Engineering Influence from ACEC

A Closer Look at the First Ever Engineering Industry Profile

Joe Bates with the ACEC Research Institute and Jon Gray, Principal at Rockport Analytics joined the podcast to discuss the ACEC Research Institute's newly released industry profile of the Engineering and Architectural Services sector.
The first of its kind report demonstrates the significant contribution these sectors make to overall employment (3% of all US jobs), tax revenue ($44.7 billion) and direct economic impact ($229 billion).  Download your copy of the report today. 
 

The Omnibus, PPP and a Senate Flip: The ACEC Government Affairs Update for January 8th 2021

ACEC's Government Affairs team joined Engineering Influence for the first Government Affairs Update for 2021.
Make sure to like and subscribe to Engineering Influence so you never miss a weekly update from our GA team.

Discussing Embodied Carbon Solutions with Walter P Moore's Dirk Kestner

Dirk Kestner, who is Director of Sustainable Design and a principal at Walter P Moore, came on the program to discuss his firm's recent report Embodied Carbon: A Clearer View of Carbon Emissions and to talk about how the A/E/C community can account for embodied carbon in their design and construction decisions.
Click here to view the report.
Host:
Welcome to the Engineering Influence podcast sponsored by the ACEC Life/Health Trust. Today, we are talking with Dirk Kestner who is Director of Sustainable Design and a principal at Walter P Moore. The firm recently released a comprehensive report titled Embodied Carbon: A Clearer View of Carbon Emissions. Embodied carbon emissions occur before a building opens as opposed to operational emissions that happen over a building's lifespan. They include carbon emissions associated with extracting, processing, shipping, installing, and maintaining the materials used in the building. The UN Environment Global Status Report predicts that during the next 40 years, we will build 2.5 trillion square feet of new building stock, which is equivalent to replicating New York City every month for 40 years. To reach the greenhouse gas targets set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we must significantly reduce the embodied carbon of buildings constructed during the next 10 years and reach net-zero embodied and operational carbon soon after. The report outlines how complex getting to net-zero carbon will be, requiring a multi-pronged approach: a combination of design optimization, enabling dematerialization, decarbonization of the electrical grid, material impact optimization, and the inclusion of carbon sequestering structural solutions. So let's dive into it.
Host:
In your report, you write, "We must transition our design thinking from a linear approach where the end goal is the building to a circular approach where buildings are thought of as material banks for the future. The simplest way to reduce embodied carbon is to use less--either at the building scale or the materials scale. You add, though, that current design practice is to optimize based largely, if not exclusively, on the cost and time of construction. How do we change that mindset?
Kestner:
Well, thank you. Time and cost, in terms of dollars, will always matter and be very important. But what we're increasingly aware of is that are there these externalities that we need to capture and roll into this. We've seen some of that in the use of third-party rating systems, such as LEED or Envision or Living Building, where these elements that aren't classically captured--the environmental impacts that occur--are baked into the point structure or the part of the rating system, or even in the case of the Living Building rating system, where you actually do quantify your embodied carbon and then have to offset it through a series of pre-vetted offsets and pay a dollar amount to offset it. But we're also seeing some companies that are internally carrying a price for embodied carbon, that are asking for a team to look at the operational and embodied carbon, and then as they make their decision making processes, they're weighing that. And there are a few jurisdictions, and I think increasingly we'll see more that will carry a cost as well. Some of this mindset shift also relates to how we make some of these decisions that we've historically done, where we do think about economy in one way. Something as simple as concrete and formwork, where the labor costs of making different forms may have added more dollar costs historically, but now we could price the difference in terms of carbon of that added material and see how that changes the equation.
Host:
You address, the incredible complexity of identifying and quantifying embedded carbon in the building process. You write, "We are tackling a diabolical problem in a compressed timeframe. As with many engineering tasks, quantifying embodied carbon involves working with uncertain data. And in the case of embodied carbon uncertainty in these measurements stems from a variety of sources: material volume assumptions, using industry averages and different methodologies for developing impact factors, to name a few." How accurate can you be today? How accurate do you need to be? And looking forward, how accurate do you expect to be?
Kestner:
Right now? It's very hard to say that an estimate of embodied carbon in terms of kilograms of CO2 is within a certain percentage of "true embodied carbon." However, there are two things that are very important that we can do and where the imperfect assessments are very helpful right now. They can be directional and they will show us where the hotspots in our structures or buildings or infrastructure are. So with these current assessments and we can use comparative analysis and run different data sets through to bound it and come up with ranges, we're able to know enough to be able to take action and to ask questions about how we could optimize. Now in the future, we'll have to be far more accurate and we can prime the pump for that today by working with the ISO standards for life cycle assessment and the product category rules, the environmental product declarations, making sure that suppliers know that we will be asking for this and that we're working to enhance the framework for data consistency and transparency so that we will be able to make better comparisons in the future.
Host:
On that point there, what role does the engineer in a design team working with an owner have in setting standards for suppliers?
Kestner:
I guess it depends on how the engineer views their role at some level, the engineer as a specifier. Every engineer will not. But because we understand the importance of making these comparisons, we need to be part of shaping that ecosystem, if you will, of data collection and how to act on the data. But I could see that being debated with an engineer saying, "What's in my scope or what's not."
Host:
You highlight the strategy of dealing with the biggest embedded emitters first, and the biggest is concrete. You write that "Manufacturing concrete is an extremely carbon-intensive process that accounts for 4.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, or 8% of the world's total global carbon emissions each year, making it the world's second-largest CO2 emitter. The first step to reducing the carbon impact of concrete that should be done on every project, every time is to optimize Portland Cement usage." Another big opportunity though is reducing the amount of cement in concrete. You highlight some current cement alternatives, such as fly ash. Looking into the future, what advances do you expect in this area?
Kestner:
The area where we see the most advancement is in that binder--the glue that holds the rock together in concrete. And we're seeing some very interesting research right now at the university and academic level related to organic processes that can lead to compounds that can hold the rock together and perhaps even sequester CO2 in the process. While we see that in the long term and in the future, there's a number of steps that should be taken today as far as concrete, as far as optimization, that we don't need to wait for. And some of this relates back to some really basic steps, such as making sure that we are using performance specifications appropriately, minimizing the use of prescriptive specifications, having environmental performance specific specifications for concrete, as well as making sure that we're having deep dialogues with all members of the construction team, including the ready-mix supplier, about what is driving the cement content of the concrete today--whether it's a requirement that's put on by the specifying engineer, one related to achieving construction or pumping or something like that, or something related to the local aggregate that's available. There's also a lot of innovation going on within the manufacture of cement, such, uh, Portland limestone cements, or other cements that are still cement, but are less carbon-intensive.
Host:
Steel is another primary construction material. And it has a different problem because much of the carbon emissions are due to its high reliance on electricity to transform the raw material into its structural form. You say that we can expect some relief due to the projected increase in renewable resources in our electrical generation, from 18% in 2018 to 31% of generation by 2050. Are there other near-term ways to reduce the impact of the electrical grid on the embedded carbon in our building?
Kestner:
Yes, there's a great opportunity for materials that consume a lot of electricity in their manufacture. And that is that we know how to make renewable energy, and it can be a matter of incentivizing and understanding how suppliers who have these electrical intensive materials can drive the market to supply more renewable energy. One of the best ways that a specifier could do that is to ask for embodied carbon information in the form of an EPD from suppliers of these materials. If, then, it's the case that a large portion of their impact is tied to the electricity that goes into their product, that gives them a very straightforward, though not necessarily easy, way to reduce the embodied carbon of that material. So as specifiers, we don't have to wait for the grid to decarbonize over time; we can play a part in creating an incentive for that.
Host:
You dedicate quite a bit of space in the report to reuse. Obviously reusing a building, rather than building a new one, will substantially reduce the embodied carbon--as well as offer opportunities to improve the operational carbon performance of that building. But you also point to reusing materials that have already been made. For example, you report that construction and demolition waste represents approximately 40% of everything thrown away in the U.S. each year, and that most of that material could have been recycled or reused, but many regions don't have the infrastructure--and I might add the incentive--to effectively reuse. How do we get there?
Kestner:
Some of this comes back to where we started our conversation, with the externalities, and making sure we carry the cost of that material that would go into the landfill and is not reused to show teams and show owners that there can be latent value in those materials. In some ways, as we start to design buildings for deconstruction, and we think about an existing building not just as a building, but as a material bank or something where there is a carried value, that will help. And we can help as we document buildings to show how they are able to be deconstructed and to let the owner understand that there's value there. But the other part is making sure that we have an infrastructure and a supply chain to make those connections for that material that right now goes into the landfill. To show that once you're able to understand what's there, to understand where it might go, that there's a pathway, and that someone who's looking for this material can use it.
Kestner:
So that creates value in that material. But sometimes it's as simple as having a warehouse or having a space for that material to sit, just because it can take time from when it comes out of the building to when it would go into the next one. A great example of that, that's highlighted in the report, is our involvement in the Life Cycle Building Center in Atlanta, a nonprofit, but where a group of designers came together based on occurrences and shortcomings of future projects and identifying that need in past projects to be able to have a space and make those connections from a material that was coming out of one building and could go into the next.
Host:
Materials that can store carbon dioxide will be a key to offsetting the emissions from the other materials in buildings. Timber is the most obvious structural material that can sequester carbon dioxide. Although you make the essential point in the report that we must consider not only the carbon sequestration of the wood, but also the impacts that come from harvesting, milling, and shipping this product, given the importance of carbon sequestrating materials for achieving net-zero, do we start using more wood construction? And are there other sequestrating materials available now, or that you expect to come available in the future?
Kestner:
I do believe that with the advent of technologies like cross-laminated timber, we will continue to see timber construction in ways and locations that we historically had not. But it's also very important to remember, as you correctly mentioned, that even for timber construction, there's a number of steps along the supply chain where we are emitting CO2. So the act of measuring the total CO2 for the project, and then looking at what's causing the CO2 emissions, even in that timber building, and how we can make those reductions is very, very important. When we look at some of the mass timber buildings that we're currently designing, every floor has 2-1/2 to 3 inches of concrete on it. So it's important as we are using the timber to store CO2, that we're also thinking about the emissions from those other materials. There's some very interesting research going on on other living and sequestering materials at the Living Materials Laboratory at CU Boulder, with Wil Srubar. They're looking not only at things like cellulose=based composites, but biopolymers and biogenic cements, so that we could have sequestration, not only in timber, but in all those other materials that we use in construction.
Host:
Finally, at the beginning of your report, you referenced the World Green Building Council's report, which is called Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront, in which, and I'm quoting here, "They embraced a bold vision that by 2050 new buildings, infrastructure and renovations will have zero-net embodied carbon, and all buildings, including existing buildings, must be net-zero operational carbon. How optimistic are you about achieving that?
Kestner:
I'm optimistic. It's a bold vision, and it may seem quite aggressive right now, but I'm also always amazed at what we can accomplish when we get a bunch of smart engineers together, working on an identified problem. It really has only been the past couple of years, perhaps two years, that we've seen broad awareness of embodied carbon in the A/E/C space. And we're seeing a number of different technologies that are emerging to address this. And we're also seeing teams go back, and by studying and measuring embodied carbon and having this as a metric that we're looking at, challenge past assumptions. So I'm optimistic, and I think it will be a combination of both rethinking some very classic things we do, as well as some new technologies that will be developed.
Host:
Great. That's a happy way to end. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk with us today.
Kestner:
Thank you for the opportunity.
 

A Conversation with Barge Design Solutions, the 2020 Grand Conceptor Recipient

Engineering Influence welcomed Carrie Stokes, Senior VP and Director of Site Solutions and Tom McComb, Senior Geologist and Senior Project Manager from Barge Design Solutions to the show to talk about their work on the 2020 EEA Grand Conceptor, the Cooperhill Watershed Restoration Project.
The Copperhill Watershed Restoration Project in Ducktown, Tenn. won the year’s 2020 “Grand Conceptor” Award at the Engineering Excellence Awards Gala earlier this month, signifying the year’s most outstanding engineering achievement.
A video about the project can be found here.
Designed by Barge Design Solutions in Nashville, the 20-year restoration project transformed a 50-square-mile site, severely damaged from more than a century of logging, mining and acid production, into a lush, clean and natural wonderland where residents now enjoy fishing, swimming and hiking.
Restoration efforts included disposal of mining waste, construction of clean-water diversions, re-establishment of natural, healthy communities of aquatic insects; and construction of new contaminant-filtering wetlands.
Before the restoration, the contaminated site was one of only two manmade features astronauts could see from space, along with the Great Wall of China.
 
Related links: 
www.bargedesign.com
https://ducktownbasinmuseum.com 
https://www.acec.org/awards-programs/engineering-excellence-awards/ 
 

Engineering and Nature with the Engineering Change Lab

The podcast welcomed back Mike McMeekin with the Engineering Change Lab to discuss the intersection of engineering and the environment with guest Jennifer Molnar, Lead Scientist & Managing Director, Center for Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy.
Engineering Change Lab - USA (ECL-USA) is a new non-profit that is focused on the future of engineering. ECL-USA’s mission is to be a catalyst for change within the engineering community, helping it contribute at the highest possible level in addressing the challenges of the 21st Century.
ECL-USA has now held nine summits over the last three years. Each summit is a deep dive into an issue that will impact the future of engineering. The summits include a combination of learning from thought leaders, or provocateurs, along with small group and large group exercises and discussion.
The concept of Environmentally Responsible Engineering has been a topic at two recent summits. ECL-USA’s recent virtual summit explored what it takes to lead the work of environmentally responsible engineering through the stories of leaders actively engaged in this type of work.
One of the provocateurs for this session was Jen Molnar, Lead Scientist & Managing Director, Center for Sustainability Science, The Nature Conservancy. Jen Molnar’s work at The Nature Conservancy (TNC) revolves around her desire to combine her environmental engineering background with a deeper involvement with nature to address environmental challenges.

Dodge Chief Economist Richard Branch on his 2021 Economic Forecast

Dodge Data and Analytics Chief Economist Richard Branch joined the Engineering Influence podcast to discuss his 2021 economic and construction market forecast.
 
Host: Welcome to the Engineering Influence podcast sponsored by the ACC Life/Health Trust. With us today is Richard Branch, chief economist for Dodge Data and Analytics. A couple of weeks ago, Richard released Dodge's 2021 economic and construction market forecast. And he's joined us to delve into the numbers. Richard, welcome to the podcast. Click here to purchase the  Dodge Construction Outlook 2021.
Branch: Thanks. Great to be here.
Host: To start, can you give us a broad sense of what the engineering industry can expect in 2021?
Branch: Sure. I think the simplest thing to say is that we do expect construction activity to improve next year. We do expect it to grow, but that pace of growth is going to be fairly modest. It's going to be fairly moderate. Of course, given everything that the industry and we as individuals have been through in 2020, that is certainly good news. But we need to keep in mind here that there are significant headwinds at play as we move into 2021 that make this recovery much more tenuous.
Host: In your forecast, you mentioned several times that it depends on the widespread adoption of a vaccine by the middle of the year and the passage of a substantial stimulus package in the range of $1.5 trillion in the first quarter of the year. Have you ever had a forecast that faced such stark deal-breakers and how stark are they?
Branch: Pretty unique, I'll say that. I think the closest parallel that I can think of is if we go back to 2009 during the Great Recession as Congress was weighing passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. If we think back to that time, it passed both the House and the Senate pretty much along party lines, but getting it to that point, it was touch and go and it was unclear right up until the last couple of days of how much sacrifice would need to be made in terms of the overall amount in the ARRA funding to get the support needed to get through Congress. Obviously, it ended up passing and it had a tremendously positive influence on the economy in the wake of passage.
Branch: So now we've got not only the uncertainty regarding the passage of further fiscal stimulus, but I would offer it's happening in a much more sensitive political environment. We're currently in a transition period between two administrations and between two congresses because there will be changes in the house and the Senate as well,. Then we need to layer on top of that when we can expect not just the vaccine to be ready, but when we see it adopted widely across the country. Of course, there's been a lot of good news recently with regards to efficacy rates of the vaccines as they make their way through trials. So that certainly good news. And I think at least that knowledge does or should provide a sense of stability in terms of the underpinning of the forecast.
Host: What are your thoughts on that stimulus package? Do you see it going through in the first part of the year?
Branch: So when we did our forecast, we assumed that $1.5 trillion would be adopted in the first quarter. And we were using that 1.5 trillion as I'll call it a median. It could have been a little bit higher, could have been a little bit lower depending upon what the final makeup of Congress was going to be. The Democrats lost a good chunk of their majority in the House. It looks like they're on track to lose about 10 seats of their majority, if not more--there are still a few races where they're counting--and the Senate is still up for grabs. We've got those two run-offs in Georgia to get through, but if you look at just how much split-ticket voting there was in this election, it's probably reasonable to assume that the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate, but it could go either way. Short story long, given that reduced majority in the House, though, I think we can probably expect that $1.5 trillion is a maximum dollar amount instead of a median. That's good news and bad news, right? The good news is a lower dollar value means it's probably going to get through Congress much quicker. So we might see it sooner rather than later. The bad side is the reduced dollar value means less support for individuals for businesses and of course, state and local governments.
Host: Looking at the specific sectors, the warehouse sector is thriving. You mentioned in your forecast that there were 38 warehouses over 1-million-square-feet built in the first nine months of 2020. And then looking at 2021, you forecast a strong market for this sector. How resilient is the warehouse sector?
Branch: Backing up to 2019 in terms of warehouse construction, it set a record in terms of our data, both in dollar value and square footage, and our data goes back to 1967. We do expect it to break a record again this year and next. So over the short term, through 2021and even into 2022, I think this market's fairly resilient. Online shopping is going to continue to gain market share over bricks-and-mortar. And then we layer onto that consumer behavior and consumer attitudes towards shopping and our expectations on delivery--I don't want to wait a week, I want my stuff now. So we're seeing the build-out of these large facilities, and there have been several this year that have been in the 3 to 4 million-square-foot range.
Branch: But I think you get to a point where, within the next handful of years, the market gets a little bit saturated in the sense that you're going to get to a point where the buildup of those large facilities has occurred along most major transportation routes and within a short drive to the major metropolitan areas in the country. So what happens after that? I think the market starts to shift into a more spoke-and-hub approach and you get more suburban/urban development of warehouses. These are smaller facilities, for Amazon and these other distributors, to help them satisfy that last mile of delivery.
Host: Is the data center market a similar type of market or does it have more long-term potential?
Branch: We capture data centers under the office market, so they're not part of the warehouse market, but it's a very similar dynamic except the upside potential in terms of longevity is more powerful on that data center side. As companies and as individuals, our data use increases exponentially, with virtually no limit on the amount we want to stream and the amount of data that gets transferred on a minute-by-minute basis across the U.S. economy. So over the longer term, the data center market is much more resilient.
Host: The situation for public construction is dire in your forecast. You quoted a Kroll Bond Ratings Agency report that projects $690 billion in state and local government revenue losses in the coming fiscal year. Yet you only project a 1% drop in the value of public building starts. So how do those jive?
Branch: Our public building category includes prisons, courthouses, local police and fire stations, armories and military buildings, and whatnot. So as part of our forecast process, we include large projects that we expect to break ground. We include those explicitly in the forecast years, and as we look into 2021, there are several that we expect to break ground. There's a $300 million courthouse that we expect to break ground in Norristown, Pennsylvania, and a handful of similarly sized projects across the country. And when you look at the entire category of all the 22 that we forecast, this is on the smaller side. It's around a $9 to $11 billion per year market. So those large projects have much more of an outsized influence in terms of the direction of the forecast.
Host: I noticed that also in airports. I don't remember the numbers, but there was the projection for the entire market, and the work at JFK was going to account for about 60% of that.
Branch: That's pretty much it. If you look at our transportation building forecast in 2021, it's an 11% gain, which is a pretty bold prediction to make given where transportation is headed currently. But as you said, we do expect those early stages of JFK to break ground in New York City in 2021. That's going to be a multi-year multi-billion dollar project. But it goes without saying that if that project were to be delayed or canceled or scaled back, that could very easily take that 11% gain and shift it to the negative. It's a very similar story with the public construction in that it's about a $10 to $11 billion per year market. So if you take out a billion or two from JFK, if that were to be delayed, scaled back or, or canceled, that would shift that entire market to the negative.
Host: The streets and bridges construction sector is looking at a slight increase in activity. I think it was about 1% or so. How much of that is due to the FAST Act extension and how important is getting a five-year transportation program in place to the resilience of the sector.
Branch: In a word critical. If we recall the FAST Act expired at the end of September 2020,. As part of the continuing resolution that's keeping the government open through December 11th, they extended the FAST Act through the end of September 2021. So that's good news. It did keep however funding flat, so the funding level for fiscal year 2021 is the same as the funding level for fiscal year 2020. That's why our forecast for streets and bridges is showing a fairly tepid gain. In terms of the importance of getting that reauthorized, it's critical given that the dire need of infrastructure in this country in terms of road and bridge work.
Branch: The good news, though, is we're optimistic that the reauthorization of the FAST Act will occur in the summer of 2021. Congress made good progress on it before the election. the Senate Public Works Committee released a plan in the spring or summer that was unanimously... Let me say that again, the Senate Public Works Committee unanimously approved their plan to reauthorize it at around $320 billion. The House, as part of HR-2, or the Moving Forward Act also authorized a five-year plan that would have been an excess of the FAST Act. So the good news is the underlying support for an increase in transportation funding is there and once we get into the new Congressional year, the inauguration takes place, and everybody has a chance to sit back and breathe, we think that goes forward. In our forecast, we've built in $300 billion for the core highway portion or highway bridge portion. That's more than what's under the FAST Act, but that's not going to help us until we get into 2022.
Host: Not surprisingly given the state of the nation's water and wastewater infrastructure, you project a healthy increase in this sector. How do you see that being funded?
Branch: I don't know if I'd use the word healthy. When we look at our environmental public works category--that's the summation of sewer systems, water systems, as well as dams and reclamation projects--we're looking at a 1% gain for that entire sector. In terms of what drives that funding, it's usually through that the Corps of Engineers, the EPA construction budget, as well as state revolving funds. And in general, the appropriation process has been fairly positive to those budgets. And when we look at what the House and the Senate were saying just before the election, we're looking at funding being fairly flat to a slight positive overall for the EPA, for the Corps, and for the State Revolving Funds budget. So that gives us that just a little bit of an increase. We're also looking at the two-year update to the Water Resource Development Act. Again, there was broad bipartisan support for that before the election in both the House and the Senate, so we think that in short order, once we get into 2021, that we'll get that authorized by Congress. And that's likely to be an $8 to $9 billion program over two years.
Host: The power market is remarkably volatile. Going back a few years, the value of starts was up 123% in 2019, then down 48% in 2020, and you forecast a 35% jump in 2021. Why is it so volatile?
Branch: It's essentially the presence, or the absence, of these large LNG import and export facilities. Those projects are measured in the billions of dollars, between $1 and $5 billion per project. So having one of those start in a year, skews the data, because it's not there the next year and pushes it down. When we look at the forecast for 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee has approved 15 LNG facilities all in the Gulf coast, except for one that's up in Portland, Oregon. Again, multi-billion dollar facilities. So they've approved 15, we're expecting one or two of those will break ground in 2021. And again, at a billion or a couple billion dollars, they certainly will cause that 35% gain.
Branch: But I think if you go broader than just that LNG import and export facility, renewables is also a growth market in the electric power sector. If you look at all electric generation starts over the past 10 years--coal, natural gas, nuclear, utility-grade solar, and utility-grade wind--wind and solar combined have accounted for about 60% of the total. As those technologies come closer and closer to grid parity, where a kilowatt-hour from one is the same as a kilowatt-hour from the other, they're just going to keep ramping up.
Host: What about the transmission line market within the power market? What do you see there?
Branch: I think they go in lockstep. If you think about where these wind and solar projects are, they're not in midtown Manhattan or downtown Boston. They're in Wyoming and Texas and out Wes and generally not in populated areas. As part of building up that renewable infrastructure, you need to build the high-speed transmission lines to get them from Wyoming or Texas into the major markets across the country. So they absolutely move in lockstep.
Host: Finally, you reported in your forecast that the office vacancy rate moved higher in 55 of the 63 metropolitan markets in the third quarter, yet you expect the market to grow in 2021. What's behind your optimism.
Branch: I think there are three reasons here. Despite the fact that vacancy rates are moving higher, and despite the fact that COVID has pushed us all out of our offices and into our living rooms and whatnot, there will still be projects that move forward. I'm not 100% on board with the office-market-is-dead storyline. I think companies will continue to invest in office space. Amazon has been very upfront about that. There is actually a $2 billion office project that broke ground in New York just within the last couple of weeks. So those projects will continue to move ahead, not to the same pace as they've done in previous years, but the office market will continue to move forward. Second, we include renovation dollars in our office data. So if you think about maybe an open space office, cubes and whatnot and converting that back to traditional offices and improving air handling and HVAC that boosts the dollar value as well. And as we previously discussed, we include data centers in our office market. Over the past couple of years, it's ranged between 15% to 20% of total office construction. And I think that's an incredible growth market over the next several years,
Host: If I may just tag onto that. One of the other things besides the death of the office that people have talked about has been the movement of people from living in cities to moving to the suburbs. Do you see that as a continuing trend?
Branch: Absolutely. When you look at our residential data by county and you look outside of the large central metros, like downtown Phoenix and downtown New York, and out in the fringe metro or fringe areas, which are basically the suburbs or even beyond that into micropolitan areas or rural areas, we are starting to see residential activity pick up significantly there. Of course, that creates incredible spinoffs. It'll pull some commercial construction with it, although it'll be a different kind of commercial construction than we've seen, with fewer urban towers and maybe more flat flexible space. It'll pull institutional construction with it, schools and healthcare, and it'll pull infrastructure construction with it. You need roads, you need bridges, and new water. So I think that movement is definitely a silver lining for the construction sector in 2021.
Host: Great. Well, thanks so much for sharing your expertise with us today.
Branch: Happy to do it. Anytime.
 

EEA Snapshot: WSP's Weekend ABC Superstructure Replacement Project

 
 
Engineering Influence welcomed the project team for the Weekend ABC Superstructure Replacement Project led by Kelly Guild (WSP, Bridge Lead), Gary Runco (VDOT NOVA, The District Structures and Bridge Engineer), and Pooya Azar (Martins Construction Corp., Vice President and Director of Operations for Wilson) to discuss the details of their award winning project.
The project was also featured in the July/August 2020 issue of CE Magazine, which can be read here.
Register for the first ever virtual Engineering Excellence Awards Gala here. 
 

The Role of the Activist Engineer in Society

Engineering Influence welcomed Mike McMeekin, Executive Director of the Engineering Change Lab and Darshan Karwat, Assistant Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University to discuss the evolving role of the engineer in society and the emergence of the activist engineer.  
Background:
Engineering Change Lab - USA (ECL-USA) is a new non-profit that is focused on the future of engineering. ECL-USA’s mission is to be a catalyst for change within the engineering community, helping it contribute at the highest possible level in addressing the challenges of the 21st Century.
ECL-USA has now held nine summits over the last three years. Each summit is a deep dive into an issue that will impact the future of engineering. The summits include a combination of learning from thought leaders, or provocateurs, along with small group and large group exercises and discussion.
“Society and technology are entangled together” according to Thomas P. Hughes, the great historian of technology. Engineers and the engineering community, as creators and stewards of technology, are inextricably woven into this knot. ECL-USA’s recent virtual summit included an exploration of this complex entanglement and the role that engineers, and the engineering community can play in an emergent future to help society anticipate and adapt to these entanglements.
One of the provocateurs for this session was Darshan Karwat, Assistant Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University. Darshan Karwat’s work is centered around the concept of Activist Engineering. According to Karwat, an activist engineer is one who is willing to step back from their work and examine the question, “What is the real problem, and does this problem require an engineering solution?”