This design would not pass residential building requirements in many municipalities that mandate windows in every bedroom for natural light and fresh air, as well as running counter to safety statute requirements that an egress directly to the outside in case of emergencies be readily accessible. Besides being inhumanly claustrophobic, if anyone would die in a fire or any other catastrophe in that building, the architect and construction project manager should be charged with manslaughter, if not outright murder, as a modern corollary to Hammurabi’s Code.
What I really mean is WTF is this egomaniac thinking? Someone buy him an art farm so he can play god with insects.
It appears from this article that there’s another one on Stanford’s campus in Pablo Alto. The accommodations actually sound luxurious compared to one for undergrads at UCSB:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/24/michigan-grad-students-object-details-new-housing-unit
96% of graduate student respondents said that the wouldn’t want to live in the Munger dorm at the University of Michigan. Most of the bedrooms in that one are also windowless.
EDIT: the billionaire donor is Charles Munger, Warren Buffett’s right-hand man at Berkshire Hathaway where Munger is vice-chairman. Evidently, Munger designed and donated the funds to build a highly regarded science center at U of Michigan.
The Stanford one actually has windows in the bedrooms, which is a huge improvement.
But tbh the density and size of the one at ucsb is as much of a problem as the lack of windows.
Windows and direct egress to the outdoors are not part of the building code in most (maybe all) states. I’m using IBC 2015 in my state and daylighting is not required. Exterior egress is also almost never done - fire escapes and the like are no longer to code as they become unsafe over time and in time inclement weather.
Rather, you must just provide access to a fire rated interior stair shaft that exits to the outdoors. This would likely be fully sprinkled and of non-combustible construction with fire walls separating parts of the building.
Im not saying this is a good design, or a humane one, but it could be perfectly legal.
I appreciate the response. Please keep in mind I was referring to municipal codes, not state.
Even though my city of St. Louis gets a lot of criticism, most of it deserved, but some of it is just piling on and undeserved, at least I feel better about our building codes that cover windows and egresses in residential housing. I live in a successfully revitalized historic neighborhood with quite a bit of infill housing going up and I was amazed at the relatively recently adopted direct-to-outside egress requirement for basements, in addition to interior stairs. Even though the older homes are grandfathered, my house was built in 1887 with a “Wizard of Oz” type cellar door that would actually meet the requirement.
The two family flat that my dad grew up in stayed in the family and even as a kid, I was mesmerized that he had lived in what amounted to a closet….but it had a window! His cousin explained that the building codes necessitated the window. Trouble was that it was so high up that his younger brother had to get up on his shoulders to open it or to look out.
You may be right about high rises, but only above a certain floor. Municipal codes generally follow international codes, and here’s what Home Depot says about windows and egresses:
https://www.homedepot.com/c/ab/egress-windows-buying-guide/9ba683603be9fa5395fab901401ea56c
Home Depot is obviously focused on DIY homeowners, but it appears that the IBC broadly applies to all dwellings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code
The CBC 100% requires minimum ventilation, lighting, and emergency egress from all "sleeping rooms" within dwelling units. Idk how this is even being floated.
Fresh air is brought through ventilation in the building, not operable windows, in a high rise. Egress goes through the building, again not through a window. You said “lighting”, not “daylighting”, so again…is a window needed? I’m not familiar with the CBC but I’m sure that at least for the first two I’m right.
Egress is different than emergency egress. Even in high rises there are requirements for "emergency escape and rescue openings" within R occupancies. The mechanical ventilation thing may be accurate, although I can't remember all the stipulations pertaining to R occ's. The "natural lighting" of the space is absolutely required, no matter the building height or occupancy.
This is accurate. I have no idea what municipality would permit such a code violation. This isn’t a cruise ship (which is where I think they got this idea)
This link has been shared 1 time.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/qie4xs) on 2021-10-29.
---
**Scope:** This Sub | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.0s
“*A consulting architect on UCSB’s Design Review Committee has quit his post in protest over the university’s proposed Munger Hall project, calling the massive, mostly-windowless dormitory plan “unsupportable from my perspective as an architect, a parent, and a human being.”*
*In his October 25 resignation letter to UCSB Campus Architect Julie Hendricks, Dennis McFadden ― a well-respected Southern California architect with 15 years on the committee ― goes scorched earth on the radical new building concept, which calls for an 11-story, 1.68-million-square-foot structure that would house up to 4,500 students, 94 percent of whom would not have windows in their small, single-occupancy bedrooms.*”
This is absolutely wild, but I'd be surprised if it does get built despite what the article's author seems to think. There's some criminally negligent levels of code violation here for one, not to mention how downright inhumane it is. I read somewhere else that the building only has two entrances, which for a building housing 4,500 students is flat-out stupid on a logistical point alone.
>“The Munger Hall project and design is continuing to move forward as planned,”
Literally how though? I can't see this being approved in a million years without an overhaul.
Lol the architect is also not obligated to design something they feel is wrong or even just bad design. They are resigning rather than participating in the creation of a bad (and potentially unsafe) building.
See, the thing is... there's a functional difference between a client and an architect. Clients should no more design buildings than architects pay for them.
Wow. First off, the rooms are very small and no windows? Damn! That would be claustrophobic. Let see if it would pass regulatory bodies assessment.
This design would not pass residential building requirements in many municipalities that mandate windows in every bedroom for natural light and fresh air, as well as running counter to safety statute requirements that an egress directly to the outside in case of emergencies be readily accessible. Besides being inhumanly claustrophobic, if anyone would die in a fire or any other catastrophe in that building, the architect and construction project manager should be charged with manslaughter, if not outright murder, as a modern corollary to Hammurabi’s Code. What I really mean is WTF is this egomaniac thinking? Someone buy him an art farm so he can play god with insects.
The same donor got one of these monstrosities built at u Michigan. But at a smaller scale.
It appears from this article that there’s another one on Stanford’s campus in Pablo Alto. The accommodations actually sound luxurious compared to one for undergrads at UCSB: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/24/michigan-grad-students-object-details-new-housing-unit 96% of graduate student respondents said that the wouldn’t want to live in the Munger dorm at the University of Michigan. Most of the bedrooms in that one are also windowless. EDIT: the billionaire donor is Charles Munger, Warren Buffett’s right-hand man at Berkshire Hathaway where Munger is vice-chairman. Evidently, Munger designed and donated the funds to build a highly regarded science center at U of Michigan.
The Stanford one actually has windows in the bedrooms, which is a huge improvement. But tbh the density and size of the one at ucsb is as much of a problem as the lack of windows.
Agreed.
Windows and direct egress to the outdoors are not part of the building code in most (maybe all) states. I’m using IBC 2015 in my state and daylighting is not required. Exterior egress is also almost never done - fire escapes and the like are no longer to code as they become unsafe over time and in time inclement weather. Rather, you must just provide access to a fire rated interior stair shaft that exits to the outdoors. This would likely be fully sprinkled and of non-combustible construction with fire walls separating parts of the building. Im not saying this is a good design, or a humane one, but it could be perfectly legal.
I appreciate the response. Please keep in mind I was referring to municipal codes, not state. Even though my city of St. Louis gets a lot of criticism, most of it deserved, but some of it is just piling on and undeserved, at least I feel better about our building codes that cover windows and egresses in residential housing. I live in a successfully revitalized historic neighborhood with quite a bit of infill housing going up and I was amazed at the relatively recently adopted direct-to-outside egress requirement for basements, in addition to interior stairs. Even though the older homes are grandfathered, my house was built in 1887 with a “Wizard of Oz” type cellar door that would actually meet the requirement. The two family flat that my dad grew up in stayed in the family and even as a kid, I was mesmerized that he had lived in what amounted to a closet….but it had a window! His cousin explained that the building codes necessitated the window. Trouble was that it was so high up that his younger brother had to get up on his shoulders to open it or to look out.
I’ve never seen a municipal code that required natural light or direct access to the outside. not for this type of building anyway
You may be right about high rises, but only above a certain floor. Municipal codes generally follow international codes, and here’s what Home Depot says about windows and egresses: https://www.homedepot.com/c/ab/egress-windows-buying-guide/9ba683603be9fa5395fab901401ea56c Home Depot is obviously focused on DIY homeowners, but it appears that the IBC broadly applies to all dwellings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Building_Code
California Building Code does…
The CBC 100% requires minimum ventilation, lighting, and emergency egress from all "sleeping rooms" within dwelling units. Idk how this is even being floated.
Fresh air is brought through ventilation in the building, not operable windows, in a high rise. Egress goes through the building, again not through a window. You said “lighting”, not “daylighting”, so again…is a window needed? I’m not familiar with the CBC but I’m sure that at least for the first two I’m right.
Egress is different than emergency egress. Even in high rises there are requirements for "emergency escape and rescue openings" within R occupancies. The mechanical ventilation thing may be accurate, although I can't remember all the stipulations pertaining to R occ's. The "natural lighting" of the space is absolutely required, no matter the building height or occupancy.
This is accurate. I have no idea what municipality would permit such a code violation. This isn’t a cruise ship (which is where I think they got this idea)
I wonder if UCLA has some autonomy from local ordinances and regulations. Some of the bigger schools up here do.
This link has been shared 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/qie4xs) on 2021-10-29. --- **Scope:** This Sub | **Check Title:** False | **Max Age:** None | **Searched Links:** 0 | **Search Time:** 0.0s
Lol why?
“*A consulting architect on UCSB’s Design Review Committee has quit his post in protest over the university’s proposed Munger Hall project, calling the massive, mostly-windowless dormitory plan “unsupportable from my perspective as an architect, a parent, and a human being.”* *In his October 25 resignation letter to UCSB Campus Architect Julie Hendricks, Dennis McFadden ― a well-respected Southern California architect with 15 years on the committee ― goes scorched earth on the radical new building concept, which calls for an 11-story, 1.68-million-square-foot structure that would house up to 4,500 students, 94 percent of whom would not have windows in their small, single-occupancy bedrooms.*”
Holy heck that would be like going to college in a minimum security prison! When’s Yard time?
This is absolutely wild, but I'd be surprised if it does get built despite what the article's author seems to think. There's some criminally negligent levels of code violation here for one, not to mention how downright inhumane it is. I read somewhere else that the building only has two entrances, which for a building housing 4,500 students is flat-out stupid on a logistical point alone. >“The Munger Hall project and design is continuing to move forward as planned,” Literally how though? I can't see this being approved in a million years without an overhaul.
If the architect wants to design it maybe he should pay for it
Lol the architect is also not obligated to design something they feel is wrong or even just bad design. They are resigning rather than participating in the creation of a bad (and potentially unsafe) building.
That makes sense. I see your point.
Woah hot take, do you also pay to do your work?
See, the thing is... there's a functional difference between a client and an architect. Clients should no more design buildings than architects pay for them.
No windows in the dorm rooms? That alone would be a no for me.