J.T. Pennington - Prompt #1

PROMPT 1 As Stated in NCARB's 2011-2012 Rules of Conduct: "NCARB Mission: The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards protects the public health, safety, and welfare by leading the regulation of the practice of architecture through the development and application of standards for licensure and credentialing of architects. Core Values NCARB believes in: • Leadership – Proactive, creative thinking, and decisive actions. • Accountability – Consistent, equitable, and responsible performance. • Transparency – Clear and accessible rules, policies, procedures, governance, and communication. • Integrity – Honest, impartial, and well-reasoned action. • Collaboration – Working together toward common goals. • Excellence – Professional, expert, courteous, respectful, and responsive service. NCARB is a nonprofit corporation comprising the legally constituted architectural registration boards of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as its members." Select one of the core values listed above, and ask your Mentor to provide an example or case study from his/her practice in which one of these core values has been CHALLENGED. Your response in your journal should: •Briefly describe this case study •List a scenario in which one of these core values might be compromised in practice regularly

• INTEGRITY – Honest, impartial, and well-reasoned action.

I was most drawn to the NCARB value of integrity, because I feel like it is the cornerstone value of the six listed above. If you don't have integrity, it seems like all of the other values pale in comparison to its importance in looking out for the health, safety, and wellness of the public.

My mentor Kate described a previous project that she worked on in John's Island, for a new residential development on John's Island where she was hired by the developer of the neighborhood. Due to the high density and close proximity of buildings, the jurisdiction having authority had decided that there was too much density and that if a fire broke out, there would not be enough time for the fire engines to get to the location in time and most of the neighborhood would be destroyed. Kate was hired to provide the design of a firestation that would be part of donated land by the developer to the city, which would reduce the amount of fire insurance premiums for the neighborhood and add another fire station to the city, which overall improves the safety of the community.

The problem came that out of all of the lots of the proposed new development, the land the developer wanted to donate to John's Island for the proposed fire station was the least desirable lot on the complex, and had a host of environmental, transportation, soil stabilizing, and access problems. As Kate got deeper into the project, she began to question if she was really helping the community and the residents, because it was clear the developer was not being honest about telling the city that he was donating a great piece of land.

Before the project really got off into the ground, site analysis was turning up all sorts of red flags for the designer part about why this wasn't the best site to put a new fire station: the lot was on the boundary of a blackwater swamp, which had a lot of regulations with the US Army Corps of Engineers; it had complicated site access, and was needing fill and culverts to drain the site for stormwater management and for vehicular access. The other problem was that the John's Island fire district was providing the directive that the fire station needed to be a pull through station, instead of having the fire engines back up and reverse into the stalls between answering calls. This action demanded that instead of loop access, there would need to be an easement provided for the fire truck access, and working with OCRM (Office of Coastal Resource Management) was going to require lots of collaboration. Additional site complications were related to soil erosion due to adjacency of the swamp, which would require expensive piers to deal with poor soils on the foundation design, so the whole design (even before conceptual and schematic design began) was going to be a complicated mess.

As the project moved forward, it seemed that as the developer client was frustrated that this project was taking too long, becoming too expensive, and should have already had completed design - Kate began to question through well reasoned action that this was not the best lot of land to be donated, and that because of all of the complications to the project, the developer needed to select a different plot of land for the city in order to improve the health and safety of the community.

Kate was moved off the project to other responsibilities, but the end game was that the project was not pursued and the developer never made the new residential community. It makes me question that if the developer had chosen a good or even ideal lot of land for donating to John's Island if the project might have been a success.

Well reasoned action that I feel like architects should practice and follow relates to the specialized knowledge that we have of so many ranges of categories, and our view should be impartial and constantly looking out for the bigger picture of serving the public, not just for the interests of our clients or our own financial gain.

Outside of the case study that Kate described to me, she listed a variety of common instances at Beau Clowney Architects where clients challenge our integrity and we as architects have to push back. Most of the issues are resolved by explaining to clients what the building code requires, or the zoning setbacks that are required by the city by law, or educating the client on issues of building science or design issues:

Soil erosion - working with coastal homes in the Charleston area, many of our clients have property directly on the water for that spectacular view; one of the problems that is always is in the back of our mind during site design is thinking about worst case scenarios dealing with sand, dune, or soil erosion so close to the water.

Flooding - Not only are we designing to meet the zoning flood level height requirements, many clients don't understand the complications that can result from flooding. Designing with cementious or break away wall assemblies is also much more costly than traditional residential construction methods - many owners don't know why it is so expensive to build in the Charleston area.

Impact resistant windows vs regular windows - Many clients who move to Charleston from another city don't understand why impact resistant windows are required. With Hurricanes Irma happening last month and Matthew in 2016 the previous year, this has been less of an issue compared to the last ten to fifteen years - but impact resistant windows aren't required by code. It is possible that pre-cut, pre-drilled plywood panels can be provided and kept on site somewhere on the home; the catch is that those plywood panels have to be lifted up on a ladder and installed over the window frame before the storm hits. The last thing a owner needs to worry about is getting up on a shaky ladder by themselves when they are trying to evacuate out of town. If the client has money that can afford them in part of their budget, Beau Clowney Architect tries to encourage clients to provide impact resistant windows in all of their homes.