Affirmative Inaction

I was following news reports recently discussing the life of Medgar Evers who was assassinated 50 years ago this week while he served as the field secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi. The airport in Jackson now carries his name to honor this courageous man who gave his life in the pursuit of equal rights. Former President Clinton was quoted last week as saying, “The next time you hear people complaining around Washington about what a rough business democracy is, we might do well to remember what it was like 50 years ago, and the sacrifices that were made.”

This made me think about how far we have come in integrating the construction industry over the past five decades. It also made me reflect upon the affirmative action programs that are still used on many governmental construction projects. These programs were devised many years ago to level the playing field for groups who suffered from our nation’s discrimination of the past. Although I think that affirmative action has served a good purpose in the past to provide a needed boost for diversity, I submit that it is now time to move on. Affirmative action in the construction industry adds little to no value and costs the industry millions of dollars a year.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims that affirmative action is needed now more than ever because avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. I agree with the ACLU that when you have an unemployment rate of 13.5% for African Americans and 9.1% for Hispanic or Latinos compared to a 6.7% rate for whites, there is still a problem. I do not agree that the solution to racial employment challenges resides in the implementation of a quota-based affirmative action plan. In fact, the negative effects of such plans far outweigh the positive implications.

Affirmative action in the construction industry causes the following problems:

1. Affirmative action programs have a tendency to put unqualified personnel and companies into positions of responsibility before they are ready. It isn’t good for anyone, including the recipient of the job, to be thrust into work that is beyond their skill set. I have worked with minority subcontractors in the past who didn’t have the management skills, administrative support, or financing to meet the demands of the project. They ended up losing money and struggling to survive after getting over extended.

2. Quota-based programs drive the selection of the work to meet certain minority or gender-based criteria rather than selecting the best solution for the project. Under typical conditions, the construction team would award a contract to the lowest cost option that can meet the scope of work, schedule, and financial demands. I have seen more expensive proposals selected just to meet Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) or Women Business Enterprise (WBE) quotas. I have also been forced to award contracts to inferior bidders in order to meet established affirmative action guidelines. I think we are now in an era where the best qualified companies should be selected to participate regardless of race, gender, or religious affiliation.

3. Affirmative Action construction projects carry a higher premium because construction managers are forced to award targeted percentages to minority or women contractors. These contractors are not always the least expensive alternatives. So the system essentially promotes a tax on the project to force participant selection.

4. It is demeaning to qualified minority and women contractors to be associated with a system that awards business based upon quotas and not upon merit. I sympathize with those outstanding companies that have a proven track record in the construction industry, but are caught up in a system based on percentages instead of skill. How would you feel if the industry viewed you as a quota rather than a performer worthy of a seat at the table?

5. Forcing the construction team to meet affirmative action goal percentages puts an undue pressure on the participants and promotes abuse of the system. I have seen owners of businesses change the ownership to their wives in order to gain WBE status, or change it to a joint venture with a minority contractor in order to get around the rules. This only adds cost to the project. I have also seen minority companies act as agents to make it appear they are involved in the project only to secure a percentage of the business for doing nothing other than offering their MBE certification. This gamesmanship is silly and unproductive.

  

Many people reading this post will be tempted to chalk it up to a bunch of gibberish written by a white male business owner - another example of the “privileged” class complaining about reverse discrimination. How could someone of my gender and ethnicity even attempt to write with 20/20 clarity on such a subject? I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic of discrimination, but I do have experience in the flaws of the construction industry. If like-minded people were brave enough to stand up to ineffective programs like affirmative action, we might be able to implement meaningful change. It seems to me that the industry needs to display a fraction of the courage Medgar Evers had back in early 60’s to move forward. Maybe this positive action will force people to look at more relevant factors that contribute to employment inequality such as the education system or social and economic challenges.

MURPHY WAS AN OPTIMIST

I was talking with a friend the other day and I commented that, “Murphy was an optimist” and she wasn’t familiar with this saying. I couldn’t believe she had never heard this phrase before and then it dawned on me. Anyone associated with the construction industry knows that if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. If you have been in this business for long, you know exactly what I am talking about and ole Murphy visits you quite often. This made me think about why things go haywire on construction projects.

First of all, it is understandable that a construction project can boil down to a comedy of errors when you look at what it takes to get the owner, architect, general contractor, and subcontractors on the same page. There are a lot of cooks in the kitchen and it takes a well coordinated effort by all parties to deliver what is expected, meet the schedule, and land within budget. In this article, I want to concentrate on how the construction team creates its own problems. I am a firm believer that understanding the traits that can lead you to the abyss helps one refine the behaviors that define success. So here is a look at the problems that can afflict the players in a construction project.

Owners

 

It is critical that the owner has sufficient financing in place prior to beginning construction. We are seeing a dramatic increase in the number of projects where the actual bid for the work to be performed is much higher than the preliminary budgets. If the owner doesn’t have the pocketbook to finance the project, it puts a great deal of stress on all involved. We see the following problems result from financial strains: 

• Serious delays while funding is revisited, causing a strain on the project schedule and once you are behind in the schedule, other problems emerge
• Changes in scope known as “value engineering” that can affect multiple trades of work
• Acceptance of unqualified subcontractors and products because of a need for lower prices
• Mediocre plans and specifications since the architect doesn’t have the budget to put the time into the project
• Delays in payments to the team for work performed, causing stress on the team’s cash flow

Another problem we see with owners is when the owner fails to get involved in the details of the project. If the owner doesn’t effectively communicate with the architect and contractor on the overall plan as well as the project details, serious delays will result. It is so important that the owner has a representative that has a complete understanding of the project and has the time necessary to dedicate to the process. If this individual has an aptitude in construction practices it really helps. The absence of this involvement will result in delays, higher costs, inferior work, and potential rework.

  

On the other hand, an over-involved owner can be problematic as well. An owner who wants to make all decisions and doesn’t rely on the team to perform their duties, will clog up the enterprise. We see this happen quite often on governmental projects where the owner allows legislators and judges to make decisions regarding the project. The construction process does not favor democratic decision making throughout the schedule, and you will have serious delays if you invite multiple decision makers with large egos into the program.

  

Architects

 

Lack of project specific experience from the architect is a guarantee for a doomed project. It is essential that the architectural team have the expertise and personnel to manage the complexity of the project. Preservation projects in particular are vastly different from conventional construction and require a distinct background. If the architect doesn’t have this knowledge, the project becomes his classroom where decisions are made on the fly rather than upfront in the construction documents. We see plans and specifications with irrelevant boiler plate information, forcing others to work with the architectural team to educate them on proper means, methods, and materials during the submittal/shop drawing stage. An inexperienced architect will cause delays, increase construction costs, and deliver an inferior product to the owner.

 

On the flip side, another difficulty that can undermine the success of a project is architectural arrogance. I know that it’s hard to believe, but there are some architects out there who think they are omniscient and that the rest of the team is a bunch of bungling idiots. Although the construction industry has its fair share of mentally challenged individuals, there are many professionals out there who can effectively work with the architectural team. It can be very frustrating to have to stroke the ego of a prima donna architect and to be denied participation in the decision making process. The construction team needs to work together to be successful and that includes all parties.

  

Another architectural problem that can infect the health of a project is slow decision making. There are thousands and thousands of decisions that need to be made during a construction project, and the answers to these questions are what keep the wheels moving. The architectural team needs to be staffed properly to be able to quickly address challenges as they are presented. It helps a great deal when the subcontractors can have direct access to the architect so they can have a dialogue rather than working strictly through RFI paperwork. Sometimes we get so caught up in our bureaucratic systems that we clog up the entire process.

  

General Contractors

  

The general contractor or construction manager is the one who has to make it all happen. The contractor must have the combined skills of construction expertise, scheduling ability, and unfailing determination. Unfortunately it is difficult to bring all these skills to a single project. Most contractors have a project superintendent who has vast construction experience, or they have a detail-oriented person who monitors the Gantt charts, or they have an individual who can crack the whip. Very few master all three disciplines. If you don’t have all three skills at play, the project will suffer. Since it is extremely rare to have all three skill sets in one person, the contractor needs to make sure his key project players cover all the bases.

  

Subcontractors

  

The quality of the subcontractors determines the outcome of the project. Unfortunately, the bidding process often awards the lowest price and not the best value for the work to be performed. Many of the lowest priced bids achieved that status because of estimating mistakes or misunderstanding of the project requirements. If the winning subcontractors fall into this category, the architect and general contractor often have to crack the whip to make sure the subcontractor delivers as expected. This process can cause serious delays and substandard work and puts an undue burden on the general contractor. Also, the challenging economic climate of the past five years has made many subcontractors financially fragile to the point that it is not uncommon to see a sub go out of business in the middle of a project. As a result, we have seen an increase in project bonding and the submission of financial information as part of a prequalification process for subcontractors.

  

The architect and the general contractor need to review the demands of the project prior to bid date to determine whether a particular scope of work demands a subcontractor with a specific skill set. There are a lot of companies out there that are desperately searching for business and are willing to throw numbers at a bid package that is a stretch for their competencies. We are just beginning to see more detailed prequalification requirements on projects for critical work. It is vital that the architect and general contractor spend the time to determine which subcontractors have the background and the capacity to manage a specific scope of work.

  

When one looks at all the players who have to connect to make a construction project successful, it is easy to see why our friend Murphy plays such a prominent role in the industry. If owners, architects, general contractors and subcontractors can avoid some of the pitfalls outlined above, Murphy will have to go elsewhere to spout his doom and gloom.

The Truth About Deception

Is it just me or do you think it is extremely difficult to get a straight answer these days? Life seemed to be so much simpler thirty years ago when business deals were done with a handshake and character was something one earned rather than purchased. Today I can reduce my age by ten years with a simple Botox treatment, and become a stallion with a little blue pill. I see the same smoke and mirror routine widely practiced in the replacement window industry. The enormous sum of money associated with replacement windows has created an industry that fuels deception and false truths. This is evidenced by the large number of FTC lawsuits against replacement window companies for false advertising last year.

There are two major advantages promulgated by the replacement window industry that fail to pass the reality test. The first is that energy efficiency garnered by replacement windows will have a positive payback over a short period of time. The other is that replacement windows are low maintenance and will have lower overall repair costs. Let us take a close look at both of these factors to see if they hold water.

Operational Costs

The operational cost of a window is defined as the cost of energy to heat and cool the area around the window. A more energy efficient window will have lower operational costs and this reduction is the crux of most window decisions. Since the major window manufacturers test their windows, they have published statistics on key energy efficiency metrics such as air infiltration, U/R values, and solar heat gain. Existing historic windows do not have such published statistics so it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.

Bailey Edward Architecture conducted a detailed study comparing two versions of restored windows to a leading manufacturer of aluminum clad wood windows to evaluate the actual operational cost difference. In this study, a replacement window was installed next to a restored single-pane wood double hung with a storm window and a restored wood double hung that was converted with insulated glass. All three window openings were tested by an independent testing laboratory that specializes in fenestration testing. The following were the results of the study:

Window Type               Air Infiltration          U Value                Solar Heat Gain

Existing with Storm                0.03                     0.441                            0.597

Restored with IG                   0.12                     0.362                            0.320

ReplacementWindow            0.01                     0.322                            0.329

Now these statistics may not mean much to the lay person, but they certainly refute the claims you see on the websites of major window manufacturers who claim 83% better energy efficiency. Bailey Edward applied the tested performance data of the three different windows to the actual energy costs of the building in question using historic heating and cooling costs. The results of this extrapolation showed that the existing window with a storm would have a total annual energy cost of $173,541. The restored window with an insulated glass conversion had total annual energy consumption of $170,395 and the replacement window had a figure of $171,880. This study effectively cuts through the misinformation promoted by the replacement window industry. There is no significant operational cost difference between restoring existing windows with a storm window or insulated glass and replacing the windows.

Maintenance Costs

Bailey Edward did an excellent job of analyzing the maintenance costs of the three different window types. Maintenance items like repairing a spring or cord, exterior painting, interior painting, caulking, and cleaning were all incorporated in the cost evaluation. These costs were totaled for a 50 year expected lifespan and then annualized for direct comparison. When these costs were summarized for the building in question, the existing window with a storm had the highest annual maintenance cost of $66,763 because of the increased cost of having to clean four surfaces of glass. There was virtually no difference in the annual maintenance costs of the restored insulated glass window and the replacement version with those units recording $50,642 and $49,071 respectively.

Another critical factor that isn’t widely known is that most replacement windows are designed so that it’s not possible to replace the insulated glass when it fails. They are designed to be replaced not repaired. The life expectancy of insulated glass is difficult to predict because it depends upon the size of the glass, temperature and atmospheric pressure fluctuations, wind loads, working loads, sunlight, and exposure to water and water vapor. The replacement industry warrants the glass for 20 years. On average you can expect a double seal insulated glass with a good desiccant to last 30 years. An old-growth wood window will last ten times that since it can be maintained. So why would someone want to replace a window with a 300 year lifespan with one that has only 30?

When one evaluates the true operational and maintenance costs of replacement windows compared to window restoration it’s clear that the case for replacement is weak. Restoring historic windows still makes economic sense in the long run. Unfortunately, window restoration just doesn’t have the sex appeal, marketing budget, or LEED backing of the replacement window industry. Instead of automatically giving old windows a shot of Botox by replacing them, why not restore them to their original beauty? That way they can age gracefully for another 50 years and maintain the authenticity of the structure.

YOU WOOD NEVER BELIEVE THIS

Last week I gave my 17-year-old daughter the speech about how when something looks too good to be true, it usually is. A teenager’s life is certainly challenging and doesn’t need to be complicated by Internet scams, Lance Armstrong-type role models, and cyber-boyfriends who don’t really exist. This made me think about a building material that has proven to defy this principle.

I have been in the wood window business for 26 years and have been very dismayed at the poor quality of manufactured windows in the United States. As a result, my company is constantly searching for better finishes, exterior cladding methods, preservative treatments, and more durable wood species. It was in this quest that we ran across a wood called Accoya. The website said the wood is guaranteed to last 50 years unfinished above ground and is more durable than teak. Normally I would have just laughed and then placed another order for mahogany, but the fact that the product has been used in Europe for the past 75 years piqued my interest.

Accoya is radiata pine that is subjected to a proprietary non-toxic process that permanently changes the molecular structure of the wood. Accoya is based on acetylated wood technology which is a process that impregnates wood with acetic anhydride, which is similar to a very strong vinegar. This produces a wood that smells like the salad I had last weekend. The process involves placing the lumber into massive pressure vessels and forcing acetic anhydride under immense pressure into the very core of the wood. This process is then reversed and a vacuum removes 99.7% of the liquid from the wood, leaving the radiata pine permanently altered. The resulting product is a wood that absorbs water, but doesn’t swell up in the process so its dimensionally stable, impregnable to fungi, and not attractive to insects. Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

The engineers at Re-View put the product through our own testing regimen to see if we might consider it for window fabrication. We took sample wood blocks of Accoya and tested the internal moisture content and measured the outside dimensions with a micrometer. We then submersed the wood blocks into a bucket of water for 30 days. When we removed the blocks and tested the moisture and dimensions, nothing had changed. That single test convinced our team that this wood had serious potential.

Our next step was to see how the wood reacted to all of the other products that come into contact with the wood. Of primary importance was how different finishes reacted to the acetylated wood. Sherwin Williams conducted a series of tests and determined that the best combination of exterior finishes was an oil-based primer with an acrylic latex intermediate and final finish. The wood was exposed to 1540 hours of testing in a humidity chamber and freeze/thaw cycles from -5F to 120F. The finishes passed with flying colors. One thing we did discover is that the wide grain pattern of the radiata pine is not very suitable for an interior stain application. Accoya has recently made improvements by introducing an acetylated alder option that stains much better than the radiata.

In addition to the testing of the finishes, our staff tested adhesives. We discovered that polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) based glue like the Titebond II and Titebond III, or the Gorilla Wood Glue products are not effective with Accoya. The best adhesive for joinery and glue ups of Accoya is a polyurethane-based glue. Gorilla Glue makes a good polyurethane adhesive so we had the company conduct adhesion tests using Gorilla Glue on a mortise and tenon joint. The polyurethane Gorilla Glue is a very effective bonding agent for the Accoya species.

Finally we tested different fasteners that are exposed to the Accoya. We found that only non-ferrous fasteners can be used with Accoya. The acetic anhydride used in making the wood will accelerate deterioration of typical steel or galvanized nails and screws. Since it is a good practice to only use stainless steel fasteners for exterior applications, this isn’t a problem.

Accoya is very nearly too good to be true. Our research, however, shows that this revolutionary wood provides the following:

1. Outstanding Durability – Accoya has a Class 1 rated durability that surpasses teak and has a 50 year warranty for above ground applications and 25 years below ground.

2. Dimensionally Stable – Since Accoya doesn’t absorb moisture, shrinking, swelling, and warping is dramatically reduced which makes it more compatible for fabrication and better performing in the field.

3. Insect Barrier – Since Accoya is indigestible to a wide range of insects including termites, it doesn’t need additional treatments that have a limited performance life.

4. Sustainable – Accoya comes from managed forests and is certified by FSC, PERC and other regional certification bodies.

5. Excellent Machinability – Accoya is made from either radiata pine or alder, both of which are great woods for machining.

Re-View has used Accoya on many national landmark projects. It is our intent to manufacture windows that will last 50-100 years, and we think Accoya is an excellent material to meet that goal. You can see some of the projects Re-View has done by accessing the following link: Re-View Facebook

The Dutch town of Sneek wanted the town's entry

bridge to be a symbol of its maritime history.  Accoya

was selected because of its incredible durability.

The "Moses Bridge" is crafted with Accoya because

it can withstand constant exposure to water.

Don't Follow the LEED

I have never been the type of person to enthusiastically join organizations. Whether it was a fraternity in college, business association, church, or country club, I always saw my membership as limiting my involvement in other groups. As is often the case, these groups tend to influence their members to adhere to their guiding principles and to compete with, rather than accept similar organizations that share compatible philosophies. This jaded viewpoint of mine has fueled a healthy skepticism that enables me to see through the groupthink dogma that is associated with even very highly revered institutions. One such organization that has received glowing praise over the past 12 years is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) that was established by the USGBC.

I think it is time for the construction industry to wake up and begin to think for ourselves again. Too many design and building professionals have drunk the LEED Kool-Aid and have lost their independence. What was originally drafted as an excellent format to realign our priorities towards energy efficiency and environmental stewardship has morphed into a strict guideline that is limiting creativity and compromising common sense in construction. Developers, architects, and contractors who have been challenged by the economic climate have embraced LEED as a means of differentiation. Others have jumped onto the bandwagon just so they wouldn’t be left behind. Now we have a massive fraternity of lemmings, blindly applying their points and paying their dues so they can add four letters to their business card and promote their projects in the marketplace.

It is difficult to be critical of a program like LEED and an organization like the USGBC. This program has had a profound effect on realigning priorities in the construction industry at a time when the United States needed to take serious action in changing the energy consumption and resource utilization of the built environment. By focusing the design community on five main categories of sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality, LEED has had a positive effect on influencing the industry to pay attention to a positive set of guidelines. But over the past couple of years, the LEED program has lost its effectiveness. The industry is tuned into the concept of stewardship and doesn’t need a Martha Stewart recipe for responsible design. And the USGBC leadership has morphed into a capitalistic juggernaut.

Architects, general contractors, manufacturers, forests, distributors, and owners have spent millions of dollars a year to secure and maintain certification in this club. The minimum cost for membership is now $1,500 for a small firm and the cost for manufacturers is staggering. USGBC annual revenues have ballooned to over $107 million dollars and the organization has registered a profit of just under $15 million. Not bad for a non-profit organization. They also have an astounding 36% of revenues allocated to administrative expenses and membership development costs. I tip my hat to the founders for being able to generate such a money making machine in the construction industry during the worst economic times since the great depression. Unfortunately, the immense wealth being amassed by the USGBC is tainting its mission in the same way money has undermined the character of professional sports. For example, the USGBC shelved a much needed revision to the LEED code last year either because of inertia or because of paybacks from contributing groups like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

And the membership costs levied by the venerable USGBC are just part of the equation. In the pursuit of gaining a Platinum status, the entire construction team is burdened by a massive documentation process that audits the intent of the project. The red tape involved in a LEED project makes our government look streamlined. Thousands of hours are spent on a typical project just to track and collect paperwork to justify behavior and intent. Many material costs are also increased because of the perceived value of the LEED certification. For example, we have seen FSC certified wood run 20% higher than the same wood from the same forest without the official certification paperwork. Do we really need to be adding nonsensical administrative costs to the construction process at this moment?

A single program is not capable of satisfying all our challenges in commercial construction. As the USGBC behemoth has grown over the past ten years, its followers have accepted the guidelines without consideration of whether there was a better way. Only recently have we seen opposition to some of the LEED claims and requirements. Henry Gifford has made a compelling argument that the energy saving claims made by USGBC are more a result of manipulating numbers than creating structures that are more energy efficient than the existing stock of buildings. The States of Maine and Georgia have made progress in striking down USGBC requirements of using strictly FSC certified lumber since this eliminates a high percentage of sustainable lumber found in the United States. And in the past year, the Department of Defense abandoned the LEED program for a code based upon ASHRE 189.1. Preservationists are also making compelling arguments to pay attention to the embodied energy of a building rather than replace all elements in the pursuit of superior R Value.

So I ask the design community to regain your independence. Don’t be beholden to a program that is tantamount to a 12-step program for responsible construction. The basis of your design should be predicated upon your inspiration and guided by the owner’s desires, intended use, budget, and presence in the community. Use your common sense rather than a checklist that gives you extra points for bike racks and preferred parking spots for battery powered cars. As was once said by Frank Lloyd Wright, “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense.”

Keeping it Real

I made the mistake of going Christmas shopping over the weekend and was forced to contend with the masses in the ritual of adorning the base of our tree with a bunch of stuff that nobody really needs. The experience made me think about the window industry. One outgrowth of our capitalistic society that I am disgusted with is the consumption-based mentality that has rapidly grown over the past fifty years. Manufacturers, advertisers, and the media have promulgated a lifestyle that is based upon fashion and instant gratification rather than substance. Just take a look at the hordes of people in the malls over the next couple of weeks if you don’t believe me. This boom of consumerism has given birth to a replacement society. When our cell phone breaks down, we replace it. When our television malfunctions, we swap it for a cheap replacement. Most of the clothing and furniture sold in the United States is cheap stuff manufactured in China that will need to be replaced before it goes out of style. And riding high on this trend for disposal is the window replacement industry.

Instead of pontificating about all the reasons one should restore historic windows rather than consider replacement, I'd like to address just one issue: replacement windows can ruin the look of a good building. Whether you are looking at vinyl, aluminum, wood, or steel replacement windows, there are very few manufacturers who offer acceptable facsimiles of the originals. These manufacturers contend with constraints that influence their engineering. Some are unable to replicate old windows because they use materials that cannot match the originals. Others are dedicated to sustaining a low price point and neglect to invest in suitable designs. And still others just don’t get it or don’t care to even pay attention. For the most part, the replacement window industry does a very poor job in offering products that look like the existing windows.

Even given vast improvements in UV inhibitors and advances in finishes, the vinyl window industry continues to produce primarily stark white products. Some manufacturers now offer a tan color. Talk about a segment that is mired in the Henry Ford era. They also contend with restrictions on size given the weak structural characteristics of the vinyl material and internal reinforcement. It is not uncommon to see two vinyl windows occupy an opening that once had a single double hung window simply because they cannot match the original window size. The vinyl window manufacturers are also under a great deal of pressure to maintain a competitive price point so most designs are very simplistic and ignore many of the profiles that add substance to the architecture.

The aluminum window manufacturers are very excited about the historic window arena given the state of the economy. They have become masters of attempting to make a standard window look custom. The formula they subscribe to is that you can make a standard window look like a replica by adding specially extruded trimmings to a basic window series. By applying a decorative brickmould and a surface-applied coped muntin bar to the window, it can now be promoted as “historic.” Most will even try to replicate the window lugs on the top sash by screwing a cast aluminum block to the lower corners of the upper sash. Unfortunately, the boxy appearance of the standard window design with stiles and rails that are much wider than the original completely alter the architecture. Many of these installations are set into an aluminum frame that is installed over the existing wood window frame, further infringing upon the sightlines of the original window.

The aluminum clad wood window manufacturers operate in a very similar fashion to their aluminum counterparts by taking standard products and adding trim such as brickmould and muntins that come close to matching existing designs. Stile and rail dimensions still fail to match. Their designs have size limitations on venting window units because of a an average sash thickness of only 1-3/8” and a cheap block and tackle balance system. This forces large units to become fixed or combined with other windows or infill. Most of the manufacturers have two options for replacement windows. One option is a package of two sash that are set in the original frame with a cheap plastic jamb liner that fails to match the existing finish. The other option is a window in a smaller frame that can be installed in the existing frame’s sash pocket just like a vinyl replacement window. The aluminum clad wood window manufacturers like to wrap the frame with aluminum break metal or profiled brickmould. This metal is often secured with exposed fasteners and caulking at all joints which attracts dust and fails within a couple of years. Often the break metal has a different finish than the window and fades at a different rate. Another disadvantage is a design that inhibits the ability to repair the window. If the glass breaks, the entire sash and often the entire unit must be replaced. So these manufacturers have successfully designed a bona fide “replacement window”.

So if you find yourself getting caught up in the spirit of consumerism this season and begin to have dreams of sugar plums and iPhones, remember that your work is your signature.  You really don't want to have your name associated with some of the common replacement window problems pictured below:

These stark white vinyl window replacements

had to be fixed windows since the window

opening is too big for a vinyl double hung.

 

 

 

And they even added decorative trim

to the infill for this aluminum window

replacement.  If you are going to ruin a 

building, you might as well do it with style. 

 

 

 

Note how these aluminum replacements

attempt to simulate a double hung

window with a fake horizontal rail.  I guess

if you are going to put an awning like

that over the entrance, it doesn't matter

what the windows look like.

Take a look at the aluminum window replacements on the

third floor compared to the original wood windows on

the second floor.  If this picture doesn't convince you of

how aluminum window replacements will change sightlines

than nothing will.

The reduced sightlines of an aluminum

replacement window don't look any

better from the interior.

This is a common situation where the

aluminum window manufacturer cannot

make a venting window of this size so

they settle on a fixed/hopper combo.

Look at the infill panels on these

aluminum replacement windows.

This aluminum clad wood window replacement shows how

the sightlines have been completely changed.  The aluminum

break metal has none of the profiles of the original millwork.

Also note how the window has faded at a different rate than

the break metal.

Note the exposed fasteners and dirty sealant

lines on this aluminum clad replacement window.

Observe the stark contrast in metal colors due

to using different finishes on the window and the frame.

Note the fake sash lug on the corner

of the upper sash.  Why even try to

match the original when it looks this bad? 

Architectural Felonies

I was looking at the construction documents for a county courthouse restoration project last week and was absolutely appalled at what the construction team was intending to do to this landmark property. Here is a building that was originally constructed in 1876 and is one of the most significant functioning courthouses in the State of Missouri. One would think that the restoration of such a building that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places would respect the integrity of the design and the existing materials. Instead, the request for proposals was asking for the original wood double hung windows that span 14 feet tall to be replaced. These monumental windows are the signature of the building. They are without a doubt a defining characteristic of the architecture. The architect for this project specified a complete replacement with a fixed aluminum system with small operable awnings. The replacement will look like a flat storefront system instead of a double hung window. How does this happen? How does a significant piece of architecture that is listed on the Register get butchered like this?

I am not a bleeding heart, tree hugging, fanatic who feels that every building must be saved and that nobody should make design changes to current architecture. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist who is capable of rationally evaluating the social and economic impacts of various preservation strategies. I am also sensitive to changes in design that might be required for repurposing a building. But there is a problem when compromises are made to significant architecture that defines a community. Although we are supposed to have checks and balances to prevent this from happening such as the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Officers, projects still fall between the cracks. So how does this happen? I think the following factors can contribute to what I would call an architectural felony.

1. Underfunded Budget

An underfunded budget is often responsible for compromises in the architectural details of a preservation project. It can initially be much less expensive to replace a historic wood window with a cheap vinyl unit than to restore the original. The low budget helps people ignore the fact that they are replacing a 100 year old window with a window that has a life expectancy of 20 years. I am constantly amazed at how lack of funds can inspire irrational behavior.

2. LEED Programs

Programs such as LEED promote a window replacement mentality for preservation projects. Since the USGBC is partially financed by building product manufactures, they encourage replacement with new materials rather than restoration. You can get points by replacing the windows with windows that have Energy Star Ratings, have a published U-Value under a certain amount, or utilize FSC lumber. Little consideration is given to options that enhance the energy performance of the existing windows. Also, this program ignores the costs of disposing of 100 year old windows with replacements that will last for only 20 years.

3. Anti-Terrorism Design

In the wake of the 1995 terrorist bombing of the AP Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the GSA adopted blast resistant standards for federal facilities. Since the window openings are vulnerable to blast exposure, the goal to upgrade the blast integrity of the fenestration often conflicts with the historic character of the windows. The design of blast resistant windows has no historic relevance and fails to match the existing systems. It is possible, however to make compromises where both agendas can be satisfied. Re-View has restored historic wood and steel windows and then installed a blast resistant storm window into the opening. We have also adapted existing windows with laminated glass.

4. Owner-Driven Preferences

Often the owners of the buildings and their maintenance departments get involved in the design phase of a preservation project and insert their agenda on the scope of work. This contingent usually is very focused on reducing maintenance costs and improving energy efficiency. There is a misperception that if one can replace the historic wood windows with aluminum or vinyl, you will never have to worry about painting again. Since this group has no formal preservation training, they tend to gravitate towards short-term solutions that have lower costs. These decision makers only hope that they will retire before the replacement windows have to be replaced.

5. Inexperienced Architects

There are a lot of very talented restoration architects in the United States. They achieved success by becoming students of the trade and learning on the job through the school of hard knocks. In these tough economic times, it is not uncommon to see architectural firms stretch beyond their competencies in the pursuit of other business opportunities. We often run into architects who have little to no experience on preservation projects. These newbies are inclined to utilize means and methods of new construction because that is their frame of reference. Inexpensive window replacements are a common specification item for inexperienced architects.

I guess I shouldn’t get upset about the windows on a single courthouse. Last year a tragedy occurred in Toledo, Ohio. The commissioners of the Seneca County Courthouse voted to demolish an architectural gem because it was less expensive to build a new courthouse. This signature building constructed in 1884 succumbed to the wrecking ball while protesters cried on the sidelines. One thing we could all learn from our friends in Europe is to show more respect for historic architecture. As preservationist we need to view ourselves as the stewards of the historic environment.

These magnificent double hung windows are
being replaced with aluminum storefront

Seneca County Courthouse Before Demolition

Seneca County Courthouse Demolition

Good Question!