Replies

1. 
   Notchman | Jun 14, 2005 04:28am | #1

   I don't think it's always the case of people trying to get around them as much as how builders vs. inspectors may interpret specific sections.

   For example, in the current IRC (International Residential Code), batt insulation will serve as fireblocking in a stud or wall cavity if it fills that cavity for 15".

   Now, in that example, I tend to agree with my inspector that solid, nailed in fireblocking is potentially more effective, and that's how I've always done it.

   But the structural inspector in our area insists on solid blocking and some guys fight him on it....and prevail....because the code, while minimum, is specific.

   In other cases, methods for attaching decks or building shower pans or framing a roof may exceed code, but may not be specifically addressed by the code.....or a local jurisdiction may have some specific design regs that conflict with the code.

   Of course, there are the hacks that will cut corners at every turn, or otherwise decent builders who, like some of the folks here, just like to challenge authority,

2. 
   Schelling | Jun 14, 2005 12:38pm | #2

   "If the building codes represent the minimum standards needed to build, then why do people try to get around them?" Many people are cheap. And in fact the building codes do not represent the minimum required to build. They represent the minimum "standards" at the present time. The codes are constantly evolving as we learn about new problems.  It is easy to find buildings that would not meet building code standards but are still completely functional after 100 years.

   I have no idea why a contractor would try to get around the code. This strikes me as foolish or lazy. Most builders like to exceed the codes in the areas that they feel are particularly important.  The cost of this is born by the homeowner who is getting his money's worth.

3. 
   MojoPlenty | Jun 14, 2005 04:58pm | #3

   I work with someone who used to be a commercial construction supervisor in NYC.  Even when it doesn't cost any more time or money to do a job that well exceeds code, he still tries to get by with the minimum or get around it all together.  I think there is something inherent in some folks where they feel they are getting a leg-up on the inspector or maybe on the whole process.  In this case, I believe the short-cuts on the commercial jobs with large crews probably did result in cost savings but it doesn't translate into the smaller residential stuff we are doing.

4. 
   CJD | Jun 14, 2005 05:19pm | #4

   I am always entertained when someone proudly states that their work meets code, considering that anything less would be illegal.

5. 
   BossHog | Jun 14, 2005 05:58pm | #5

   To me, it depends on what code you're talking about.

   Some codes are fair and certainly do represent minimum building standards. The only reason to cut corners is to save money. But saving money is a high priority to 99.9% of the homeowners I've dealt with.

   Others are ridiculous bunches of B.S dreamed up by political cronies, or put in place by code officials who just think something sounds like a good idea. It may well be reasonable to try to get around those - It's just a matter of opinion.

   All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man. [H.L. Mencken]
1. 
   junkhound | Jun 14, 2005 07:41pm | #11

   "Others are ridiculous bunches of B.S dreamed up by political cronies, or put in place by code officials who just think something sounds like a good idea. It may well be reasonable to try to get around those - It's just a matter of opinion."

   Agree totally with the preceeding. The useful parts of the code are common snese, like egress and bedroom windows opening, etc.

   Other seemingly good parts of the code may actually be harmful in some cases - consider the codes going from requiring a simple open stair rail  to the 9" ball rule and later to the 4" ball rule and still miss worst case conjectures - here is an example: My 2 YO grandson loves to jump off the stairs in our house which has 2 ft wide openings between posts, none of the kids ever fell off the edge, etc - In mommy and daddy's house, which has the 4" rule stairs, he climbed up the OUTSIDE of the stair (as easy to do with close balusters), got his head between a pair, and could have hanged himself - so I ask, which is safer!!  I prefer the open stairs as a 4 or 5 ft fall is sure less harmful than a hanging. Guess in a few years all stairs will need to be solid walls?

6. 
   moltenmetal | Jun 14, 2005 06:44pm | #6

   Let's stir the pot a bit here and state it a different way:  building codes were created to make sure that incompetent or ignorant or inexperienced people (count myself as all three- I have no illusions about my own knowledge or skill in this area!) can build structures without killing people (routinely anyway) or repeating well-understood problems.  And "building departments" and code inspectors were put in place to ensure that the codes are followed for the protection of the owner.

   Sometimes, code-minimum really is overkill for a particular application because the issue intended to be dealt with by that method doesn't apply in this case- even though it does apply in the worst case.  Sometimes, code minimum is truly adequate for the duty and anything beyond that is wasteful- it adds cost without adding any real benefit to the owner.  Sometimes, code minimum is minimally adequate for the duty, and "beefing it up" may give the owner some benefit that they care about or will care about in 30 years.  And sometimes it's woefully inadequate for the specifics of a situation.  This can be said for ANY code or standard.  That's what happens when you generalize a solution broadly to numerous applications rather than designing it from scratch every time. 

   The question is:  who knows enough about all aspects of design, construction, future maintenance, safety etc. to know for sure which of these is the case in your particular circumstance?  And what are they willing to put on the line to back up their conclusions?  And will any of that sway the inspector? The answer to that is generally a professional engineer or professional architect, who put their livelihood and license on the line in answering questions of this nature within their realm of competence- and to whom hopefully the inspector will listen.  But following the code within its limits ensures that you don't need a design professional to do the work from scratch for you every time- thank God, because that would cost a mint.  And yes, there are design professionals out there who just parrot the code back to you and charge you a fee for doing so.  Sometimes that's actually because simply following the code is the easiest and best way out for your particular circumstances.  Sometimes, they do so because they're lazy or too insecure in their knowledge to do things any other way, or because they don't want to do battle on your behalf with the inspector or the building department etc.

   So why would people want to "get around" the code?  Sometimes it's cheapness or laziness brought on by a false sense of confidence- "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!".   And sometimes it's because the proscriptive method called out in the code is just plain inapplicable- there really are simpler, cheaper alternative means that accomplish the same or better structural or building-function result for a particular set of circumstances.  That's where the design professional comes in, and where a good one can earn their fees many times over.

   What I'd like to see is codes written in two parts:  one part being the current perscriptive part (Thou shalt do A, and B...), and the other part being the design philosophy underlying these decisions for use by design professionals.  That way, the intent of the code in choosing method A or B can be clearly understood and its adequacy in a particular set of circumstances can be more easily assessed.

7. 
   BillHartmann | Jun 14, 2005 06:51pm | #7

   You need to be more specific.

   Sometimes codes are out of date and it has been found that the what is prescribed in the codes is not the best way to build and sometime is is the wrong way.

   Look at any of the building science discussions (insulation, venting, moisture control).

8. 
   CapnMac | Jun 14, 2005 06:58pm | #8

   building codes represent the minimum standards

   This will push some "hot buttons" for some.

   The "building code" can contain much that is arbitrary, like setbacks, height requirements, and the like.  While, at the same time, also containing some frighteningly minimal life safety requirements, as well.

   Since codes are enacted by civil authorities, they are also subject to all the vagarities that enacted local code is subject to.  If a clerk fails to fix a typo, it might be that the current code is the 99 NEC, instead of a more current edition.  In some cities, the training of inspectors (so they know to what standard to inspect) can be a limiting factor for code enactment.

   But, likely worst, is that, since the codes are local to a municipality, then in the next jurisdiction over, there can be a wholely different standard.  To a builder working in both jurisdictions, the standards can look far more arbitrary than they are (or actually may be).

   Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
9. 
   BryanSayer | Jun 14, 2005 07:12pm | #9

   Not all codes are about safety (though I'd bet most are). Some are about energy expenditure and savings. Some are about accessability.

   But I'd hazard a guess and say that most people who are renovating EXISTING space (particularly old buildings) may try to cut corners. For example, I'll confess that I avoided inspections in a bathroom remodel because there was no way I could meet the spacing requirements around the toilet. I would have been allowed to use the existing bathroom as it was (from the 1930s - mortar shower, wall hung sink, no GFCI) but had I gone the permit route, I would have needed to move walls dramatically because of dormers - not just 6" to get the clearance we needed for code.

   I was also not willing to reframe two interior doors just because the framing wasn't the current practice. The doors had worked fine for over 100 years. I'm going to spend thousands of dollars and risk the plaster on the other side because of some code? Not a chance.

   I tried to make sure that all work was done to code, but I did not necessarily fix everything that was done 100 years ago that is not code today. I didn't put any outlets on the exterior brick walls for instance. But I did put all the bathroom outlets on a single GFCI breaker. I positioned the washer so that there was not a need to run a horizontal drain pipe that would have necessitated a 3" line. There are room light switches at doors where we worked, I even put 3 way switches at both doors to the new bathroom, even though it is only 6 feet across, but not at one bathroom where it would have meant cutting into 60 year old subway tile, and that presumes we could have gotten a line to it anyway.

10. 
    csnow | Jun 14, 2005 07:25pm | #10

    "If the building codes represent the minimum standards needed to build, then why do people try to get around them?"

    Because some codes are obsolete, needlessly inflexible, arbitrary, capricious, politically motivated, or based upon faulty science.