated wall on the east façade. The student’s 1:24 scale model showed an investigation of multiple building systems, from foundation to roof (Figure 7 ). The project selected for third place (Figure 8) was a brewery and reception hall that capitalized on the existing building’s Figure 6 – Second-place entry from the 2015 competition. proximity to Peak Creak, a much-neglected, but nonetheless, scenic waterway running through the middle of town. Both the imagery of the student’s board and the more detailed sections were concerned with placing this building in context and cap­ turing views of the creek and the Town Hall building, a critical local monument. The project also dealt with the structural difficulties arising when interior compo­ nents of the existing building were carved away to allow a new program to emerge.

THE FOURTH COMPETITION The fourth competi­ tion was held in the spring semester of 2016, and this time, fourth-year architec­ ture students participated. Their work had the greatest sophistication and complex­ ity of any group to date, due to their higher level of expe­ rience. The project involved the design of a K-8 school for 270 students focused on the humanistic approach to pedagogy. The new school was located at the site of the ex isting Claremont Elementary School building in Pulaski, Virginia, which long ago ceased to serve its original purpose and cur­ rently houses the Claremont Therapeutic Day Treatment Program. Students were given the opportunity to Figure 7 – Scale model of the second-place entry Figure 8 – Third-place entry from the 2015 repurpose the ex isting from the 2015 competition. competition. building, or demolish and

2 1 8 • G r a n t 3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 rebuild on the site. They visited the building and grounds on January 25, 2017, and were able to access the original drawings for the existing building. The students were required to provide pre­ sentation materials within a wall space 4 ft. wide by 6 ft. high (1200 mm by 1800 mm), and to create a 1:24 scale model of a portion of the building, from ground to sky, and from exte­ rior wall to exterior wall. Judging criteria were similar to those in the prior year’s competition, listed above. This competition extended over five weeks; and this time, the jury was able to come for an interim visit to give critiques and suggestions after the first three weeks of the competition’s duration. At the final jury, three winners were select­ Figure 9 – First-place entry from the 2016 competition. ed. The first-place win­ ner’s school centered on the ideas of shared learning spaces, net- zero water, and build­ ing as teacher. To that end, the student worked out a system whereby middle-school students were able to view build­ ing systems in the cor­ ridors, and courtyards contained cisterns that doubled as landscape elements (F ig ure 9). He researched multiple wall types and progressively Figure 10 – First-place entry from the 2016 competition. simplified the roof plan of his scheme over the course of the competition (F i g ure 10 ). Different wall claddings, from dressed stone veneer at the administration areas, to marble veneer panels at classroom areas, to wood rainscreen facades at interior courtyards, were explored and used to visually signify differ­ ent programmatic areas of the school (F i g ure 11). He retained the existing school’s cafetorium at the core of his scheme, and added vegetative roofs to the surround­ ing building addition to reduce runoff. Because his wall sections were fully labeled, the jury Figure 11 – First-place entry from the 2016 competition.

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 1 9 slope roofs with a 2:12 slope that made for cumbersome ceiling planes and uninten­ tionally exaggerated façades. The jury also discussed the need to protect the floor structure of the uppermost level from fire.

STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT BUILDING SCIENCE AND Figure 12 – Second-place entry from the 2016 competition. ENVELOPE CONCEPTS he had employed, he had the most The proof is in the pudding, and one of developed roof plan of the group, and the best ways to know whether a teaching he had provided a workable, legible strategy got through to students is to read school design. their anonymous teacher evaluations, now The second-place entr y was a euphemistically called “student perceptions school with classroom arrangements of teaching,” at the end of the term. After a that allowed for collaborative as well as semester of being constantly judged them­ individualized teaching. This included selves, these surveys give the students the the provision of a unique vertical fold­ chance to provide an unadulterated view ing door assembly between twinned of what they thought of their experiences. classrooms (F i g ure 12 ). They tend to be an honest and mostly accu­ Most architecture students are rate critique of the success of the course enamored with the idea of a full-glass and the method of instruction. Following wall, and the student submitting the are excerpts from Spring 2015 and 2016, second-place entry was no exception. of some of the comments that attest to the She spent a great deal of time working benefits of the RCI Mid-Atlantic Chapter out how to accomplish her aesthetic competition. goal while still providing sill and cap flashing F( i g ure 13 ). This led to a pro­ From Spring 2015: ductive discussion with the jury about how architects need to understand I really think we need more one-on- that normative construction details one time to really discuss the project are normative because they have at hand and figure out how to put stood the test of time. They challenged everything together. Also, I feel we her to be selective in her use of special waited too long to start learning about conditions in the building, to get the building envelopes and the details of maximum impact with the least need construction. But I also don’t know if for expensive, high-maintenance, or [the architecture school] has a specific failure-prone assemblies. schedule of when to introduce certain The third-place entry took advan­ building principles, but I say the tage of the sloped site with a two-story sooner the better. building (F i g ure 14 ). Instead of the typical double-loaded corridor, the stu­ From Spring 2016: Figure 13 – Section of the second-place entry dent provided grade-level classrooms from the 2016 competition. only on the south side of the building. Elizabeth did an awesome job in He controlled the light entering south- making sure we had an understand­ was able to have a detailed conversation facing windows by using a combination of ing [of] our semester-long project. about masonry, grout, and mortar, which view and clerestory windows, as well as by She went the extra mile to bring is not usually achievable at this point in providing deep, tapered overhangs. He also in professionals as well as provide a student’s education. While he was chal­ provided zones above corridors for mechani­ supplemental literature to aid in our lenged to bring heavy materials down to cal, plumbing, and electrical equipment. The understanding. The field trips were the ground visually, such as the dressed jury was impressed by the student’s presen­ also very beneficial. stone veneer at the administrative areas of tation and drawings, which were succinct the building, it was clear that he had exten­ and clear. He had simplified the scheme from One of my favorite semesters of stu­ sively investigated the building assemblies earlier iterations, which had included low­ dio. Really felt like I became involved

2 2 0 • G r a n t 3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 in my project and enjoyed what I was doing. The competitions also help me motivate myself to push a little bit harder.

Over the years, it has become clear that students crave more individual instruc­ tion, and more explanation about how building envelope concepts apply to their specific projects. Only so much of this can be learned from books, journals, and all- too-brief site visits. Time in the design lab with professors is finite, as is their range of knowledge. The student design competitions gave the students an incentive to go a little deeper, and their instructor a spur to work a little bit harder, to help them learn how to find these answers themselves. The jurors, through their mentoring session and the Figure 14 – Third-place entry from the 2016 competition. final juries, helped the students know what questions they needed to be asking. faculty can transmit in a few class ses­ Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2010. p. sions per semester. At Virginia Tech’s School 52. STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT RCI of Architecture + Design, RCI is becoming 2. The 2016 Florida Statutes, Chapter AND BUILDING ENVELOPE a known entity, and the sponsored com­ 481: Architecture, Interior Design, CONSULTING petitions, along with the convention spon­ and Landscape Architecture C.F.R. It is difficult to track the degree to sorships, are helping to spread the word. § Part 1: Architecture and Interior which architects recognize the importance Consultants throughout the United States Design. p. 481.229. of building envelopes and either become and Canada might consider similar men­ 3. Code of Virginia, Chapter 4. skilled in designing them themselves, or tored student design competition programs Architects, Engineers, Surveyors, actively seek out consultants to assist them at universities within their regions—both to Landscape Architects and Interior in doing so. In either case, student exposure promote RCI and to help prepare their local Designers C.F.R. § A rticle 1. to architects, engineers, and consultants graduates for the increasingly complex worlds Architects, Engineeers, Surveyors actively engaged in designing building enve­ of building design and construction. and Landscape Architects. pp. lopes is critical. In the author’s experience 54.51-401. of architecture schools in the United States, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 4. Le Corbusier. The city of to-morrow building envelope design is not well repre­ The author would like to thank Matthew and its planning. New York: Dover. sented in most schools’ lecture series nor in Innocenzi and Michael Violette, and the 1987. the body of work schools choose to discuss officers of the RCI Mid-Atlantic Chapter 5. Cesal. p. 158. and promote publicly. As mentioned earlier, who contributed their moral, intellectu­ 6. T.S. Kuhn and I. Hacking. The struc­ the role of architects as heroes with stellar al, and financial support to the student ture of scientific revolutions (Fourth “design skills” often overshadows their roles design competitions. Thanks also go to the ed.). Chicago: The University of as professionals with “general technical jurors and other mentors who served in Chicago Press. 2012. p. 10. knowledge” and as experts with “specialized 2015: Derek Cundiff, Matthew Innocenzi, 7. Ibid., pp. 10-11. technical knowledge.” Architecture students Mark McConnel, and Steven Treser; and 8. Ibid. p. 10. should be taught that all three of these roles those who served in 2016: Patricia Aguirre, 9. Cesal. op. cit., p. 169. must be satisfied by members of the design Derek Cundiff, Matthew Innocenzi, and 10. V. Hartkopf, V.E. Loftness, and team to ensure the success of many archi­ Peter Ozolins. Finally, thanks go to the P.A.D. Mill. “Chapter 6, Integration tectural endeavors. students whose earnest efforts resulted in for Performance.” In R.D. Rush (Ed.), Another observation is that students tend excellent work and fruitful discussions. The Building Systems Integration to talk to one another from year to year, A portion of this paper first appeared Handbook. New York: Wiley. 1986. and last year, seven second- and third-year in modified form in Integrating Building 11. L. Heschong. Thermal Delight in students from Virginia Tech attended the Performance with Design: An Architecture Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT RCI Convention, thanks to generous Annual Student’s Guidebook,12 and is reproduced Press. 1979. Convention and Trade Show College Student here by permission of Routledge. 12. E.J. Grant. Integrating Building Attendance Sponsorships offered by the RCI Performance With Design : An Foundation. At the convention, students are ENDNOTES Architecture Student’s Guidebook. steeped in building envelope knowledge, gain­ 1. E.J. Cesal. Down Detour Road: New York: Routledge. 2017. ing access to far more information than An Architect in Search of Practice.

3 3 r d r C I I n t e r n a t I o n a l C o n v e n t I o n a n d t r a d e S h o w • M a r C h 2 2 -2 7 , 2 0 1 8 G r a n t • 2 2 1