Riveting: Steel technology, building codes, and the production of modern places

Martin, C E (1999) Riveting: Steel technology, building codes, and the production of modern places. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.

Abstract

This dissertation explores the ways in which changing technical requirements, industrial conflicts, and competing notions of technological, architectural, geographic, and social progress were implicated in early US building codes and building technology. Between the years of great urban fires and the Depression (1880–1930), Chicago and New York witnessed tremendous growth. Various groups debated how the cities' buildings would reflect that growth, and who would control building means and methods. These included urban welfare advocates, architects, civil engineers, contractors, and labor unions. These debates played themselves out in many ways, one being the technical form and content of building and building law. Indeed, physical artifacts, work practices, industrial strategies, technological visions, urban social ideals, and battles over city spaces were all connected through these practices. Codes also imparted more profound perceptions regarding the belief in technological advancement and the subsequent role of architectural progress in broader social change. Specifically, I trace the simultaneous growth in advanced building techniques in structural steel products and methods, technical building laws, and the records of professional building associations, labor unions, code officials, and urban welfare advocates from the 1870s to the 1930s in Chicago, New York and in national policy-making. Further, I link these technical, urban, and labor histories with contemporary spatial theory and construction practices. I suggest how historical accounts shed light on current debates over technological and social change in the building industry and urban environments. By assuming a historical and geographic approach to building technology within the practical environment of construction management scholarship, this dissertation balances many concerns. The work is divided into three primary projects that relate contemporary professional uses for building technology to its social and spatial study: (1) how building technology matters historically (to the industry and civil engineering scholarship); (2) how building technology matters socially (to work investigating the history and sociology of technology); and, (3) how building technology matters geographically (to urban and national histories, and to theoretical studies of spatial and architectural relations).

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Thesis advisor: Tatum, C B
Uncontrolled Keywords: sociology; building industry; building technology; labor unions; civil engineering; conflicts; policy; professional; architect; civil engineer
Index terms: work practice, urban environment, history, building code, building technology, social progress, civil engineer, New York, strategy, artifact, architect, building industry, dissertation, labour union, depression, national policy, sociology
Subjects: research dissemination and communication, profession, engineering systems, urban sustainability, public policy, architectural and construction history, management, economics, social theory, Geography, health conditions and diseases, sociology, communities and social development, regulatory law, industry analysis
Topics: Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Governance, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Organizational Design
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here