Buildable {ish}

Brian and Alex

A smart, funny podcast cohosted by a structural engineer and a project manager – two professionals who live day-to-day in construction coordination. We take a candid, smart, and often humorous look at what really happens between design intent and finished construction. Each episode breaks down a common project challenge; misaligned specs, missing details, inspection surprises, field fixes, and the infamous “that wasn’t on the drawings” moment. Keywords: Buildable, Buildableish, Buildable ish, Build, Buildable(ish), Buildable (ish)

  1. 6d ago ·  Bonus

    Scope Gap: Housekeeping Pads

    Show Description Six inches of concrete. Six disciplines of denial. Housekeeping pads sound simple—until nobody knows who owns them. Brian and Alex dig into missing details, late equipment submittals, anchorage headaches, frost-depth surprises, and how a $500 pad becomes a five-figure coordination problem. Show Notes Who owns the pad? Mechanical identifies the equipment; architecture and structural coordinate its location and details—or assume someone else did.Equipment substitutions can turn a generic pad detail into an RFI.When a pad becomes a foundation Equipment loads, vibration, anchor embedment, and elevated slabs can require structural evaluation.Exterior pads may need frost protection and foundations—not just more concrete.The construction-phase surprise Changes to pad size or height affect drains, piping, clearances, and schedules.The concrete is cheap. Redesign, delays, and change orders are not.Key Takeaways Identify pad ownership early and coordinate across disciplines.Verify actual equipment loads, dimensions, anchorage, and support conditions.Solve design gaps before the concrete truck arrives. “The only thing harder than getting six inches of concrete poured is getting six design professionals to agree whose job it was.” Links & Contact Send your scope-gap stories and feedback:brian@buildableish.com Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/buildable-ish/id1869438323 Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/2mrLDMHmM9RuuSFfWpwwVH Follow Buildable(ish) on LinkedIn, Instagram, and X(@Buildableish). #Buildableish #ScopeGap #HousekeepingPads#StructuralEngineering #ArchitectureEngineering #ConstructionCoordination

    Scope Gap: Housekeeping Pads
  2. Oct 14

    Standard Details; The Most Dangerous Sheet in the Set

    Show Description The detail says “typical.” The building says otherwise. And somehow, the contractor is supposed to make it work. Brian and Alex take on standard details—the familiar sheets that make a drawing set look complete, even when the details have nothing to do with the building being designed. A wood-framed project somehow generates a welded steel moment-connection submittal. The question from the field? Where exactly are we supposed to weld it? From a Louisiana healthcare facility devastated by water infiltration tied in part to a misapplied roof-edge detail to obsolete manufacturers, decades-old welding references, and a wall section reportedly used as a floor detail, they explore how “we’ve always used it” becomes a very expensive design criterion. They also dig into what happens when typical details ignore installation sequence, trade interfaces, tolerances, and the actual conditions in the field—and why “contractor to coordinate” is not a substitute for design. Because standard details are useful. Unquestioned standard details are dangerous. If you’ve ever found a detail in your set and wondered which project it escaped from…this episode is for you. Show Notes Chapter 1 – Copy, Paste, and Pray · Why old CAD and Revit detail libraries keep getting carried forward without meaningful review. · The Louisiana roof-edge detail that contributed to severe water infiltration in an evacuated healthcare facility. · The manufacturer named in a detail that had been out of business for more than 15 years. · How changing codes, materials, and building assemblies make once-valid details obsolete. · Why a full sheet of details can create an illusion of coordination. Chapter 2 – Field Meets Fiction · A steel connection detail on a building without structural steel—and the resulting fabrication submittal. · Welding requirements referencing a 1981 code long after construction practices had changed. · The story of a wall section reportedly applied as a floor detail. · Why “typical” gets treated as universal when conditions and interfaces vary. · Constructability problems involving trade conflicts, tolerances, tools, and installation sequence. Chapter 3 – The Gap Nobody Owns · What happens when the drawings, specifications, and actual construction conditions disagree. · How vague notes such as “contractor to coordinate” shift questions without resolving them. · Why “unless noted otherwise” does not identify where a typical detail truly applies. · How unresolved assumptions become RFIs, field fixes, change orders, and disputes. Chapter 4 – Standardize Smarter · Audit standard detail libraries instead of treating them as permanent, approved content. · Assign ownership and update details for current codes, products, and construction methods. · State the conditions and limitations for using each detail. · Coordinate across disciplines and review details for actual constructability. · Capture field corrections so the same mistake does not become next year’s standard. Key Takeaways · A standard detail is a starting point—not proof that it belongs on the project. · “Typical” does not eliminate the need to verify geometry, materials, codes, and interfaces. · A detail can be perfectly drafted and completely wrong for the building. · If a field fix exposes a library problem, correct the library—not just the project. · Standardize the process of checking details, not the habit of copying them. Links & Contact Listen: Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/buildable-ish/id1869438323 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/2mrLDMHmM9RuuSFfWpwwVH?si=4c57b988b1174f1d Website: https://buildableish.com Follow and share Buildable (ish) on X, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

    Standard Details; The Most Dangerous Sheet in the Set
  3. Oct 7 ·  Bonus

    Hold for Clarification: See Architectural

    “See Architectural.”Two words. Three disciplines. Zero answers.In this Hold for Clarification minisode, Brian and Alex follow one of the AEC industry’s favorite coordination loops: Structural says see Architectural, Architectural says see Mechanical, and Mechanical sends you right back toStructural.From a housekeeping pad that nobody quite owned to an RFI for a duct penetration that spent a week circulating between disciplines, they look at when a cross-reference actually helps—and when it becomes a polite way to avoid making a decision.Because a good reference should lead to an answer, not a scavenger hunt. And coordination by RFI referral is not coordination. Leave feedback for Brian and Alex brian@buildableish.com Follow us on LinkedIn – Buildable(ish)Instagram – Buildable(ish)X – @Buildableish Show Notes When “See Architectural” Works Across-reference should point to information clearly owned by another discipline.Reference an exact sheet, detail, section, note, or schedule—not an entire drawing set.The reference should make the next step obvious and preserve the design intent. When the Reference Becomes a Roundabout Structural → Architectural → Mechanical → Structural: everyone provides direction, but nobody provides the answer.A housekeeping pad exposes the gray area between equipment requirements, room layout, and structural support.An unanswered coordination item becomes an RFI, then a schedule problem, then potentially a change-order discussion. Who Actually Owns It? Most coordination failures live at discipline boundaries where ownership was never made explicit.Assign responsibility for overlap items early and resolve the gray areas during coordination meetings.Project managers should treat unresolved references as project risks and close the loop before construction. Takeaways Use specific references that lead to actual information.Do not use a cross-reference to transfer responsibility or postpone a decision.Coordinate internally before issuing an RFI response involving multiple disciplines.Ask whether a contractor—or a fresh set of eyes—could actually build from the information provided.If you would not want the note quoted back to you in an RFI six months later, resolve it now. “Am I helping someone find information, or am I helping myself avoid a decision?” This episode is part of our Hold for Clarification series – short dives into the phrases that sound helpful but create chaos in construction documents.

    Hold for Clarification: See Architectural
  4. Sep 30

    Submittals are Approval Theatre

    Show Description “You approved it.” Few phrases make a design professional regret picking up the phone faster. Brian and Alex take on submittals—the supposedly straightforward process of confirming that what the contractor intends to provide is consistent with thedesign. Except somewhere between “reviewed,” “approved as noted,” and “no exceptions taken,” a review stamp can start to look a lot more powerful than it actually is. From delegated design packages missing critical criteria to substitutions that are only spiritually similar to the specified product, they explore how incomplete information, strategic highlighting, schedule pressure, and scope gaps turn submittal review into approval theatre. They also dig into what happens when the material is already on site—or worse, already installed—before anyone finishes asking whether it actually works. Because submittals are supposed to verify the design, not finish it. And a stamp doesn’t make it right. It just makes it traceable.  Links & Contact Website– buildableish.comEmail – brian@buildableish.comLinkedIn – Buildable(ish)Instagram – Buildable(ish)X – @Buildableish Show Notes Chapter 1 – What Did We Actually Approve? What submittals are supposed to do—and why they are verification tools, not another design phase.The difference between “approved,” “reviewed,” and “no exceptions taken.”Why a review stamp does not transfer responsibility for every dimension, connection, and detail.Delegated design and the importance of clearly defining loads, criteria, interfaces, and design intent.What happens when the submittal exposes information that should have been resolved in the construction documents.  Chapter 2 – Where It Starts to Drift Vendor substitutions that look close enough until someone checks the thickness, installation method, maintenance requirements, or downstream impacts.“Strategic submittals” that highlight favorable information while leaving critical loads, dimensions, connections, or clearances unresolved.Why missing information cannot simply be filled in with assumptions.Scope gaps hiding at the interfaces between equipment, supports, structure, and other trades.How “we need this today” turns schedule pressure into review pressure.  Chapter 3 – Where It Breaks The inevitable field response: “But we built what you approved.”What happens when a missing dimension gets filled in during construction instead of clarified during review.Materials arriving—or being installed—while the submittal is still under review.Why retroactive approval changes the question from “Is this correct?” to “Can we live with what is already here?”How discipline-by-discipline reviews can miss the coordination problem between them.  Chapter 4 – Beyond the Stamp Define exactly what the review covers and use consistent response language.Do not rely on submittals to complete an unfinished design.Review for coordination—not just technical compliance within one discipline.Reject incomplete submittals instead of allowing the schedule to manufacture an approval.Document changes outside the submittal process when they modify the actual design.  Key Takeaways Submittals are verification tools, not design tools.A review stamp does not make incomplete information complete.Schedule pressure should not determine technical acceptance.Delegated design still requires clear design criteria and coordination with the Engineer or Architect of Record.\If something matters, show it, coordinate it, and document it.A stamp doesn’t make it right. It just makes it traceable.

    Submittals are Approval Theatre
  5. Sep 23 ·  Bonus

    Redlines & Regrets: Dig Here

    Show Description “The survey covered it.” Four words that can get very expensive once somebody starts digging. In this Redlines & Regrets minisode, Brian and Alex dig into surveys, assumptions, and the dangerous gap between what a survey actually investigated and what everyone assumes it investigated. From utility survey quality levels and buried limitations to a geotechnical boring that found an eight-inch water main the hard way, they look at what happens when confidence replaces verification. Because a completed survey does not mean a complete understanding of the site—and the ground doesn’t care what everyone assumed. Listen here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/buildable-ish/id1869438323 Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/2mrLDMHmM9RuuSFfWpwwVH?si=4c57b988b1174f1d Show Notes Signs you may be digging on an assumption: Everyone says “the survey covered it,” but nobody has read the scope.Missing information is treated as proof that nothing is there.Designers, contractors, and owners assume someone else verified the critical information.Survey limitations and exclusions never make it past the report. Why it happens: Different surveys answer different questions.Budget, schedule, technology, and investigation methods limit what can actually be found.Survey scope gets lost as information moves between owner, consultant, designer, and contractor.Confidence grows each time the information changes hands—even when verification does not. What happens in the field: A geotechnical boring finds an eight-inch water main that wasn’t shown.An excavator finds a buried gas line with a metallic “tunk” and a very loud whistle.Repairs, traffic control, delays, meetings, and finger-pointing replace the original project plan.Everyone finally reads the scope after the damage is done. Takeaways: Define the survey scope around what the project actually needs.Read the report, not just the exhibit.Understand what was investigated—and what was not.Verify critical information before excavation, not during it.Design with the information you have, not the information you wish you had. Lesson Learned: Don’t confuse a completed survey with a complete understanding of the site. This episode is part of our Redlines & Regrets series—short stories from the field where small oversights become expensive lessons. Each episode explores real coordination failures, design decisions, and construction missteps so you don’t have to learn them the hard way. Leave feedback for Brian and Alex brian@buildableish.com   Follow us on LinkedIn – Buildable{ish} Instagram – Buildable{ish} X – @Buildable{ish}

    Redlines & Regrets: Dig Here
  6. Sep 16

    Shafted

    Show Description It’s just an elevator project. Until the elevator needs two more inches. And those two inches are occupied by reinforced concrete. Brian and Alex take on elevator modernization—the deceptively simple project type where a moving box inside a shaft somehow pulls structural, architectural, electrical, fire alarm, life safety, and project management into the samecoordination meeting. From an elevator vendor asking for overhead clearance the existing building does not have to pits that need to get deeper, shafts that are nowhere near plumb, railsupports that do not line up with floor framing, and heavy machine-room equipment that still has to get through the building, they explore why elevator requirements can force the building to adapt around the equipment—not the otherway around. They also dig into the scope gaps that appear once the vendor defines the real requirements: rail attachments, pit ladders, sump pits, fire alarm recall, feeders, shaft lighting, access, machine delivery paths, and the inevitable “by others” note that nobody wants to own. Because the elevator vendor installs the elevator. Everything around it still has to work. If you’ve ever thought an elevator modernization was just replacing equipment inside an existing shaft…this episode is for you.   Website – ⁠⁠www.buildableish.com⁠⁠ Email – ⁠⁠brian@buildableish.com⁠⁠ LinkedIn – Buildable(ish) Instagram – Buildable(ish) X – @Buildableish    Show Notes Elevators are one of the few building systems where the equipment does not simply adapt to the building. Once the vendor’s actual geometry, tolerances, loads, clearances, and support requirements arrive, the shaft either works—or thebuilding has to change around the elevator. Chapter 1 – The Moving Box Dictates the Building Elevator projects that look simple in early design—until vendor requirements, existing conditions, and tolerances enter the conversation.Why existing shaft dimensions, pit depth, overhead clearance, plumbness, and squareness need to be field-verified before equipment procurement.Why rail loads, pit ladders, handrails, lighting, and other small requirements can become majorcoordination items. Chapter 2 – When the Submittal Arrives What happens when the elevator shop drawings finally reveal the real rail-support spacing, loads, attachment points, and tolerances.Why rail-support spacing may not align with floor levels—and how intermediate spreader beams or supplemental structure become necessary.Fire alarm recall, life-safety interfaces, testing, and the coordination that suddenly pulls multiple disciplines into the elevator project. Chapter 3 – Where Scope Gaps Go Vertical What the elevator vendor typically provides—and what remains the responsibility of the building and design teams.Planning how heavy elevator machinery actually gets from the loading dock to a machine room several floors away.Designing structural attachment points for elevator rails when the hoistway is shaft wall instead of masonry. Chapter 4 – Lessons from the Machine Room Field-verify shaft dimensions, pit depth, overhead clearance, plumbness, and squareness before equipment is purchased.Plan equipment delivery and replacement routes as part of the design—not as a construction-day problem.Remember that a dimensional problem measured in inches can become a structural problem measured in weeks of redesign. Key Takeaways Elevator modernization is a building-coordination project, not just an equipment replacement.The existing shaft should be measured and verified before procurement—not after the new equipment arrives.Pit depth, overhead clearance, shaft geometry, rail loads, and support locations can turn small dimensional differences into major structural work.Heavy elevator equipment still needs a realistic path through the building to the machine room, and that path may require structural review or temporary shoring.

    Shafted
  7. Sep 8 ·  Bonus

    Hold For Clarification: Verify in Field

    It sounds responsible. It’s on renovation drawings everywhere. And sometimes…it means nobody actually checked. In this Hold for Clarification minisode, Brian and Alex unpack “Verify in Field” and the difference between using field verification to manage uncertainty and using it to avoid doing the investigation. From a beam that existed four feet from where the drawings showed it to decades of renovations, buried conditions, scans, record drawings, and the surprises waiting behind walls, we dig into why “could not verify” and “did not verify” are not the same thing.   Show Notes The phrase assumes: ·      Someone has already investigated what can reasonably be verified. ·      The drawings clearly identify what remains uncertain. ·      The contractor knows what must be confirmed before fabrication or installation.   In practice, it becomes: ·      A disclaimer attached to an assumption. ·      A decades-old dimension copied one more time. ·      A surprise waiting for demolition.   Takeaways: ·      Verify what can reasonably be verified during design. ·      Clearly distinguish “could not verify” from “did not verify.” ·      Use scans, record drawings, photos, and site investigation as tools—not proof. ·      If field verification affects fabrication or installation, say what must be verified and when.   “The drawings may show confidence. The building gets the final word.”   This episode is part of our Hold for Clarification series – short dives into the phrases that sound helpful, but create chaos in construction documents.   Leave feedback for Brian and Alex brian@buildableish.com   Follow us on Linked-in – Buildable{ish} Instagram – Buildable{ish} X - @Buildable{ish}

    Hold For Clarification: Verify in Field
  8. Sep 2

    Designing Around a Ghost Vendor

    Episode 014 – Designing Around a Ghost Vendor Show Description The drawings need exact dimensions. The vendor won’t give them to you. And the project still has to go out. Brian and Alex are joined by returning guest Emilie Diggs to talk about what happens when a design team has to coordinate highly specific equipment before theequipment—or sometimes even the vendor—has actually been selected. Using a surgical renovation as the backdrop, they dig into the uncomfortable gap between procurement and physical reality. Surgical booms, C-arms, integrated manifold systems, ceiling heights, structural supports, clearances, vibration criteria, power, cooling, and shielding all require real information. But when procurement rules keep the vendor at arm’s length, the design team is left trying to turn assumptions into construction documents. From a surgical boom that drifted into a patient because its center of gravity changed to an MRI that briefly matched the resonant frequency of the floor, they explore what happens when the equipment that eventually arrives isn’t quite the equipment everyone designed around. Because procurement can tolerate ambiguity. Physics cannot. If you’ve ever designed around a basis of design that was unofficial, hypothetical, or mostly based on hope and a PDF…this episode is for you. Links & Contact Website – ⁠⁠www.buildableish.com⁠⁠ Email – ⁠⁠brian@buildableish.com⁠⁠ LinkedIn – Buildable(ish) Instagram – Buildable(ish) X – @Buildableish Show Notes Chapter 1 – The Basis of Design Without a Basis Why equipment procurement and design schedules rarely line up perfectly.What a basis of design is supposed to provide—and what happens when it can’t be confirmed.Designing surgical spaces around equipment dimensions, clearances, mounting requirements, shielding, power, cooling, and air-change requirements.Why reference sheets and approximate dimensions aren’t enough when tolerances are measured in fractions of an inch.How changing vendors—or even changing surgeons—can change the equipment requirements.Why rapidly changing medical technology makes early equipment decisions even more complicated. Chapter 2 – Physics Doesn’t Care About Procurement The surgical boom that drifted into a patient after an equipment attachment changed its center of gravity.Why equipment weight is only part of the structural problem.Boom reach, eccentric loads, deflection, vibration, and mounting geometry.The MRI that briefly matched the resonant frequency of the floor during startup and shutdown.Why seemingly minor differences between equipment models can affect structural supports, ceilings, lighting, manifolds, clearances, and entire rooms.What happens when the real equipment finally arrives and the assumptions don’t match. Chapter 3 – When Neutrality Meets Buildability Why an owner may have legitimate reasons for delaying equipment selection.Balancing procurement fairness, funding, technology changes, and the risk of appearing to favor a particular vendor.How procurement ambiguity migrates into scope, schedule, budget, coordination, and construction.Why vendor drawings need to be reviewed carefully for warnings, exclusions, “by others” notes, and responsibilities pushed back onto the design team.Using equipment envelopes, performance criteria, and clearly documented assumptions when exact information isn’t available. Chapter 4 – Designing for the Unknown Designing to a credible worst-case condition when the final equipment is unknown.Creating adaptable support zones instead of relying on a single assumed mounting point.Putting critical assumptions where contractors can actually see them.Making future coordination a defined process instead of simply saying “coordinate later.”Identifying who owns each assumption and when it must be validated.

    Designing Around a Ghost Vendor

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
11 Ratings

About

A smart, funny podcast cohosted by a structural engineer and a project manager – two professionals who live day-to-day in construction coordination. We take a candid, smart, and often humorous look at what really happens between design intent and finished construction. Each episode breaks down a common project challenge; misaligned specs, missing details, inspection surprises, field fixes, and the infamous “that wasn’t on the drawings” moment. Keywords: Buildable, Buildableish, Buildable ish, Build, Buildable(ish), Buildable (ish)