"Katrina's Architectural Revolution"

[Sherry]

Maybe this isn't the correct part of the forum for this topic.  Geez, maybe it's not even the right site, considering that it's the Country Plans site, and I guess most of the posters are more rural-dwellers than I am.  But since we urban animals don't really have a discussion group (that I know of) relating to owner building and codes, I'm going to throw this out there.

Has anyone seen the Nov. '09 issue of The Atlantic Magazine with the article "Katrina's Architectural Revolution"?

Part of the article has some commentary by the architect Andres Duany that deals with some interesting new ideas and proposals.  Duany says that many of the areas destroyed by Katrina had houses that were built by the grandfathers and fathers of the present owners, and were houses that were not built to codes.  As a result, owners were living without the burden of a mortgage, and there was a "culture of leisure" in the city.  (This is me here--maybe that's why all of the arts were able to flourish to such a degree in New Orleans.)  So Duany proposes that the city adopt some "opt-out" zones where owner/builders could rebuild their houses incrementally, and without the burden of what he calls "gold-plated" codes and standards that other places have.  Duany claims that New Orleans was one of the very few urban areas where people could live for such a low cost because of this, and so it should be again.

Does anyone else find this an interesting concept?  Any opinions?

[MountainDon]

This is a good spot for this Sherry. We are city dwellers with a place in the mountains and I know of others like us.



Here's the article...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/curtis-architecture-new-orleans

[frazoo]

I have mixed thoughts on this one.  I am all for uncle staying out of my business.  BUT, over the years I have had customers ask me to cut corners in areas of their project that could/would put them in danger.  Some asked not knowing any better, others asked just to pinch a penny and darn the consequences.  Without any code, I fear many would be put at risk.  You would hope all would use good judgement, but life tells me otherwise. JMO for whatever.

frazoo

[rwanders]

In reality, I suspect there was a lot fewer owners without mortgages than the author of that article assumes. Secondly, I don't believe that building to code results in major additional costs unless you plan to build only a real "tarpaper shack" without plumbing or adequate wiring. I don't think encouraging construction like that is good for anyone, anywhere.

[Freeholdfarm]

In reality, I suspect there was a lot fewer owners without mortgages than the author of that article assumes. Secondly, I don't believe that building to code results in major additional costs unless you plan to build only a real "tarpaper shack" without plumbing or adequate wiring. I don't think encouraging construction like that is good for anyone, anywhere.

While plumbing is certainly necessary in an urban home (because of the city-wide sanitation issues), neither plumbing or electricity are necessary in rural homes.  Just because a rural home is lacking these two luxury items doesn't necessarily mean that it's a tarpaper shack, either.  There are some very nice homes with outside or composting toilets, and off-grid.  Some of them don't have any electricity at all.  And guess what?  Up until a hundred years ago or so, ALL houses were built that way!  (Actually, the rich began putting in indoor plumbing nearly two hundred years ago.)  For most of human history, ALL people, including kings and queens, lived without electricity and plumbing -- and now we think they are NECESSARY?!?

As for New Orleans, while the building codes *are* a good thing as far as safety issues are concerned, what they might do is relax their size codes and let people build tiny houses that they can afford, and then either add on, or build a larger house on a pay-as-you-go basis.  Of course, I think there's a lot more area affected than just New Orleans, and some of it is quite rural, so they might be able to be a little more relaxed there.

Kathleen

[rwanders]

I agree, size should not be a code requirement, though I have never seen a code with that kind of spec-----It is common in subdivision covenants though. I also agree that rural or remote homes should allow for off grid construction. Three states have recently started requiring fire sprinkler systems in one and two family homes----that is overkill, I would agree.

Urban living, closely packed as it is, does require more if only to protect adjacent properties

[frazoo]

I agree with relaxing size requirements in areas with tight restrictions for that.  But that being said, in my area and in my experience, the code relating to size is more common sense than anything.  My local code requires a kitchen to have at least 50 s.f., at least one main room of at least 150 s.f., and any habitable room to be at least 70 s.f. (I am typing this from memory, I hope I have quoted it right but don't hold me to it).  That's the only "size" requirements for my area and if you think about it, you would be hard pressed to live in something smaller than that. 

Maybe a provisional building permit or temporary occupancy permit once a minimum requirement were met, then you could add on as you could afford? That being said, if I own a property worth 700k, I want my property value protected by some kind of restriction for new builds coming into the area. 

frazoo

[pagan]

I guess it all depends on what you want to do with the area. Do you want it to look just like it did prior to the storm? If so, that's probably going to get pricey. Also it's pretty unlikely anybody is going to be able to afford building a large house without taking out an equally large loan. Personally I don't think the codes would cause financial burdens, rather it's going to be the size of the house and if the owner is capable of building.

By the way, kings and queens did have plumbing, they just called their plumbing servants.

[MountainDon]

This is probably not a very "correct" thing to say, but...

Why do the areas that were damaged by Katrina's flood waters and are below the past and present day sea level need to be rebuilt?

[pagan]

Because humans tend to build where natural "disasters" occur and then stoically stand and proclaim "Nature will not drive me away!" as their homes are destroyed. In essence, some of us are pretty numb.

[glenn kangiser]

I'm with Kathleen on this.  Codes for small residential houses are mainly for taxation purposes.  One can still build to code standards without the associated exorbitant taxation and code fees.

The county charged one of my clients $21000 for his permit and school fees.  Most people could have built a home for that.  Since he is doing it as he can afford it, the permit expired and they charged him another $3500 to renew it.

He really does not have the money to pay all of those extorted parasitic fees, yet that does not prevent me from building a safe structure to the code or engineers guidelines.  The inspector always passes my work with no or few questions and no changes as he knows it is done right.

[poppy]

One of my pet peeves is everyone calling events like Katrina and the Haiti earthquake "natural disasters."

They are not natural disasters, they are human disasters because humans got in the way of nature.

A flood or earthquake on a deserted island is certainly not a natural disaster, it's just nature doing what nature does.  Nature doesn't do anything different when people are around.

And speaking of nature, here is a quote from a reader in the letters section of today's paper:
"We can send a man to the moon.  Can't we learn to control nature?  The billions spent on recovery could be spent on that endeavor.  Saving lives must outweigh reaching other planets."

If I didn't know better, I would think it was April 1 instead of Jan. 21 after reading that half-brain's letter.  

OK, rant button turned off.

The Atlantic article is interesting and at least one of the featured houses on the map was built on stilts.  

[MountainDon]

They are not natural disasters, they are human disasters because humans got in the way of nature.

Exactly poppy. The best we can hope for is to coexist. In some locations buildings on stilts can save property and lives. In those cases though there must be standards and I think that means codes. Unless you are going to say, okay build whatever you want but there will be no rescue by public money.

[RainDog]

Brad Pitt's gonna save the 9th Ward with minimalist design!

http://www.makeitrightnola.org/

What is he thinking?

[John Raabe]

Raindog: A lot of tall pier construction in those links. That's one way to attempt to survive the next flood.

On the code issue:

I would argue for the suspension of some of the overlays that have been added to some code and zoning requirements - the kind of things Glenn mentions - where the goal is keeping the cost of construction so high that only the wealthy with a lot of time on their hands can live near us. (Thus keeping us "special" and the property values high.)

But the original intent of building codes were safety and health - things like safe water and electricity, fire alarms, and straps to hold the roof on in a windstorm. Especially in urban environments, these things should be done no matter how inexpensive the house. Otherwise you end up living in Haiti.

I also agree with Poppy and think there are lots of places people build where there should not be houses...

[RainDog]

Raindog: A lot of tall pier construction in those links. That's one way to attempt to survive the next flood.

I've lived in LA, in a house on stilts. On Daufuskie Island, SC as well. I'd pause for a mighty long time before crediting Make It Right Nola for that.

Their houses may well survive the next big one, but who will be living in them?

The most likely outcome of this brand of help is that the area gentrifies, and the folks who lived there before the flood driven out. Those are not reasonable replacements for the people there, they're high style Hollywood ego tripping.

Don't get me wrong, I like the way they look. That doesn't make their price tags any lower, though.

It's the same thing as those "affordable" Michelle Kaufman homes. Affordable for Brad Pitt, perhaps. Chump change for him, but for the people of the 9th Ward?

[John Raabe]

Point taken. Such houses are inappropriately trendy and expensive for the people they claim to help. Should we really expect more than Showboating from someone living in a Brad Pitt bubble?

[Freeholdfarm]

Some very good comments up there! 

As far as size, though, take a good look at some of the tiny-house designs!  Or go examine a camp trailer or a pickup camper!  No, a lot of people wouldn't be willing to live in such small housing, but it is POSSIBLE to live in them! 

We visited a 'pioneer' museum here in Eastern Oregon one time and the bedroom in one of the old houses on the site was big enough for a bed, a narrow dresser, and a few clothes pegs on the wall.  The house my Dad lived in for his final years in Alaska (built by one of my brothers) had a second bedroom that was six feet square -- my other brother slept in that for several years, helping Dad out.  So you don't NEED seventy square feet for a bedroom!  It's nice, sure, but not necessary.   The problem is that we have a culture where people think that their WANTS are actually NEEDS.  Oh, and consider the cupboard beds of some 'peasant' housing in Europe, especially northern Europe/Scandinavia -- there the bedroom IS the bed!  Maybe some shelves at the head and foot of the bed, and a few drawers or cupboards underneath.  We have some cultural expectations for our housing, but expectations aren't NEEDS! 

It's a fun challenge to see how small of a house will meet all of your actual needs -- it's probably smaller than some of you think!

Kathleen

[RainDog]

As far as size, though, take a good look at some of the tiny-house designs!  Or go examine a camp trailer or a pickup camper!  No, a lot of people wouldn't be willing to live in such small housing, but it is POSSIBLE to live in them!  

Absolutely. When I was younger and first began diving offshore for Global, I lived in a truck camper in a crummy RV park for a few months until my wife came down from Seattle and we rented an apartment. Was offshore most of the time, but when I wasn't it was a perfectly fine place to sleep and eat.

Then again, I wasn't really living there, just sleeping there. I was really doing all my living in the beer joint across the street.  

[pagan]

Brad Pitt's going to be very busy because Angelina's probably going to adobt half of Haiti, I think he'll be putting the 9th Ward on the back burner for a bit.

[frazoo]

Possible to live in yes, IF it is your choice and your decision affects only you. Kids don't have a choice and are affected by poor decisions made by others.  We do what we have to do in an emergency, but some make bad decisions a lifestyle.

I'm done, off my soapbox  just good, friendly discussion.

frazoo

[RainDog]

Possible to live in yes, IF it is your choice and your decision affects only you. Kids don't have a choice and are affective by poor decisions made by others.  We do what we have to do in an emergency, but some make bad decisions a lifestyle.

I'm done, off my soapbox   just good, friendly discussion.

frazoo

Oh yeah. I'd do it again if it were just me, but it isn't, so that's no longer an option. With kids it's an entirely new ballgame.

[dug]

Interesting thread. In this crowded planet it is a complicated issue for sure.

Though building codes may have originated with the noble intention of protecting communities as a whole it has since morphed into something much uglier. Now I am not saying that the codes themselves are generally unreasonable, and following them correctly will most likely result in a safe, habitable structure. Years of research, loads of complicated engineering backed by sound scientific experimentation continue to unearth better and better building practices.

So that being the case, forgive me if I am more than slightly irked that as a supposed free American who bought my own land (cash on the barrelhead) and is not asking money or anything else from anyone is not allowed to build a home for my family as I choose. Government has its place, but is not to micro-manage my affairs under the veil of protecting me (and my family) from myself. That's my opinion.

I say build how you want and declare it as such (inspected or not) if and when you sell. Let the buyer and the bank use their own judgement when purchasing. Don't want a shack going up next to your million dollar home? Property taxes and HOA's should be able to self regulate that. They already keep mobile homes carefully quarantined. I realize the issue gets more complex in close quarters, such as a city.

Build codes are now used to protect the bank's investment.

[glenn kangiser]

I love your attitude and am in full agreement, dug .

[pagan]

Ditto.