My Engineering Education

Trying to find your vocation in a crowded world is a difficult task. I feel very comfortable as an engineer, and I am glad I found something that fits so well. Unfortunately, I don't think many children understand what an engineer does, only what we help create. Explaining risk and consequences in the construction industry is advanced learning, well beyond stacking wooden blocks.

It takes a lot of work and schooling to become an engineer. You don't get to engineer anything until the very end of the educational process. A person cannot just start taking engineering courses in elementary school. It's a long process, and you must pay your dues.

Realistically speaking, the classes that "prepared" me for life as a professional engineer were my least favorite. Differential Equations, E&M Physics, computer programming, linear algebra, etc. These were courses I tolerated, but they held absolutely no appeal to me. I was not attracted to engineering because of the abstract mathematical principles involved. Far from it, I hated the homework that my professors handed out, assuming it was some arcane form of hazing.

Looking back, I can see how important those courses were in my development. I might still be an engineer without them, but an incomplete engineer with no chance of achieving any level of mastery. Now that I can honestly call myself a professional engineer, however, I readily call on these tools that I worked so hard to acquire. They are much more important than the fancy structural analysis programs that produce formatted reports and colorful graphs. The reason is simply that advanced mathematical knowledge gives one a better understanding of the physical world, and without that understanding one will never be able to innovate.

Many young engineers concentrate on learning skills they consider to be important in the industry. Finite elements, sustainable design, and historic preservation have been especially popular in the past few decades. Just as in previous decades it might have been statistical reduction, soap-film analogies, or proprietary truss designs. Remember to concentrate on the basics, remember to do your homework in mechanics class. You will never be forced to admit you have spent your life learning a skill the world no longer needs.

Sometimes I am asked what importance a Master of Science degree has for a young engineer. The answer is not clear. Just as with any aspect of life, you get out of it what you put in. If you are interested in a 1-year classroom focused degree (Master of Engineering or Master of Science Non-Thesis) and you go into it seeking a continuation of your undergraduate classes, then that is not a problem. You will be well rewarded and will see no loss of time required to get your PE license in most jurisdictions. Soon enough, graduate school experience will be required to even apply for a PE license.

On the other hand, a true Master of Science degree requires a substantial amount of time to devote to a thesis. A thesis is nothing more than your opinion on a difficult to solve problem. It is a great opportunity to wet your feet in the process of creating engineering knowledge. A PhD program is more like a headfirst dive off the top board (speaking merely as a spectator), so a little practice with an MS is probably a good thing.

If you are confused about where to apply for a PhD program (and somewhat for an MS), do not make your decision lightly. School reputation is important in some respects, but nowhere near as important as your ability to find a thesis/dissertation advisor who:

• has funding available for new students
• has a proven track record of graduating his advisees
• works closely with your topics of interest

You will be spending a lot more time with your advisor than anyone else in the school, so that is your most important consideration. Whatever situation you end up in, remember that it is now your own responsibility to ensure your work is completed and you move towards graduation. Graduate school can make you lose your bearings quite easily, so you must maintain a professional attitude and keep your eyes on the prize.

Going Green Requires Strong Leadership

In several trade magazines I have seen stories written to a business manager audience arguing that green/sustainable initiatives are worthwhile because they help attract and retain young engineers. Apparently young engineers have this concept in their unstable heads that they would like to help create a world that is more enjoyable and just.

I certainly agree with that, but I think young engineers are looking for something more important than the opportunity to specify pervious concrete on a future job.

What attracts and ultimately retains the best employees is the strong leadership and proven adaptability that firms need in order to make cultural transitions. Changing policies within an organization requires an effective leadership structure. Adaptability is very attractive to young employees. Nobody wants to work in a bureaucratic nightmare of a job where their efforts to make a difference are absolutely wasted.

When companies refuse to change or refuse to adapt to the realities of the industry, then it won't be able to attract nor retain quality employees. Hard decisions must be made, and in companies where nobody is able to make these decisions it is clear that the company is paralyzed by fear of action.

The important point here is that going green is just a tactic, but not a strategy, to compete for the best engineers. The marketing of green designs is only a fad; in 10 years from now it will be merely boring policy and yet another item on the code checklist. But innovative, bold companies will already be revising their image to adapt to the next big thing on the horizon.

American Dirt analyzes the Indy Canal Scene

I really enjoyed the latest article posted on American Dirt regarding the interaction of buildings with the canal downtown, so I wanted to give everyone another chance to go check out the new site.

The canal offers Indianapolis a great opportunity, but it has fallen short of the great public space that San Antonio's River Walk contributes to the city. We need the city to follow through on the promise of this space, it could be really special.

Connectivity, relationship, and transitional elements should be part of the solution. However, judging from the way that the city of Indianapolis cut off the river from downtown by building enormous municipal buildings set well back from the street with parking lots the size of a city block separating the river from downtown, I don't know if the city even knows how to address the issue effectively. Maybe this is their chance to get things right.

North Irvington Gardens Historic District

The North Irvington Gardens Historic District (wikipedia) is the part of the Indianapolis Eastside that is directly north of where I live. It is another great Indianapolis neighborhood, and is full of people. Technically, it is on the national register of historic places, but is not a locally registered historic district. This can sometimes be an important distinction, but it depends on what your own feelings on the matter are.

The only local blogger I could find was this website: Irvington Terrace blog. It isn't what I would call particularly active, but if you are a resident of the area maybe you can hint to the author you would like to see more, or maybe you know of another website/blog and can post a link in the comments section.

Two important businesses in this area are the Community East hospital branch and the Historic Steer-In restaurant. Only one of the two serves beer, so you can guess which one you are getting photos of...

Built in the 1950's, the Steer-In used modern design to stand out

The covered drive-in design still looks great

This is about as authentic a place as you can find

Steer-In has a limited but very good bottle beer selection

I am particularly fond of the stuffed pizza

Structural Engineering Childrens' Book

No, this isn't one of my strange ideas, it actually exists. R. Buckminster Fuller and a photographer collaborated on a book that, to my knowledge, is the only extant children's book (amazon) written from a structural engineer's point of view.


It is an interesting book, if not short and unfocused in its selection of quotes. I selected my favorite for the scan above "If you want to do something good for a child... give him an environment where he can touch things as much as he wants." I am not quite sure if this is something I will actually read to children or if it is something I read to remind myself that I was once a child.


R. Buckminster Fuller left a deep legacy, and definitely opened options for architects and structural engineers. The USPS issued a stamp for him in 2004 commemorating his contributions to society.

The Fallacy of the "Automobile"

The automobile has been an interesting development in the history of man. Replacing the horse with a machine that can propel itself has certainly given us some great opportunities.

While horses present an inconvenient form of transportation, the modern automobile doesn't exactly propel itself without needs. Whatever resources a horse may require, a car has a much more extensive list. Gasoline, parts, maintenance, and most importantly lots of roads. Sure its got an engine, but you won't get far without those trillions of dollars invested in our highway network. In the end, I find both horses and cars a great nuisance.

The freedom of transportation that a car offers is great, but the sad fact is that I am carrying 3,000 lb of useless metal with me everywhere I go. And then I have to find somewhere to park when I arrive. The parking issue becomes very important in large cities. This interesting post by frumination shows what NYC/Manhattan would be like if it was trying to accommodate vehicular traffic every day (via Infrastructurist). Basically mass transit is essential to a city like NYC. Just as elevators are essential to the development of tall buildings.

The US Bureau of Labor releases information how average US consumers spend their income. A recent graphic from Visual Economics summed it up quite nicely, we are spending over 1/6 of our income on car transportation each year.


A lot of people complain about the high cost of public transit system proposals, but it's obviously not more expensive than cars. If we assume that the entire population of Indianapolis, roughly 800,000 people, were to trade in their vehicles for public transit then we would free up ($8758/2.5)*800,000 = $3B per year to invest in other strategies. I bet we could find a solution with that level of funding. It won't ever happen, but it's not impossible to imagine.

American Dirt: Observations of Contemporary Landscapes

A new blog website has started here in Indianapolis, so I wanted to share the link.

AmericanDirt
Hometown: Indianapolis, United States
This blog concerns itself with the foundation of American dirt, regardless of where I claim to “live” at that moment. It is the playing field and landscape upon which all living participants tend to their own aspirations, leaving non-indigenous built forms which my aging digital camera hopes to capture.

For starters, I recommend the excellent post concerning the autocentricity of signage in downtown Indianapolis.

Portland Ranks Well in Urban Mobility Study

Texas Transportation Institute report on Urban Mobility ranks the major US cities in terms of rush hour problems, measuring lost time, lost money, and excess pollution generated.

I thought it would be interesting to contrast Indianapolis vs. Portland, two cities which have vastly different transportation strategies. A typical complaint in Indianapolis is the lack of a public transportation system. A typical complaint (or at least based on comments from internet forums) is that Portland's strategies focusing on alternative transportation methods only work because the highways are so underdeveloped that people have no choice but to get out of their car.

Admittedly, the cities are not very similar. But looking at urban population, the comparison is not unjustified. Portland's policies on urban growth boundaries increase the density of the city, but this comparison is just for fun so I'm not going to look too closely at how to adjust the numbers to account for differences in the two cities.So let us consult the ultimate arbiter, statistics. The cities have the following breakdown:

Portland (2007 report here)
urban population: 1,800,000 (24th)
density: 3333 /sq.mi.
metro population: 2,159,000
lost time rank: 20
lost money rank: 24
excess pollution rank: 24

Indianapolis (2007 report here)
urban population: 1,070,000 (38th)
density: 2098 /sq.mi.
metro population: 1,715,000
lost time rank: 34
lost money rank: 29
excess pollution rank: 30

Looking at the lost time ranking, you can see that both Indianapolis and Portland have slightly worse congestion than their city sizes would suggest. But obviously, both Portland and Indianapolis have been equally successful in their attempts to limit the effect of traffic congestion. Portland has invested heavily in alternative transportation infrastructure, while Indianapolis has expanded their highway system.

However, when you look at lost money and excess pollution generated, Portland seems to fare better than Indianapolis. Portland's ranking is on par with its size, whereas Indianapolis is generating much more pollution than its size should allow.

As we move closer to putting a price on CO2 emissions, I think the costs incurred by gasoline will continue to rise. Indianapolis' rankings will fall even further, meaning the city is becoming less efficient and less competitive for future jobs and employers.

Successful Renovation of Local Schoolhouse

My friend and colleague has just completed his renovation of a local historic schoolhouse into his residence. He and his wife worked very hard for over a year to finish the renovation and they definitely have something to be proud of.

The fully renovated schoolhouse sitting proud on a hillock

The schoolhouse halfway through renovation, geo-exchange loop being installed

The structure as initially purchased in early 2008

This structure was built in 1891 for an independent community outside of Indianapolis. It was originally a one room school but later split into a two room schoolhouse with a double sided fireplace in the middle.

The original building plaque sharing information about the structure

The small school system was later merged with a larger community, so the schoolhouse was repurposed into a fire station. Two garages were built to store the trucks. Eventually the schoolhouse was transferred to a private owner and used for different community events or as a residence, depending on the needs of the neighborhood.

Fire engines get larger as time passes, thus more garage space was needed

The eastern facade showing masonry construction, new windows, and a bathouse

My friend acquired it and acted as contractor, architect, and much of the manual labor. Key upgrades include new aluminum high-insulation windows and a state-of-the-art HVAC system. Exterior work involved new roofing for the main schoolhouse building and a lot of masonry patching. The attached garages are being used for storage at this point, but they will be converted to a game room and a car garage in time.

Vintage furniture, doors with transom windows, and high ceilings

A unique mudroom with space for washer/dryer and a pantry

The separate front doors once led to two individual schoolrooms

The interior renovations included furring out the masonry walls, installing insulation and drywall, and repairing any masonry issues. The original oak floors were sanded and refinished. A new kitchen made from all recycled materials was put in (and the granite for the island came from a prominent building downtown that was recently reclad). The 14'-0" ceiling height gives a definite loftiness and grandness that you don't find in many homes.

An apron farmhouse sink, cherry butcher block counters, and reclaimed cabinets were a cost-effective way to make the kitchen fit the context

A handmade island with recycled granite, vintage oven range, and plenty of storage options

The refinished floors of old-growth oak are priceless

New interior walls were installed to section off bedrooms, bathrooms, and a utility room. The bedrooms and bathrooms were furnished with vintage finds from antique shops or family pieces. The overall effect is very pleasant, everything seems to fit and there is a definite authenticity even though the building has been charged with a new life.

A typical interior door with 5 panel construction and a transom overhead

The master bedroom continues the themes presents in the remainder of the house, including tall windows, a high ceiling, hardwood floors, and vintage furniture

But as I mentioned earlier, the key upgrade in this renovation is the new HVAC system. A geo-exchange heat pump works during winter or summer, providing an efficient and inexpensive way to heat this old masonry building. The heating is distributed by a thermal radiant floor system using PEX tubing installed between the original wooden floor joists.

The basement showing wooden post and beam construction supporting the floors

Radiant floor PEX tubing was installed between joists and a reflective backing was installed to focus heat upwards

Supply and return lines feeding the tubing system

The water-to-air heat exchanger provides cooling during the summer and back-up heat during the winter

A full set of ducts were also installed for the cooling system and a back-up electric resistance heater is available for any nights that are especially cold. The heat pump is also connected to a water-to-air exchanger which can use the chilled water to blow cool air through the ducts.

The water-to-water heat exchanger provides heat for the radiant system

The final bonus is that waste heat generated during cooling months is deposited back into the hot water heater. There is very little energy wasted during the generating and distributing process, and the extra insulation in the walls and ceiling keeps most of it inside.

The potable water system uses flexible PEX tubing for distribution, and is sourced from a well next to the house

Future plans, in addition to renovating the garage spaces, include adding a full height library shelving system with rolling ladder, a circular staircase that would extend from basement (once finished) to the reclaimed attic/loft space. This will also open up room to install another bathroom in the main floor where the basement stair currently sits. But that work can wait for another day, as I am sure they are deserving of a little break from renovation work to enjoy the work they have already completed.

UDATE: The owner's Flickr photostream is here, if you want to see even more

Re-Burbia and the Perpetual Motion Machine

On August 10, 2009, the finalists for Dwell/Inhabitat's Re-Burbia contest were revealed. All of the finalists had invested a substantial amount of time in preparing their submissions. All looked impressive, most were interesting, and some were eminently practical.

However, I can't even begin to explain how upset I was when I came to the Vehiforce entry. This is nothing more than a perpetual motion machine. All of the energy needs of a suburban home can now be met by installing a machine in each garage that not only keeps a vehicle's weight bouncing up and down perpetually but actually extracts useful energy from the process.


Are you kidding me? A finalist?

Honestly, I don't fault the "inventor". Many people believe they can invent such machines, even famously brilliant people like Leonardo da Vinci. Unfortunately, the second law of thermodynamics prevents such a device. From the smallest atomic particles to the slow rotation of the Milky Way galaxy, no existing matter is capable of circumventing this law. Stephen Hawking even proved that Black Holes (singular gravity entities) follow similar rules. There truly is no such thing as a free lunch.

What made me upset and caused me such anguish is that the contest jury obviously had no scientific oversight, and probably lacked any technical experts. The contest hosts should be absolutely ashamed to allow this project to have progressed this far. The fact it was not killed immediately upon arrival proves that the contest was not judged according to its stated criteria of:

1. innovation and creativity
2. clarity of design
3. usability and practicality of implementation
4. originality
5. aesthetics
6. quality of solution

I can instantly see that the proposal should have been given a score of zero for criteria 3, 4, & 6. If I were on the panel and it was selected as a finalist I would have withdrawn my name from the jury, I would never allow myself to be associated with such a embarrassment. However, in the parlance of our times this can also be a good opportunity for a "teachable moment". Allow me to explain what made me so upset, and how everyone can avoid these issues in the future.

Make no mistake that the energy crisis is serious. It will define our future as a species on this planet. We have exhausted much of the easily retrieved energy that our planet had been storing in the form of petroleum. The energy in petroleum came from the same source that all usable energy on earth does - sunlight. Photovoltaic cells, wind turbines, wave power, hydroelectric dams, and photosynthesis all come directly from solar energy. Only nuclear power, geothermal, and certain chemical decompositions at the bottom of the ocean do not involve energy input from the Sun. Any future energy source must come from sunlight (or nuclear fission if you lean that way).

To summarize the relevant laws of thermodynamics:

• Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only shifted from one form to another
• Transferred energy must pay a tax to entropy

Basically, the usefulness of energy degrades as it is used. New, useful energy must come from an outside source (e.g. the sun). Useful energy can not be found in a garage unless someone is storing plutonium.

Once an energy source is found it must be converted to useful work. The most efficient process ever created would almost achieve 100% conversion from one form of work to another. Cars with internal combustion engines achieve about 20%-30% efficiency. They are not now, nor will they ever be a viable solution for our energy needs.

This is important because the source of the energy from a device such as a Vehiforce, if built, would be the car's engine. The design as drawn would never work. But, as suggested in the comments, it could be reconfigured as a linear system slowly lowering the car from a higher garage level to a lower one. This would be a ridiculously bad idea, however, as you would be wasting a lot of energy.


The car would drive itself up a ramp, stop on the Vehiforce platform, slowly travel downwards recapturing at most 1/3 of the energy used to get it up the ramp to begin with. The rest of the energy would be lost as useless heat out of the tailpipe and the engine. Thus, the Vehiforce would represent one of the most expensive, polluting, and inefficient ways to produce electricity.

As I stated above, our energy crisis is the most serious issue confronting our society right now. To award an important prize to such an idea as this is irresponsible.

What is needed is to break down the barriers of the design world. The innovators must combine forces with the technical experts. Design juries must involve some form of technical oversight to ensure feasibility criteria are met. This will encourage submissions from design teams that are broad based and experienced in design talent as well as technical talent.

Update from Irvington - Neighborhood Takes on Storm

The neighborhood of Irvington was hit by a powerful thunderstorm on Tuesday, August 4, 2009. Thankfully, this storm carried no tornadoes with it, but the high wind speeds were quite damaging. Downed trees, lost power, and a whole lot of rain kept the neighborhood on edge for most of the day. The Indianapolis airport clocked wind speeds of 67 MPH around mid-day, which is only a 5 year mean recurrence interval but definitely not your average thunderstorm.

No power in my house - but it could have been much worse

This piece of wood impaled itself into our lawn

When I arrived home after work on Tuesday, the neighborhood looked like a war zone. Severals streets were closed down and several crews were working to cut up trees. Our house on the north side of the neighborhood had lost power (and would be without for 3 days). I found three large branches on the roof, but the gutters seemed to be the only damaged parts of the house. There was some mad shuffling to get refrigerated goods into our neighbors' homes, but other than that it was just a quiet few days reading by candlelight until power was restored.

This poor tree was all but ready to fall over

The next day I explored a little more of the neighborhood. Our neighbors to the east lost their garage. Near South Aububon circle the Victorian Gothic house lost their porch (but could have lost much more). The circle itself lost a huge tree that crushed a car. On the east intersection an enormous forked tree split all the way to the ground.

A large tree on the circle causing mayhem in the streets

Bad luck

The heavy winds split the tree trunk

If you enlarge you can see where the tree bounced off of the tower...

... and landed on top of the porch

The city definitely helped restore the streets and clear debris, I was quite pleased with their reaction. There is still plenty of debris resting on the sidewalks waiting to be picked up, so hopefully this will happen before the leaves drop from the branches and start rotting.

Keeping an Engineer's Journal

One of the key things I learned in architecture school (in a former life) was to keep a journal with thoughts, ideas, and neat things you find walking around. You never know when inspiration will strike, so having a safe place to collect these flashes of insight is incredibly important.

The journal started in grad school is now retired

I have kept writing the journal, although it became an engineering journal when I switched majors. At that point, it became much more textual rather than visual, but I am a literal person so that made things easier. Now that I am retiring a journal and moving to a fresh clean one, a process that only happens once every few years, I wanted to share my thoughts about journal-keeping.

No editing allowed until the ideas are written down

Over the years I have accumulated plenty of things to write in my journal. Putting it down on paper helps to lock the concept into my brain, usually to the point where I never needed to consult the written words again. But it is essential to write it down, because if I ever lose the idea I can always go back to refresh my memory.

The new journal, a nice leather bound gift from the wife

Many of the ideas presented on this website were once just a line or two written in my journal. A high percentage of the ideas are abandoned because they can't all be winners. Essentially I agree with the quote "If you want to have a good idea, get lots of ideas".

Tabula Rasa

There is a level of self-editing that needs to be done, and the journal plays a key role. There is absolutely no editing in the journal, everything can be written down. Bad ideas are given just as much attention as prima facie brilliant ones. Preparing the thoughts to be presented on the website requires a much more significant effort, so in the end you only choose the topics that can be presented effectively and are actually interesting.

Architects are basically required to keep a journal in school. However, it doesn't even get a mention in engineering curriculums. It should. As an engineer, one's most important resource is creativity. Don't risk losing all those great ideas!

All About Stairs

For anyone not familiar with this website, please visit now and stay all day.

Stair Porn

And don't worry, it's just stairs...

Iconic Structures of Indiana: Bush Stadium

Bush Stadium from the southwest

Bush Stadium is a baseball stadium just Northwest of downtown Indianapolis. This ivy covered brick structure with a heavily styled Art Deco entry has been the home of several teams since construction in 1931, all of whom have had a major role in the sports history of the city. Legend says that Wrigley Field (1913) served as inspiration for the ivy covered walls and roof system of the Indianapolis ballpark.

(NOTE: the property is closed and there is no access to the interior of the stadium)

Bush Stadium entry pavillion

Typical exterior walls of Bush Stadium

The structure has been essentially abandoned since 1996 when the Indianapolis Indians team moved to Victory Field downtown. The Indians move wasn't such a bad plan, it consolidated the sports activities in the downtown area and created another destination in the central core. Victory Field and the Indianapolis Indians team offer one of the best baseball experiences available in the US, I love the current configuration they have. But as seen in a photos here and one from this link, Bush Stadium was quite sufficient as a baseball park and consolidating downtown was the reason for the move rather than obsolescence.

An aerial image from 1995, the last year that the stadium saw a full season

I wanted to concentrate on this structure for a few reasons:

• It is currently on HLFI top ten endangered list
  
• It has an exposed structural system, which always attracts my attention
  
• It has a great location near downtown and alongside the river
• I want to help raise awareness of the structure
  

Google Earth 3-d building model of Bush Stadium from the south

Google Earth 3-d building model of Bush Stadium from the southeast

The Indianapolis Star had a good descriptive article on this structure last year, but there was absolutely no call to action.

I hope that Indianapolis will find a reuse for this structure, but I don't think that the current owners, Indy Parks, actually know what to do with it yet. Historic preservation has never been too high on their list of priorities and they seem to be too comfortable with razing a significant structure just to acquire a clean piece of property. Indy Parks official position is that they are entertaining offers for the property, but that no "viable solution" has been proposed.

The current cost estimate for a rehab is $6.7M (and maybe as low as $5M). If you look at how much Lucas Oil Stadium cost (~$700M), you can see that a rehabbed Bush Stadium will cost significantly less. Bush Stadium holds 12,000 spectators compared to LOS' 60,000, so you get 1/5 the people for 1/100 the cost. No matter where you draw your money from, that doesn't seem like a bad value. Most importantly, you now have a stadium that nobody can compete with, an authentic art deco structure.

Ripken Design performed the restoration feasibility study sponsored by the Chambers Family Foundation. It seems that no action has been taken since the initial phase, probably everyone is waiting for the city to make a decision or put funding into place.

When you consider how distinct the authentic facade is, you can easily imagine adaptive reuse consultants having an easy time marketing this property. Even if not for baseball or softball or little league, other sports such as cricket, soccer, or a facility of IUPUI's choosing is possible. Many sports have devoted fans in need of small, yet upscale, stadiums to host championship games or tournaments.

Aerial image from 1937 showing arrangement as a baseball stadium

Aerial image as of 2005, after outfield was converted into the 16th Street Speedway

The entry pavillion is precast concrete with a metal awning. The cast reliefs probably refer to local issues set as mythological stories, which was a big hit in Art Deco days.

An art deco design relief (click for larger view)

Art deco relief showing original name of Perry Stadium

An Native American with ceremonial headdress and baseball equipment

The exterior windows are steel with divided lites. The awning and ticket counter windows give the impression of an old movie theater experience, which is probably not coincidental since they were also a burgeoning industry at this time. The management and operational facilities are directly above the ticket counter windows.

Awning above ticket counter booths with more design elements

Original gates to control traffic in and out of turnstyles

Turnstyles in main room of entry pavillion

Main room of entry pavillion with offices above the ticket booths (check out column details)

The vendors are no longer open but the signs are still hanging around

Beautiful desolation

Typical stadium ramp up to the seating area

A wild view greets anyone walking up the ramp to see the old playing surface

I don't know how the upper stadium boxes were accessed, but they appear to be a later addition that has not fared very well. On the other hand, the lighting towers are obviously original and look absolutely fitting in their function and appearance. The roof structure is steel trusses with some type of steel decking covering almost all of the seats. That in itself is a rare thing at any baseball stadium.

Left field of Bush Stadium

Right field of Bush Stadium

One of several enormous light towers

A closer view of the home plate area and the "luxury boxes"

Good view of the windows and ticketing areas

The stadium risers are concrete and look cast in place, supported on brick walls. There is plenty of room for vendors under the risers. The exterior walls have overhead doors at regular intervals, these are access doors for the vendor stands. It looks like one could just back a truck right up into the stall and sell out of the truck. At the very least, it makes loading and unloading a simple affair.

Old vendor stall with roll-up door

The roof is supported by a steel frame structure, likely a moment frame with rigid connections to the truss chords. There is some wood roofing materials falling down, but nothing extensive. The timeline of the stadium shows that public use was still being allowed as late as 2001. I refuse to believe that this structure which has been exposed to weather for 70 years would go from structurally sound to the brink of collapse in 8 years. It seems like a scare tactic to me.

View of the framing from the exterior, note the braced frames in certain bays

The tall steel columns are connected with built-up trusses acting as a rigid frame

Good view of the trusses supporting the roof members

Viewing the structure from the outside, it is clear that this building is still in serviceable condition, and reportedly sees some seasonal upkeep. An outfield wall recently collapsed, but those are typically unbraced at their top so not surprising this would happen while nobody is maintaining the brick. There are no signs of walls being out of plumb, no exposed steel rusted through, nor any evidence of serious degradation by water. Many of the reports reference structural deficiencies, but (at least from the exterior) it appears to be in great shape compared to many of the historic properties I have been in.

My impression is that the decision to leave Bush Stadium was political and the required maintenance of the structure was merely a convenient excuse. Instead of focusing their energy on a solution that would preserve the heritage of the city, the owners (city of Indianapolis) began describing the stadium as "crumbling" or "unsafe" and rapidly abandoned it to raise a new edifice in honor of their own leadership.

Bush stadium is in good shape, even if it does have a few problems needing to be addressed. Only a limited amount of graffiti is present. Many of the window panes are still in good shape, a rare phenomenon for an abandoned urban building. Looking at the above referenced renovation costs, I think it is safe to assume that most of that cost would not be structural issues, but rather M/E/P, accessibility, or "luxury booth" upgrades. Asbestos treatments may be a concern, but there are many structures where management-in-place policies have been very effective.

Looking even further into the future, the stadium is on a direct route from downtown to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Thus, a dedicated people mover could serve both facilities. In my opinion, this is a strong argument in favor of preserving it. It could become another great facility in the portfolio of Indianapolis sports venues. I wouldn't even be opposed to letting it sit for many more years and cultivating Indy's first set of urban ruins, to be celebrated in a picturesque way many decades from now.

I just hope that the city of Indianapolis understands that once something is lost, it is lost forever. In the end if we can't save Bush Stadium then it will be a sad day for us all.

ASCE Plans Green Design Certification Program

The latest news about sustainability in the engineering industry is from the ASCE Smartbrief entry about ASCE initiative. By the way, the smartbrief newsletter is a great service and I strongly encourage you to sign up. Back to the issue at hand... the ASCE Sustainability Task Force has decided to create a new program that will "certify civil works". The ASCE president wrote (see blog post here) the following to explain the reasoning for this action:

We believe that ASCE and civil engineers should be the ones who establish good practices related to civil works.
...
We went green long ago; we just did not take credit for it.
...
If we fail to act, many other professions will be happy to do it for us and impose their ideas on our practice. We know better than others how to use our skills to benefit mankind by creating energy efficient and environmentally sensitive projects. Now, we will do just that.

I am a big fan of sustainability and green design, but I don't know if ASCE's certification program is such a good idea. For starters, if they want to emulate the LEED program then they are about 10 years away from market uptake, and probably 15 years from market penetration (and that is no guarantee). It took the USGBC quite a bit of effort and time to achieve consensus on how to define sustainability, and even longer to market the program to construction professionals. To assume that ASCE can replicate this process in the same time period is ridiculous. This plan cannot be ultimately successful because we are already too late. We must lower our CO2 emissions quickly, I don't see this plan catching up to the LEED program in time to make a difference.

Also, Klotz's own blog post betrays the real state of our profession. "We went green long ago... Now, we will do just that" [use our skills to benefit mankind by creating energy efficient and environmentally sensitive projects]. So did we really go green long ago, or are we just starting now? Let's just say I'm not convinced.

Another problem is that the ultimate goal has nothing to do with sustainability, but "communicating that fact to the public". It sounds like a PR gimmick from ASCE. It also sounds like a "me too" plan that does not have any original thought involved. If the ASCE sustainability task force is truly interested in sustainability, why is their best and most exciting piece of news that they are reproducing a program that someone else already does well?

The next problem I see is that this program may not be compatible with LEED Accreditation. The USGBC has spent a lot of time and money making sure their own program promotes sustainability in the construction industry, but also social and ecological sustainability. Studying for the LEED program promotes a greater understanding of what other professionals in the design field are concerned about. If civil engineers withdraw from that process then we are losing the greatest benefit of the LEED program, and certainly not learning a key lesson of the past years. Integrate, don't isolate.

Klotz believes that "civil engineers should be the ones who establish good practices related to civil works" and that "We know better than others how to use our skills to benefit mankind". I actually don't agree. Engineers are technical specialists, we use applied science. Engineers cannot exist in a vacuum, we can't set design criteria without collaboration with other fields. ASCE cannot unilaterally decide how to balance life safety versus sustainable design goals, this requires a public debate involving others.

I haven't seen any of the proposal beyond this short release by the president, but to move forward quickly on this proposal would require a top-down decision totally within the ASCE organization. That would concern me as well. We cannot be responsible for setting criteria, designing our structures to meet those criteria, and then judging if we met our own criteria. That kind of system has no oversight and no motivation to raise the standards once they have been set.

Most importantly, it would represent a slap in the face of the other building designers (architects, mechanical engineers, etc.) who have been trying very hard to get us to work together. This "we know better" attitude is dangerous, and is the very reason that others are already trying to "do it for us and impose their ideas on our practice". If ASCE wants to effectively manage sustainability then we need to extend our arms to all of the building design team and start learning what the others need and how we can support their efforts. Trying to siphon off of USGBC's hard work for our own glory is not my idea of a good long-term strategy.

Obviously ASCE's Sustainability Task Force did not consult me before they made their decision, but here is what my advice would have been:

1. Look to support other initiatives that have already achieved success (LEED, Energy Star, etc.) rather than beginning a separate certification program. Put all of your effort into supporting those programs and finding a way to create synergy.
   
2. All members of ASCE's Sustainability Task Force should have achieved LEED AP status by now. LEED AP's all learn a common language and use that to communicate their goals effectively. Klotz himself has a real chance to be a leader by acquiring LEED AP+ status, showing that he is serious about the process.
   
3. ASCE needs to define what metric they are using to determine sustainability: CO2 emissions, energy use, money saved? I don't see the ASCE organization achieving internal consensus anytime soon, just look at the comments on the blog page. Few engineers even believe the IPCC statements about anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It will be an uphill battle to say the least.
   
4. ASCE should plug into the LEED program by determing baseline material needs for different building types similar to the energy baseline models used in the EA sections of the LEED programs. This would provide the most effective way for engineers to determine if they are truly creating sustainable designs or overbuilding all of their structures.
5. Start an open dialogue about conflict of interests in the construction industry. Should an individual engineer be able to receive pens, pencils, and other marketing packages from material suppliers that might influence their decisions? Should an engineer be allowed to work for the ACI, AISC, or any organization that makes money from the amount of materials sold? Engineers are not so different from other professionals in this regard, and AMA is addressing this issue right now.
   
6. Start asking professionals who are not civil engineers: "how can I support your efforts?"

Let me finish by saying I think that ASCE took a very important position by including sustainability in their 1996 code of ethics (see my earlier post & post about this topic). While it is wishy-washy language that would never hold up in an ethics investigation, at least they were trying. You can see how difficult this was for them to accomplish by checking the NCSEA model code of ethics. It is very similar to those of ASCE except that every provision regarding sustainability is noticeably absent.