Lawrence

The answer to your question about building up rather than building anew is
complex.

There are always problems with extending an existing building upwards,
especially (but not just) if it needs to stay in use during the works.
Issues include but are not limited to:

footing/foundation capacity (soil conditions)
structural capacity (original design)
fire planning (exits, sprinklers, separation)
waterproofing (during the works, and at the junction)
tenant disruption

If the building was planned for it, then there should be few problems.  If
it wasn't planned for it, then it may become difficult.

Worth getting a design/build contractor to look at it and throw some ideas
at the University.  They might just come up with a creative solution that
will save everybody money, save those older buildings, and make a project
for themselves!

Good luck

david



-----Original Message-----
From: BP - "Preservationists shouldn't be neat freaks." -- Mary D
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lawrence
Kestenbaum
Sent: 20 June 2000 8:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: More land vs. more stories


I work in an office building at the University of Michigan which was built
in three stages.  The oldest section, dating from about the early 1960s,
is now called Wing I, and essentially consists of a basement level plus
six stories.  Wing II, which dates from around 1970, is a basement level
plus five stories.  Wing III, which dates from about 1980, is a basement
level plus three stories.

The building is located on a block which was originally fully occupied by
late 19th and early 20th century houses.  Construction of each of the
three segments required the university to acquire and demolish a number of
those houses.  The university as a state institution is exempt from local
historic district regulations.

Now there is talk of adding a fourth wing.  Noting that Wing III is three
stories shorter than Wing I, my response has been, "why not add three more
stories to wing III?"  Impossible, say these social scientists who know
nothing of engineering.  There's an underground river or something that
limits the height of Wing III, they say airily.

Balderdash, I strongly suspect.  If the ground can support four levels
(three stories plus fully occupied basement), why not seven?  And just a
hundred or so feet away, the ground carries such a building (Wing I)
without any problem that I know of.

Obviously I would prefer that the building be built up rather than out, so
Ann Arbor doesn't lose more of its architectural heritage.  I have seen
situations were a building was built so flimsily that adding a badly
needed additional floor was not an economic option.  How likely is that to
be the case here, in a 20-year-old seemingly solid institutional office
building? Is there a possibility that installing additional floors --
perhaps along with additional support if necessary -- would be a
reasonably economic alternative to buying more land and tearing down more
houses?

Note that WIng III does not currently contain any elevators, but is very
close to the pair of elevators (basement to 5th floor) in Wing II.  Any
possible location for Wing IV would not be close to any existing
elevators.

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com