The first elevator in the United States was installed at Harvard University in 1874. It was not a passenger elevator as we typically think of today, but rather a freight elevator used to move heavy items within a building. The installation of this elevator marked an important development in building technology and transportation within multi-story structures. It was based on the design of Elisha Otis, who is famous for inventing the safety elevator with a safety brake system that prevents the elevator from falling if the hoisting cable fails. Otis’ innovation played a pivotal role in making elevators safe and practical for everyday use, leading to their widespread adoption in buildings around the world.
Elevator design by the German engineer Konrad Kyeser (1405)
Education communities are stewards of 100’s of lifts, elevators and moving walks. At the University of Michigan, there are the better part of 1000 of them; with 19 of them in Michigan Stadium alone. The cost of building them — on the order of $50,000 to $150,000 per floor depending upon architectural styling — and the highly trained staff needed to operate, maintain and program interoperability software is another cost that requires attention. All building design and construction disciplines — architectural, mechanical and electrical have a hand in making this technology safe and sustainabile.
We start with international and nationally developed best practice literature and work our way to state level adaptations. Labor for this technology is heavily regulated.
Its a rarefied and crazy domain for the user-interest. Expertise is passionate about safety and idiosyncratic but needs to be given the life safety hazard. Today we review o pull together public consultation notices on relevant codes, standards and regulations today 11 AM/EDT.
At the 1853 New York World’s Fair Elisha Otis amazed a crowd when he ordered the only rope holding the platform on which he was standing cut by an axeman. The platform fell only a few inches before coming to a halt; thus proving the safety locking mechanism he had invented will work. These elevators quickly became the type in most common usage and made vertical living possible.
Most large research universities have 100 – 1000 elevators that are highly regulated, maintained by highly regulated service personnel and inspected by highly trained conformance operatives; thus our primary interest in state-specific regulations. We have a secondary interest in innovation in the technology generally. Many sustainability goals urged in academic circles — which include greater population density in smaller areas — are challenged by mobility issues.
From the project prospectus:
“…The main feature of these products is that they are an integral part of industrial, residential or public buildings. Consequently, they should be adaptable to the technical and architectural constraints of such buildings. They must also meet the capacity requirements imposed by the intended use of the building. These products are considered as means of transport and therefore represent an essential component of the functional life of the buildings in which they are installed. Contrary to most public means of transport, they are intended for free use and operation by their passengers, which makes the integration of safety an essential concern…”
We maintain the work products of this committee on the standing agendas of our Mechanical, Elevator and Global colloquia; open to everyone. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting.
Michigan Stadium — the largest collegiate stadium in the world — has 19 elevators.
Today at the usual hour we sort through the NFPA stack for fire safety system aspects during renovation, alteration, or rehabilitation of buildings. Two sections come to mind:
Chapter 43 (NFPA 101): Building Rehabilitation
NFPA 241: Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations
Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
The Life Safety Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire. It is widely incorporated by reference into public safety statutes; typically coupled with the consensus products of the International Code Council. It is a mighty document — one of the NFPA’s leading titles — so we deal with it in pieces; consulting it for decisions to be made for the following:
(1) Determination of the occupancy classification in Chapters 12 through 42.
(2) Determination of whether a building or structure is new or existing.
(3) Determination of the occupant load.
(4) Determination of the hazard of contents.
There are emergent issues — such as active shooter response, integration of life and fire safety systems on the internet of small things — and recurrent issues such as excessive rehabilitation and conformity criteria and the ever-expanding requirements for sprinklers and portable fire extinguishers with which to reckon. It is never easy telling a safety professional paid to make a market for his product or service that it is impossible to be alive and safe. It is even harder telling the dean of a department how much it will cost to bring the square-footage under his stewardship up to the current code.
The 2021 edition is the current edition and is accessible below:
Public input on the 2027 Revision will be received until June 4, 2024. Public comment on the Second Draft 2027 Revision will be received until March 31, 2026.
Since the Life Safety Code is one of the most “living” of living documents — the International Building Code and the National Electric Code also move continuously — we can start anywhere and anytime and still make meaningful contributions to it. We have been advocating in this document since the 2003 edition in which we submitted proposals for changes such as:
• A student residence facility life safety crosswalk between NFPA 101 and the International Building Code
• Refinements to Chapters 14 and 15 covering education facilities (with particular attention to door technologies)
• Identification of an ingress path for rescue and recovery personnel toward electric service equipment installations.
• Risk-informed requirement for installation of grab bars in bathing areas
• Modification of the 90-minute emergency lighting requirements rule for small buildings and for fixed interval testing
• Modification of emergency illumination fixed interval testing
• Table 7.3.1 Occupant Load revisions
• Harmonization of egress path width with European building codes
There are others. It is typically difficult to make changes to stabilized standard though some of the concepts were integrated by the committee into other parts of the NFPA 101 in unexpected, though productive, ways. Example transcripts of proposed 2023 revisions to the education facility chapter is linked below:
Since NFPA 101 is so vast in its implications we list a few of the sections we track, and can drill into further, according to client interest:
Chapter 3: Definitions
Chapter 7: Means of Egress
Chapter 12: New Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 13: Existing Assembly Occupancies
Chapter 16 Public Input Report: New Day-Care Facilities
Chapter 17 Public Input Report: Existing Day Care Facilities
Chapter 18 Public Input Report: New Health Care Facilities
Chapter 19 Public Input Report: Existing Health Care Facilities
Chapter 28: Public Input Report: New Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 29: Public Input Report: Existing Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 43: Building Rehabilitation
Annex A: Explanatory Material
As always we encourage front-line staff, facility managers, subject matter experts and trade associations to participate directly in the NFPA code development process (CLICK HERE to get started)
NFPA 101 is a cross-cutting title so we maintain it on the agenda of our several colloquia —Housing, Prometheus, Security and Pathways colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting; open to everyone.
Issue: [18-90]
Category: Fire Safety, Public Safety
Colleagues: Mike Anthony, Josh Elvove, Joe DeRosier, Marcelo Hirschler
The purpose of the code is to establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of health, safety, property protection and welfare by controlling the design, location, use or occupancy of all buildings and structures through the regulated and orderly development of land and land uses within this jurisdiction.
CLICK IMAGE
Municipalities usually have specific land use or zoning considerations to accommodate the unique needs and characteristics of college towns:
Mixed-Use Zoning: Cities with colleges and universities often employ mixed-use zoning strategies to encourage a vibrant and diverse urban environment. This zoning approach allows for a combination of residential, commercial, and institutional uses within the same area, fostering a sense of community and facilitating interactions between students, faculty, and residents.
Height and Density Restrictions: Due to the presence of educational institutions, cities may have specific regulations on building height and density to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the character of the area. These restrictions help balance the need for development with the preservation of the existing urban fabric.
Student Housing: Cities with colleges and universities may have regulations or guidelines for student housing to ensure an adequate supply of affordable and safe accommodations for students. This can include requirements for minimum bedroom sizes, occupancy limits, and proximity to campus.
Parking and Transportation: Given the concentration of students, faculty, and staff, parking and transportation considerations are crucial. Cities may require educational institutions to provide parking facilities or implement transportation demand management strategies, such as promoting public transit use, cycling infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly designs.
Community Engagement: Some cities encourage colleges and universities to engage with the local community through formalized agreements or community benefit plans. These may include commitments to support local businesses, contribute to neighborhood improvement projects, or provide educational and cultural resources to residents.
This is a relatively new title in the International Code Council catalog; revised every three years in the Group B tranche of titles. Search on character strings such as “zoning” in the link below reveals the ideas that ran through the current revision:
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is a standards setting body which publishes specifications, test protocols, and guidelines that are used in highway design and construction throughout the United States. Despite its name, the association represents not only highways but air, rail, water, and public transportation as well. Its technical committees are responsible for route numbering recommendations.
Although AASHTO sets transportation standards and policy for the United States as a whole, AASHTO is not an agency of the federal government; rather it is an organization of the states themselves. Policies of AASHTO are not federal laws or policies, but rather are ways to coordinate state laws and policies in the field of transportation.
One of its consensus products — the so-called “Green Book” — is heavily referenced in campus design guidelines and construction contracts because most education communities exist within municipal infrastructure. Power, water supply, sewers to schools and campuses large and small all tend to follow transportation pathways. The Green Book is revised periodically, the 2018 Edition the most recent.
We do not advocate in this product at the moment but follow the movement in concepts relevant to education communities; notably the recent reorganization that emphasizes transportation of people, rather than focusing primarily on moving vehicles. A new chapter discusses multimodal level of service and puts greater emphasis on lower-speed, walkable, urban zones in which new mobility technologies are emerging (such as micro-scooters on campuses)
We maintain the AASHTO catalog on our Pathways, Zoning and Mobility colloquia. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting, open to everyone.
Today we examine the catalog of several ANSI-accredited, consortia and ad hoc standard developers with titles relevant to the planning, construction and management of the built environment of education communities nested within human settlements characterized by a high population density, extensive infrastructure, and various economic, social, and cultural activities. In other words, from the point of view of a campus as a “city within a city” with attention to infrastructure.
Several organizations and bodies in the United States that develop model codes and standards related to zoning and land use. These model codes and standards are often adopted or referenced by municipalities in their zoning ordinances. Here are some prominent organizations and their model codes:
Each of the foregoing titles have some bearing upon decisions about land use. However, keep in mind, that zoning regulations are primarily established at the local level by municipalities, cities, and counties, rather than through national standard bodes. These organizations and their codes provide guidance and best practices for zoning, but specific regulations can vary significantly between different jurisdictions. They are frequently incorporated by reference into regulations by governments at all levels.
Join us today with the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Here are some community colleges in the United States that are embedded within cities, offering students the advantages of an urban setting:
City College of San Francisco – San Francisco, California
Los Angeles City College – Los Angeles, California
Borough of Manhattan Community College – New York, New York
Miami Dade College – Wolfson Campus – Miami, Florida
City College of Chicago – Chicago, Illinois
Seattle Central College – Seattle, Washington
Austin Community College – Rio Grande Campus – Austin, Texas
Houston Community College – Central Campus – Houston, Texas
San Antonio College – San Antonio, Texas
Portland Community College – Cascade Campus – Portland, Oregon
Washtenaw Community College – Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti, Michigan
These community colleges not only provide access to higher education but also offer the benefits of being located within major urban centers, including proximity to job markets, cultural institutions, and public transportation.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
.jpg)
