I have not seen anything in the building codes to stop you as being the artist. Most is just basic engineering and basic safety. What is in the code that you do not like?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Join some of the most experienced and recognized building professionals for two days of presentations, panel discussions, networking, and more.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
If you think building codes are bad, check out what you get in a country that doesn't have them...
Pete
http://classweb.gmu.edu/jkozlows/tahoe.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=646
JAYLIN INVESTMENTS, INC. V. VILLAGE OF MORELAND HILLS – CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO ZONING LAWS
OHBA filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Jaylin Investments with the Ohio Supreme Court arguing for the acceptance of Jaylin’s argument that the “proposed use” of a development should be considered when challenging zoning regulations.
Result: http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/cases/Jaylin_v_Moreland_Hills.htm
See, also:
http://www.state.wv.us/WVSCA/docs%5Cspring92%5C20908.htm
But see:
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/archivecases/yumatrust.html
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Slightly on topic.Our city pasted a new ordiance last year updating the building codes. I have not read the acutal ordiance. But the way that it was reported in the newleter it was that "they adopted the lastest versions of the UBC, NEC< UPC, etc and it implied that was to be the "latest versions" as it they where changed and not the current versions of that date.In other words when every any of the code bodies makes a change it is automatically changes the local code without futher acknowledgement by the city council (or even the building inspector (fire protection district) knowing about it).I am under the general impression that a governmental body can't give up it's powers like that to an unelectred group. But I don't have any idea where I got this or if it is true.
>>In other words when every any of the code bodies makes a change it is automatically changes the local code without futher acknowledgement by the city council (or even the building inspector (fire protection district) knowing about it).That would be a strange way of doing it, and even, arguably, "unconstitutional" in the sense of lack of proper notice and "due process.">>I am under the general impression that a governmental body can't give up it's powers like that to an unelectred group. But I don't have any idea where I got this or if it is trueI don't have a clue: there are probably limits, and such a rule would vary from state to state. Assuming there is such a restriction, I would guess that one factor as to permissibility would be the extent of discretionary power being delegated; but I'm just speculating.The power to delegate "law making power" from legislatures to administrative agencies under the executive branch was a hot issue back in the 30's(?) when the whole admin agency structure blossomed, but I don't know how those issues might have been raised in the context of delegation to the private sector.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Thanks.
"I have not read the acutal ordiance. "
IF/Once you read the ordinance, you will see reference to a specifc document or list of specific documents, by name and date of publication. Otherwise, the law would be unenforcible.
I would not trust your "newletter" to report factual information, if this is the best "it" can do.
While the newsleter information is always suspect, the reliability of the city officals is worse.But I went and checked and I have a handbooks that the city put out.Here is what is says."1. All buildigns and construction shall conform to the requiremtns of the latest editions of the Uniform Building Bode; Uniform Houseing Code; International Plumbing Code; National Electricx Doe, Uniform Fire Code: plus any and all supplements to the above listed codes.In the event of a conflict of provisions between andy of such codes, the lessor requirments shall prevail."And although #1 include electrical that have to repeat it."11. Electrical all eelctrical wiring shallconform to the requirements of the lates edition of the National Electrical Code."Which all sounds nice, but when the city replaced the sewer system with force main system with grinder pumps at each house the electric that they ran did not meet code.Many places in driveways and yards the conduit is 0-6" below ground.And"#12 Plumbing. All plumbing shall conform to the requirment of the lates edition of the Intenational Plumbing code.a. Building over Sewer. Before any building or portion there of are build voera a sewer line, that portion of the sewer mucht be taken up and replaced with PVC sch 40 s.d.r.t. 34 Plasctic pipe, ATH THE BUILDERS'S EXPENSE."Note it is the BUILDERS expense and not the HO's. Also the pipe spec does not sound right. SDR is a completely different rating system than sch pipe size. But I am not sure what SDRT is.However, this whole thing is mute anyway. There have not been any such sewer pipes since the old system was replaced 20 years ago.Then there is another section on Wastewater Management (Sewers)."10. Separate presmisses musht have separate service lines".However, again the city did not follow there own rules. The discharge from my neighbors grinder pump crosses into my yard where it T's with the discharge from mine and then there is a common line to the main in the street.
"I...checked ... handbooks that the city put out.."
I don't believe the handbooks would reflect the actual verbage of the City Code, but if it does, it is useless and unenforcible. However, I would speculate that a city so ramant with incompetency has no literate building inspectors, and/or no competent legal advisor(s).
Our local building inspectors require vapor barrier on the inside of framing on below-grade, exterior, masonry walls.I try to explain why this is not a good idea, mention basement remodels where I demo recent work done "their way", that is rotten and moldy...I still have to add the vapor barrier--only to tear it off after the inspector leaves.Code enforcement should be subject to reason, and the spirit of the law should prevail over the letter.
"Our local building inspectors require ...."
The Code is the requirement, not some clerk's interpretation of the Code. This a frequent problem. With all due respect to the competent building inspectors out there (they DO exist), most are unfortunately unqualified to understand and interpret the Code. So they pick up bits and pieces of what passes for knowledge in their world and impose such nonsense on construction professionals because the can. But, I would ask you, does the building Code require the vapor barrier on the inside of framing on below-grade, exterior, masonry walls? IF it does, then your comliance is mandatory. IF it does not, then your compliance is subject to the morons that inspect your work. IF you don't know, in detail, what the Code requires on this point, then you have no leg to stand on.
"Code enforcement should be subject to reason, and the spirit of the law should prevail over the letter." In a great many jurisdictions, it does, but sadly, not all.
I know the Code that I most frequently design to, I know a great deal of the interpretaions of the "gray" areas, and I have a pretty good working relationship with the local head mechanical inspector. In other areas, cities, etc., if I am asked to change my design based on what I believe to be an incorrect or improper application/interpretation of the Code, I have learned a method that most often works to resolve this. I play dumb (some believe this comes quite naturally to me) and ask something like "Hey, I must of missed that part of the Code, where does it say that? Gee, your the expert on this, may be you could point this part out for me." If the "official" is an incompetent, they will bow this off with some sort of dismissal like "I don't have time to do my job and yours". IF they are reasonable they will attempt to "help". In this precess, I end up "teaching" them what the should have known before handand the get to appear to have doen os for me.
I have to get going this morning, but I think that a "giving over of code adoption" was part of the "Paperwork Reduction Act" passed during the Clinton Adminstration.
My knowledge of it comes from the OSHA Machine Safety Side of things (B11.19, etc). In short, OSHA stopped writing specific regs for machine safety, but just adopts consensus standards from orgs like ANSI and RIA. OSHA still enforces, however.
If you want more clarification, let me know.
"In short, OSHA stopped writing specific regs for machine safety, but just adopts consensus standards from orgs like ANSI and RIA. OSHA still enforces, however."But the still ADOPT them and have final control.That is a much different situation.
The adoption is automatic and without any action on their part (as I understand it)
>>What can they do?
ultimately, throw you in jail, if it gets pressed far enough.
Were the cables horizontal? That is dangerous becasue kids/folks can easily climb horizontal cables and fall.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
True horizontal members can be climbed no matter if cable or steel.
On my highrise jobs they are usually glass, but when not glass they are horizontal cable or steel flat bar.
& this is a commercial verses residential problem--- I think the same rules should apply.
Kinda like the stair rules about 4' spacing & needing a handrail but more often than not, a lot of commercial places have vastly wide stairs with no handrail.
I asked how did they get away with that----- was told that is considered art & the codes don't apply when it is signed off by the architect.I wonder if Cindy Sheehan ever thanked her son for her freedom to be a moron.
Plumbbill,I was at a concert a few weeks ago at the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. This famous building was designed by Frank Gehry and cost $285 million to build. It is very attractive, and the acoustics are amazing.We sat in the front row of a high side balcony, only a short distance behind a safety rail that is only about 26" off the floor. People sitting in the middle of the row have to squeeze by the knees of those already seated. I'm tall, so I stood up each time to give more passing room.If somebody fell off, they would fall about 30 feet onto another concertgoer, injuring or killing both of them. How did this escape the attention of the code enforcers? I see litigation, and a railing retrofit in their future.Also, there was a lipless fir shelf about 4" deep below the rail and the lady next to me set her cell down on it. She thought better of it before I could say anything, and put it in her purse.The sightlines are wonderful in that hall, but I think the life safety got shortchanged bigtime.BTW, I posted this before reading beyond your post in the thread.BillEdited for clarity: I was responding to your observation about the AHJ rolling over and playing dead when a project is "art." The Disney Hall is certainly art, but it is also a public building with an implied responsibility to the occupants. That responsibility is to protect them from easily preventable injuries. Big-ticket projects seem able to circumvent common sense more often than residential work can. Score one for homes.
Edited 6/16/2006 12:36 pm by BillBrennen
I've seen the Disney hall, too. And noted the inconvenience and low railings. On top of that, it's a very confusing space. Computers make it possible to design structures that twist and warp, so the architects play with the new toy.
If the terrorists were to blow the place up, it would be difficult for the fire/rescue types to distinguish between damage and design.
-- J.S.
>>Who cares if it's not a public place?
It could be sold, and will, at some point, pass into new ownership (unless you have discovered the elixir of life<G>
Building codes are predominantly intended to promote safety of citizens.
The first recorded building codes date back to the code of Hammarabi, c1750 BC, and they are believed to reflect earlier codes which have not survived in written form.
The first building codes in the US date to colonial Boston (forbidding thatched roofs and chimneys made of wood.)
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
The first recorded building codes date back to the code of Hammarabi, c1750 BC, and they are believed to reflect earlier codes which have not survived in written form.
And how about this one, from the 15th century BC: (Deuteronomy 22:8) "In case you build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof, that you may not place bloodguilt upon your house because someone falling might fall from it.""he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
NO CHIMNEYS MADE OF WOOD!!!!
DAMN LIBERALS!!!
telling me what to do with mu OWN house!!!
They must of REALLY hated america back then!!~!!War is hell, Shrub Lied to get us into war, so he is the devil.
Repeal article XXII, re-elect Shrub & Co.
If we make it thru twelve years of this $HIT we can survive anything!!!
Most of Wyoming has never had local, county, or statewide codes, except for unenforced plumbing and electrical requirements from the state level. More towns are implementing codes, so perhaps it won't be long before all this will change.
Unfortunately for those buying or selling a home, there is little protection that any construction was done in a way that is either safe or long lasting. It's easy to say that the buyers just need to be careful, but it's simply not human nature to expect a good looking house to be built to some minimum standard.
In the absence of minimum codes, contractors who should know better cut critical corners, those contractors who are simply ignorant of good construction are worse, and homeowners...well, lets just say they sometimes rely on their good judgement with no experience to back it up.
Personally, I made a good living fixing problems created by poor construction while living there and grew up in that environment so I'm just as happy with or without the government rules. Having said that, those codes do help consumers and the community as a whole avoid wasting money on houses that quickly turn to shacks.
Cheers
I was remodeling our basement into an apartment. All new and tight and had a furnace room. I put in a fairly large kitchen fan. Then inspector pointed out that I needed sealed doors on the furnace room lest I backdraft the furnace and die. Even my general contractor had not thought of that as we did the project. I think codes are just fine. Home renovation will teach most folks a nice lesson in why things should be done correctly the first time. Ever see the results of no fire-blocking in a wall and then a fire? Good thing someone saved 10 or 20 bucks on some junk 2X4's to get around code?Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities- Voltaire
I don't know, but they've been doing that for over 3,700 years.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Please quote the article from the constitution that you think prohibits building codes, then we can have a discussion on it.
You speak of arrogance both in regard into the building code and with Bob, do you not think you are being a tad arrogant thinking you are so good there is no need for your work to be inspected for safety?
Could you not make a mistake?
You ask what they can do to you? Where are you located? At a minimum, piss of the building department and they can make your life a living hell, they could not give you a Certificate of Occupancy or they could fine you, fail to issue further permits etc.
If you have license requirements they could pull your license.
Building codes protect the un-knowing public, sure some of the codes may seem like overkill or foolish. Far to many people believe constructing up to the building code result in the best building practices, rather they are the worst building you can legally build.
If you don't like being inspected or having to meet your local code, you have two choices find a different career or go build somewhere were no inspections or codes exist.
Like PeteBradley more or less said - The only thing worse than building codes is NO building codes.
Guess he didn't like the answers he was getting so he went and deleted all his posts?
Maybe he sobered up.
I like big butts and I can not lie.
Guess we could ditch the codes if we went back to the time when if the building you built killed someone, you were killed too ;)
sort of an eye for an eye... some little kid climbs up your horizontal railing, falls over, they take you up to the same height and drop ya...
you build a set of dangerous stairs, someone falls, they take you to the top and give ya a shove...
forget the tempered glass near a door, stair, or tub, someone puts there hand through it... you get to punch through a piece of glass ;)
This could be fun...
I wrote a sci fi story once where that kind of justice was the law--I called that form of justice "Kharmic Justice". Couldn't sell the story. had a catchy title I thought: "Kid Kharma Evens the Score."
I'd rather just deal with a crotchety old fart.
I like big butts and I can not lie.
for you it could be extra fun....
you electrocute someone by accident, then they hook some alligator clips up to your... um... well take your pick ;)
I guess I just haven't had a horrible time with an inspector yet.
Been slightly annoyed a time or two, but nothing terribly unreasonable.
That's why I'm extra careful. LOL
I'm like you. Do it the way your supposed to and there's usualy not a problem. Of course there's always the bad apples, but that's in everything.
I like big butts and I can not lie.
Hey, I'm in!!!! Thanks BillHartman, I believe.
Guess we could ditch the codes if we went back to the time when if the building you built killed someone, you were killed too
That goes back to the Code of Hammurabi someone mentioned early on. Give him the choice- building code or Code of Hammurabi!!
Buddy must have had kind of a lame first post...... after others with good responses, took his toys and went home!!! Looks like "common sense" got to him.....well done, Group.
As I said before- I feel the boards are full of the more progessive types that want to keep moving on and improve their knowledge/skills.
Buddy must have had kind of a lame first post.... It wasnt that bad, he had some good questions. i think his problem was more with the code enforcer than the code itself.
Thanks!
guys like you are the reason I generally eat my lunch away from the group. I don't have to listen to all the B.S......
I am always glad when guys like you do...
oh.. did the little baby get his feelings hurt........
grow up, you're acting like a child, not a grown man
Guess I'm too late to this party.
Personally, I am opposed to mandatory building codes, so I would have liked to see what the original poster had to say on this topic.
Your reasons???
Your reasons???
Experienced,
Although I think that building codes started out with good intentions, I think they've devolved to the point where they are simply micromanaging both homeowners and contractors. Nowadays, I think the permit process (at least where I live) is little more than a way to shake down homeowners for several thousand dollars.
Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary and at odds with the reasonable objectives of the homeowner. Furthermore, I think the current code situation stifles innovation and, at times, forces contractors and homeowners to implement inferior solutions. I can provide examples if you'd like; it is wholly possible that my experience with codes is vastly different than yours due to regional variation.
What I'd like to see is VOLUNTARY code compliance. By this, I mean that a builder or homeowner could choose WHICH set of building rules to use (if any). In addition to existing international and local codes, there could be codes developed by building associations, trade unions, etc. It would put the power of choice where I think it belongs -- in the hands of the taxpaying private property owner. Builders could then use the code as a marketing strategy; they could use it to convince potential buyers that their particular product is best, and explain the benefits.
In economics, choice always benefits the consumer. I see no reason to believe why it wouldn't benefit the consumers in this case as well.
There are already disclosure forms involving real estate transactions, so all a seller would have to do is state which code the particular house was built to. The potential buyer could then determine whether that code is good enough for him.
This whole topic is, of course, largely dependent on a person's philosophical viewpoint. I have strong opinions about the sanctity of private property. It is (or was) a central tenet in our Constitution and was oft-cited during the Revolutionary War.
If an individual's philosophy does not value the concepts of liberty and private property, he will not see any problems with the enforcement of an arbitrary building code. (This is not intended as an insult to anyone, by the way, just a logical observation.)
Edited 6/15/2006 12:46 pm ET by Ragnar17
You still don't want to be selling ME any house you build under that philosphy.
I'm sticking to my story.
You still don't want to be selling ME any house you build under that philosphy.
That's your prerogative, and I would never attempt to FORCE you to do things "my way". The beautiful thing about voluntary choice is that it puts YOU in control.
When we have an earthquake in Northridge or Loma Prieta, dozens of people die. When they have earthquakes in Iran or Turkey, tens of thousands die. Building inspectors have already saved more lives than fire/rescue/paramedic types ever will.
I also did a shower for a tall guy once. No problem with putting it up high. I handed him a pencil and had him make a mark where he wanted it.
-- J.S.
When we have an earthquake in Northridge or Loma Prieta, dozens of people die. When they have earthquakes in Iran or Turkey, tens of thousands die. Building inspectors have already saved more lives than fire/rescue/paramedic types ever will.
John,
I am obviously not opposed to safe building practices. But I would point out that it is the ENGINEERS and BUILDERS who have developed better and safer practices, NOT the inspectors.
On a related topic, do you know that the city assumes NO responsibility for improperly conducted inspections? Where I live, it is routine for inspectors to spend less than 10 minutes on a job site.
If you're going to pay someone thousands of dollars to conduct a plan review and inspection, doesn't it stand to reason that they should stand behind their work?
In the event of an error, as a contractor, you can rest assured that you will be forced to stand behind yours.
Can you support this obvious double standard?
I also did a shower for a tall guy once. No problem with putting it up high. I handed him a pencil and had him make a mark where he wanted it.
All I can say is that's not the way it happened here.
Do you support a homeowner's right to specify the showerhead height?
This example just serves to illustrate my point that the code has become way too large and arbitrary. Would you agree with me on this point?
sure he wants to sell to ya...
after all money is money...
and the more the merrrier...
'specially if it's at somebody else's expense..Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming<!----><!----><!---->
WOW!!! What a Ride!<!----><!---->
Forget the primal scream, just ROAR!!!
"You still don't want to be selling ME any house you build under that philosphy."If you know what you are getting, what is the problem?And those house that you have bougth and complaining about wheren't they built under the current code system.
As you already know, it's the things that you don't or can't see. Or perhaps those things the seller refuses to allow to be inspected further because of "damage."
That's why I would never think of buying a house without an HI. As much as I know, someone knows more. That someone can pick up a fraud faster and quicker than I.
Where I kick myself the most, is not playing harda$$ at the closing table. The next closing will most likely find a demand for $XX,XXX in escrow pending verification of the seller's disclosure. Should anything not be what's claimed within 3 to 6 months (depending on the situation), the remediation comes out of that escrow. Should he say he's repaired something the HI has found, an escrow will still occur until a reasonable warranty period passes as well as satisfactory performance.
A person with good character should have no problem with this issue. If he objects, I walk.
Now, I have no problem paying what the property is worth. Should someone hide the true value, his character will show.
Pete,
Perhaps it wasn't clear, but under my "proposal", I wouldn't eliminate the possibility of inspecting buildings during the construction process.
In a previous post, I mentioned how inspectors in my area routinely spend less than 10 minutes on a job site.
I also mentioned how the state assumes no liability for errors or omissions in their work.
It sounds like you've had private home inspectors review a house before you purchased it. I have, too. And I was surprised by the thoroughness of the private inspector, and surprised by the completeness of the 15-page document they provided after their review.
Compare this experience to having a government inspector look around for ten minutes and check off a few boxes on a one-page form.
Think of the high-caliber product you could get from a private inspection company during the construction process. Since they would actually be held RESPONSIBLE for the accuracy and thoroughness of their work, I would imagine they would take dozens of pictures and even roll video tape to document their findings.
From the point of view of the contractor, such third-party documentation would go miles to keep clear of frivolous future lawsuits.
From the point of view of the homeowner, the thousands of dollars that are routinely spent for inspections and permits should be yielding a much better product.
I, too, have had those private buyers' inspections done, three times. I'd never waste my money on one again. They may have more paper and spend more time, but this last one obsessed on burned out light bulbs and missed a drainage and water damage problem. If this next deal happens, I'll make my own list and do my own checking.
-- J.S.
John,
I'd still like to hear your opinion on the fact that the city assumes NO liabilty for the quality or thoroughness of their inspections.
Don't you think that accountabilty motivates people to do a good job?
Why should a contractor be held liable for a mistake, whereas the city is not?
Regarding the home inspections, I imagine you could do a very good job of it, as you seem to know quite a lot about the building trade. No need to pay someone for a job you can do yourself.
> I'd still like to hear your opinion on the fact that the city assumes NO liabilty for the quality or thoroughness of their inspections.
Well, the problem is that the whole courts and lawyers thingy is badly broken, and needs to be scrapped. But as long as we're stuck with it, we're stuck with protecting municipal deep pockets from the litigating hordes. No liability is bad, but opening the floodgates would be worse.
-- J.S.
>>Well, the problem is that the whole courts and lawyers thingy is badly broken, and needs to be scrapped.
Got something better?
And what do you base that evaluation on?
Remember, in all cases someone loses and is going to bitch.
Just because there are a lot of losers (roughly 50%) and they do a lot of bitching doesn't mean the losers are right.
> Got something better?
Nope. That's half the rub. The other part is executing the transition. Arbitration seems to be a first step along a very long path that ultimately will have the expensive courts and lawyers thingy fade into impotence, like the medevial church did.
-- J.S.
"Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary .."
Such as?
"I think the current code situation stifles innovation and, at times, forces contractors and homeowners to implement inferior solutions."
I think the exact opposite. Most codes that I've dealt with provide minimum standards of contruction that prevent morons and hacks from creating life threatening situations for others. The Codes are minimum acceptable standards. Anything above and beyond, or which is demonstrably superior is seldom if ever rejected. I would like to hear any examples you have to the contrary.
"The potential buyer could then determine whether that code is good enough for him."
Buyer beware, right. I know that fairly large percentage of builders and contractors out there, whose livelihood is directly involved in this issue, have limited or no understanding of what constitues acceptable practices, what is safe and what is not. Those not in the building industry would seldom be able to make such a determination.
Your appearant understanding of the reasons that codes are required makes a very good argument that they remain mandatory.
"Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary .."
Such as?
Tim,
Let me give you just a little funny one.
Homeowner hires a contractor to remodel his bathroom. During the plumbing inspection, the inspector points out that the stubout for the shower head is "too high".
Contractor points out that the homeowner is 6'-8" and would enjoy not having to hunch over each morning while using his shower.
Inspector says no can do. Eventually, homeowner and contractor are FORCED to locate the stubout at the code-prescribed height.
Comments?
Edited 6/15/2006 1:28 pm ET by Ragnar17
I checked the three plumbing codes and the two building codes that I deal with most often, and could find no such requirement. All are specific about the size, the drain and the height ans well as the anti-scald water supply valve requirement, but not one mention in the International Plumbing Code, the Illinois State Plumbing Code or the National Plumbing Standard about the height of the shower head.
Were you directly involved with this project, or did you hear about it second or third hand?
I bet that the code under which this work was done has no such requirement either. IF the installing plumber knew and actually worked to and god forbid even had a copy of the code in his truck, he could have asked the inspector to show him the requirement. When the inspector couldn't, the requirement would not exist. If it was done with some tact.
Is this a case of an arbitray code requirement? Maybe, but doubtful. (Which plubing code contains this requirement?) Or is it a case of a plumping inspector being a richardhead or making up requirements as he went along?
My point is that, real working knowledge of the Codes which govern your work is necessary to limit or eliminate rework. And, in most instances where the inspector is wrong, you know it and can prove it. But, like arguing with your wife, you need to be real selective about which battles you choose to fight. If you point out to inspector, true or not, that they're an idiot often enough, you might just pi$$ em off. That could be bad for you and you customers.
BTW, the plumbing Code that applies in Seattle, where your profile says you are, the Uniform Plumbing Code, has no such requirement, either.
Edited 6/15/2006 3:01 pm by Tim
Tim,
You present good and reasonable observations regarding the showerhead thing. Too bad you weren't the inspector! ;)
I was not directly involved in this problem; it was relayed to me by an acquaintance. However, I know that he was involved in building for nearly 40 years before he retired. In other words, he wasn't making the story up.
The event in question occured over 15 years ago. The local building code has since been altered many times, and I have no way of determining with certainty if it was actual code, or if the inspector (as you say) was being a richardhead.
One thing I can tell you from personal experience is that the inspectors are given wide latitude where I live. If you call the building department and ask a specific question (which I have done on numerous occasions) , they'll tell you that "you really need to have your inspector come out and look at it" and that "they are the ones who make the decision."
I can tell you about some more of my experiences.
I have had a local insulation company install icynene spray foam in a number of projects for me. The foam fills every nook and cranny and just about completely stops air flow. It is clearly a superior approach to cutting fiberglass batts and jamming them in place. There are other specific qualities of foam that make it ideal for cathedral ceilings.
I've experienced problems with the inspectors regarding foam insulation, however.
At one project, we were having the framing checked off. I was off doing other work when the homeowner received the inspector. He asked some questions about insulation; the homeowner explained our approach. He rejected it.
I later spoke directly with the inspector and explained what we were doing, since the homeowner might have incorrectly stated things. He still rejected the approach.
I told him of several projects in the area that had been approved using this approach. He again rejected it, and started to get testy with me. (I was very careful to keep a pleasant tone, btw, because I know it will not advance my interests to get into a pissing contest.)
I then called the installer. The installer then called the inspector and explained the approach. Finally, the inspector acquiesced. I personally think that the inspector dislikes foam, and was trying to strong arm the homeowner -- and then me -- into doing things "his way". When the installer called (who has contacts in the building department who are higher on the food chain), the inspector knew the gig was up. The installer told me he'd had numerous problems with this specific inspector.
So in this case, we prevailed, but there are obviously going to be many people who cave in and just go along with the inspector in order to avoid conflict. But are people like this inspector really promoting good building practices and/or innovation?
Story 2: More recent.
Foam insulation installers have told me point blank that they cannot say for sure whether a foam installation will be approved. In their recent experience, some inspectors will say yea; others nay. It's just a crapshoot, since you don't know which inspector is going to show up.
The root of the problem is some sort of snafu in the adoption of the most recent code. Although the older codes approved icynene, the most recently adopted code is somewhat vague. However, there is a planned wording change to make it clear that icynene is still OK, but this has to be approved by the state legislature. They are expected to approve it (again, since it was legal before), but of course that vote is not scheduled to take place for many months.
In the meantime, the individual inspector might reject use of icynene (since it is not explicitly authorized by the current code), or he might accept it (since it was legal before, and is expected to be adopted again in a number of months). Whatever the case, the decision is now purely arbitrary and based on the subjective opinion of the individual inspector.
So what is a homeowner to do? Take a chance and install foam, or stick with fiberglass batts, which are a technically inferior solution?
In any event, I think that this is a good example of how the code can actually prevent homeowners and contractors from using a product that they think is better. And again, I think that these decisions should be left up to the homeowner, not some politician or bureaucrat who may or may not be influenced by PAC money and favors.
"If you call the building department and ask a specific question (which I have done on numerous occasions) , they'll tell you that..."
Other than providing the name and edition of the applicable Codes I would expect no different. I don't believe that the building department has the purpose of answering technical questions for anyone. The inspector are out in the field doing their job and the clerks in the office are not competent code interpreters (in most cases). Their job, as I see it, is simply to faciltate the permitting process and provide reasonble assurance of compliance with the applicable Codes. The designer, be it an architect, engineer or contractor (an installing contractor without plans is still designing in a sense, as they go) has the sole responsibility to know the Code and to ensure or certify that their work complies.
"So what is a homeowner to do? Take a chance and install foam, or stick with fiberglass batts, which are a technically inferior solution?"
Again, the ultimate "defense" for those who are subject to the random nature of building inspectors is to know the Code! There is power in knowledge. IF I am faced with an obstinate and clearly wrong inspector, I will go over their head if the issue is worth it. I know more than half of the people in the local building department including all of the inspectors and the lady that runs the department, so in this respect I have a little advantage. But, I also have their support in most issues because everyone of them know me and knows that if I am challenging an issue, I know what I'm talking about. They know that I have very well read copies of the applicable codes and usually have a conservative take on them as well.
Bottom line here is that, like it or not, the law is such that we have to comply with various Codes to make our living in the building, construction and architectural/engineering services professions. It is in our best interests to know and use the Codes.
Tim,
I agree with you that "knowledge is power", and it is encumbent on the builder to know the codes to which he is supposed to adhere.
However, I'm citing examples where the code is vague and open to subjective interpretation. In the example I gave you about the icynene, their simply IS NO definitive answer. Arguing interpretation could literally wind up in court; who has the time, energy, or money for that? WHY wouldn't the city just let people use an insulation with a positive 20+ year history?
I am also starting to suspect that your local building department is more reasonable than mine. I'll give you one more example.
A client of mine works for a developer. His company was eyeing a property that was coming up on the market. My client and his team reviewed all the code applicable to the piece of property and found numerous contradictions in the code. As a result, they were unable to determine the size and configuration of the building that could legally be constructed there.
They went to the building department with a written list of the confusing lines of code. They got the department to produce a one-page memo to clarify the cited code issues, and identify which parts of the code would govern their project, thus explicitly defining the size and type of building that could be sited on the property.
My clients company then went to the A&E firms and had them do their design work. When the plans were submitted to the city, they were kicked back. Amazingly, the plan reviewers contradicted the earlier memo.
My client went to the department head to find out what went wrong. According to my client, the department head asked if they couldn't just re-design the building based on the reviewers' redlines. My client then explained that, no, the plans were developed according the the earlier city-issued memo, and that several hundred thousand dollars had already been paid to the A&E firms.
Somewhere into this conversation, my client had to threaten litigation. The department head's own secretary said if it came to litigation, he would side with my client. At that point, the department head went ballistic and started screaming and swearing. He finally agreed to tell the reviewers to stick to the original memo, but made it clear that he never wanted to see my client in his office again -- as if requiring him to stick to his earlier written statements was something he shouldn't be forced to do.
Now maybe you can see why I don't have a lot of faith in presenting logical arguments to this type of organization.
Regards,
Ragnar
Ragnar,Have you considered moving to another jurisdiction? What you describe sounds positively Gothic! Some would say life is too short for such nonsense.Bill
Yes, I definitely have thought of moving! ;)
In the meantime, I try to focus on jobs that don't have any code -- like finish trim, etc.
Of course, I suppose it's just a matter of time before some blue-ribbon government panel determines that solid wood trim is harmful to children -- if they fall and hit their head, it's just too hard a surface. We need safer houses -- let's mandate soft rubber trim!
I just need to remind myself that it's all about the children. ;)
No system is perfect and all governmental bodies are staffed with people who couldn't find work elsewhere. Obviously, we're not dealing with the best and brightest society has to offer, but you have to do the best with the hand your dealt. You have to remember that these people have pride and egos. Challenges to their "knowledge" and authority are taken personally. You can fight City Hall, but you get better results if they don't know it. Develop relationships with these folks. Develop trust in that they know you are a professional and are dedicated to doing your jobs right, safely and according to their rules. My local building department is reasonable with me, because I have done just that. I went so far as to "help" the mechanical department develop a checklist for funace and water heater installations, and provided training on this issue. Now, they don't have to memorize parts of two different codes, and they save a lot of time in the field.
If, as in your example, a written acceptance is contradicted, you have to draw the line and stand your ground. Most situations (with these and all other people, for tha matter) are dealt with much more effectively with tact and diplomacy. This is a lesson some have yet to learn and some will never learn. Codes are written in language that is frequently not precise and interpretations are necessary. This is a fact that cannot be avoided. To my understanding, some of the ambiguity is intentional, allowing some flexibility in the application. In th IMC, there is a specific note that allows "alternative, engineered" ventilation rates as opposes to the hard and fast nubers listed in Table 403.3. Depending on the use of the building, sometimes fleixbility rules, sometimes "letter-of-the-law" only applies.
>>No system is perfect and all governmental bodies are staffed with people who couldn't find work elsewhere.
All working organizations have incompetents.
"All working organizations have incompetents."
That's indisputably true, but governmental workplaces tend to get a higher concentration than most others. Certain "organized" groups are very effective at removing any incentive to perform, but I can't really include those here, because you did say "working".
""Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary ..""I was looking at one recently, I believe tht it was Elgin, ILL., that prohibited many modern building practices including ICF's and SIP.
Bill,
Could you tell me more about your "personal quote"?
11 yo grade school drop out that know more about GFCI's than some people that claim to be electricans.And the test results to prove it.
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=71180.71
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=71180.72
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=71180.78
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=71180.86
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=71180.117http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=72696.13
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=72696.18
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=72696.19
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=72696.20
"...that prohibited many modern building practices..."
I'm sure there are many examples out there that I would not believe exist. Code authoring groups tend to be a conservative bunch. Whether or not SIPS are suitable for all types of construction is certainly an arguable point, but give them time.
> Code authoring groups tend to be a conservative bunch.
Who are they? Where are they? How do they get that job? It would sure be fun to get the little man behind the curtain to join in the discussion here, wouldn't it? And closing the loop with the real world would produce better codes, too.
-- J.S.
Look on your copy of the Code, the publisher and their address is easily found inside the front cover. There are many organizations involved in genrating and publishing codes. The NFPA publishes the National Electrical Code, the International Code Council publishes all the "International" codes (IRC, IMC, IPC, IBC, IFGC, IECC and a few others), the list is long. Trade groups and professional societies, like , AGA, ASHRAE, ASME, ANSI, ASTM, IEEE, IPE, NSPE, etc., provide a lot of oversight and standards that are used as input. Some codes are produced by contractor associations, such as the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association and Sheet Metal Contractors National Association (SMACNA). For those truely interested in affecting the codes, avenues exist. It is a tedious and thankless process, heavily beauracratic at its best. The revision and updating processes are by no means a closed loop. My experience and familiarity leans heavily to the commercial and design side of the spectrum, mechanicals in particular, by I would expect that the residential and light construction side is equally accessible to those interested in doing so.
Edited 6/16/2006 9:55 am by Tim
"Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary ..."
“Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.”
--- John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) 6th US President
Re: "Many code requirements seem completely arbitrary ..."Only if you don't understand them as a system.
Only if you don't understand them as a system.
Dunno, he's in Seattle--it may only make sense if you're soaking wet, and on your 11th cup of coffee in the morning <g> . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I think the very notion that building codes are unconstitutional is totally absurd.
There are too many dangers in this country. People die every day from dangerous situations. Therefore it is my mission to remove all dangers in this country if not the world. I have a plan.
My plan is comprehensive. It will take a long time, 50 to 100 years. It's a long time, but I believe it is worth it. We have to stop people from being injured or killed. I have a vision for the future which is free of all potential for bodily harm.
I propose that we fence off all bodies of water. This country is full of unregulated bodies of water. Under present conditions anybody, old or young, can enter these bodies without any supervision. And many people die doing so. Permits must be applied for and obtained in order to enter a body of water. Imagine the money the country could save in life insurance payouts.
There are too many dangerous cliffs around. Under my plan these will be graded as to be more safe, or fenced off completely to prevent any access except to permit holders.
All openable windows above the first floor will be boarded up.
All railings for decks, balconies, bridges, porches, etc must be 6 ft. high or more. A child could pull a chair to a standard 3 ft. railing and easily climb over.
There will be no more stairs, they are dangerous.
There will be no more doors, fingers and doors don't mix.
Things that get hot...out
Bathtubs will all be removed, anybody can turn a handle and drown.
There will be no sleeping in tents outdoors. They are neither fire proof or hurricane proof.
All homes will be subject to random annual inspections to make sure dangerous situations have not been created since the building inspection.
Hard surfaces will be abolished. We are working on a new synthetic material which will replace all current building materials which is as soft as a baby's butt.
that's funny"he...never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too" - Mark Twain
With the ability to produce plans like this, you might want to remember a few phrases that you will need in your future.
"You want fries with that?" "Do want to supersize that today?" "Will that be for here or to go?" & "Will that be pick-up or delivery?".
Edited 6/19/2006 3:50 pm by Tim
Are you saying that my plan is so brilliant that its ahead of its time, so I'll have to work at McDonald's instead?
Or, are you saying that my plan sucks, therefore I'll be working at McD's?
I'd really like to know because I'm committed to this plan and need as much input as possible.
Just being a smarta$$, as you might of figured. I for one, support the Darwin Days approach, allowing those too stupid to survive daily perils, to perish along with their defective offspring, or hopefully before they have been able to get someone drunk enough to reproduce. Nothing like a little chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Right on brother.
Don't forget knife control!
Oh yeah I forgot, thanks.
What I'd like to see is VOLUNTARY code compliance. By this, I mean that a builder or homeowner could choose WHICH set of building rules to use (if any). In addition to existing international and local codes, there could be codes developed by building associations, trade unions, etc. It would put the power of choice where I think it belongs -- in the hands of the taxpaying private property owner. Builders could then use the code as a marketing strategy; they could use it to convince potential buyers that their particular product is best, and explain the benefits.
That's a great idea; every single real estate transaction could be encumbered with disclosure requirements, and the original builder could be forever liable for any problems with their structure.
By the same token, I think we should be able to buy cars without seatbelts or headlights if we want to.
That's a great idea; every single real estate transaction could be encumbered with disclosure requirements, and the original builder could be forever liable for any problems with their structure.
I think there's a statute of limitations, but otherwise, isn't this the way it is now?
By the same token, I think we should be able to buy cars without seatbelts or headlights if we want to.
And by the same token, if the government decided that seatbelts and headlights were unsafe, they could decide to prevent auto manufacturers from implementing them.
The question is: who do you want to place in charge of your purchasing decision? You, or a government bureaucrat?
"Personally, I am opposed to mandatory building codes, so I would have liked to see what the original poster had to say on this topic."
The OP had a BS axe to grind, you missed nothing. He/she wasn't up to any level of criticism either. This is obviously the wrong place for some one with such sensitivies.
OTH, I too, would like to hear your reasons for opposition to mandatory building Codes. Most construction professionals I know, love to bitch about the Codes, their interpretaion and enforcement, but understand their basic necessity. Most hacks I know, believe as you do. Maybe its too many long words to understand. Maybe they're too incompetent to work to minimum standards. Some are arrogant enough to believe that they "know better". Most just blow it off as a waste of time.
Every time I need to move and get a new house, I find the dirty bastid that sold it covered something up or failed to disclose something or another.
I'm tired of having to clean up someone else's deliberately hidden mess. And the damn lawyers are too busy looking for other ambulances to chase.
All I have to say is, YOU don't want to be the next guy who's house I buy.
Those that don't believe in building codes are cheatin' thieves.
Those that don't believe in building codes are cheatin' thieves.
Pete --
I suggest you start off with something other than ad hominem attacks. It hardly supports your position.
Ragnar, you wouldn't be an Ayn Rand fan, would you?Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
Bingo!
You wouldn't be a Heinlein fan, would you? ;)
Here's one of his that I like:
"The human race divides itself politically into those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire."
Well. I think we may share some political views.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
You've certainly added your share of quality to this board since your recent appearance. Your experience shows.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Well......Thank-you, Piffen. It's easy to share the knowledge I've gained from training I've taken, work experiences and ,of course, mistakes I made and have seen others make. It would be much easier if I typed faster.
What's to stop your neighbor from building his septic system's leach field 20 feet from your well? Why, if your not on well, is it OK for your neighbor to allow back siphoning of his garden hose into the community water system just because he installed his plumbing system incorrectly?
The building code is required because there are so many of us building our houses close to someone else and often, we end up selling our home to somebody rather than burning it down when we leave to live elsewhere. It's one of those population kind of things. Even if you're not close to your neighbor, the codes are there so that you don't build that stair railing in such a way that your young child can crawl over or through it. If you don't have children, it protects your neighbors kids from getting into your backyard pool and drowning themselves.
In short, it's the minimum standard to protect the public and the just plain ignorant from themselves. The legal ramifications are real simple to understand, at the end of the road (legal) they either throw your a** in jail or, more common, they dig into your wallet. I've observed cases where they, sooner or later, force the owner to tear down his/her own building at the owners expense.
it's curious what happpened to all this guys posts. I never got to read them. Makes it look like he has something to be ashamed of.Anyway - I wanted to follow up on your comment on what happens enforcement wise.Most places I have lived have had minimal codes enforecment but when a builder does step over the line, it is common to find a restraining order from the court, the potential for contempt of court charges, fines of at least a hundred dollars a day until the infraction is rectified, and the possibility of eentually losing the property.Most mortgages have contained within them a line or two where the mortgagee agrees to abide3 by all applicable codes, etc....bedcause the bank also has an interest in the value of the property.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
what happpened to all this guys posts. I never got to read them
"We" may have "skeered" him off--profile shows just the 9 posts on 11 June.
It's rather like he was out to be a bit of a "bomb thrower" and retreated to under a bridge when "we" proved a bit resistant to rhetorical "bomb"bast (or 'blast' <g>).
Only time will tell, I suppose.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Admin!!!
How does message one get deleted? Without it we're left with nothing to rant about. Do you think we're suppose to make up our own thread beginnings?
it wasnt bad , he was complaining about the code enforcer and cable rails on decks.
woodway, since when did not having a topic ever stop this bunch from commenting?
insert one of those smiley things, so you don't misinterpret my meaning.
thanks.
A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
Quittin' Time
I'm not sure what this thread started talking about due to posts being deleted I didn't know that could be done, was it big brother or what?
No, you have the ability to delete your own posts. I would think he did it for whatever reason.A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
Quittin' Time
didn't know that I'm new here.Anyway I am all for building codes to protect clients and myself!!
Well Zach, welcome to BT. A code approved site.A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
Quittin' Time
thanx, I love it so far great advice and great people, really an all around good time.
Could have been big brother AKA the moderators.
I have had a post or 2 deleted.
Could have been the OP.
I have seen somoenes post disappear with them for a 2 week cooling off period.
Also have seen entire threads go away & no one got penalized--- mainly cause they were gonna have to slap too many posters.I wonder if Cindy Sheehan ever thanked her son for her freedom to be a moron.
spooky
LOL
Although I think some codes are riduculous----- in general we need codes & standards or anybody who might be able to strike a nail or glue plastic or spin a wire nut would be building stuff that we live or work in.
I wonder if Cindy Sheehan ever thanked her son for her freedom to be a moron.
Yeah, watch out for the moderators here, Zachariah. They're pretty tough. <G>Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom