Started by MountainDon, April 01, 2011, 11:08:08 PM
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: rwanders on April 02, 2011, 05:15:54 PM "just because something is to code does not make it good--"Absolutely true----the Code prescribes minimums, generally safe but, most would be rather unhappy with many aspects of a home just built to the minimums. Many questions and answers on this forum relate dissatisfaction with them.
Quote from: jr1318 on April 03, 2011, 02:08:18 PMOlJarhead, so if your house or building collaspes and you get hurt and you use health insurance plus fire and rescue, which rates are spread over a large number of people causing all our rate to go up is that right or should you pay out of pocket for injuries and rescue. Being a libertarian are you going rescue yourself and fix your wounds without the help of society? What about your unsuspecting visitors. Unsafe buildings affect society as a whole rather it be directly or indirectly.
QuoteEither we are a free people, or we are not.
Quote from: John Raabe on April 03, 2011, 08:35:20 PMI think it will be valuable as we go through this exercise to keep in mind that codes are constantly evolving and lots of solid homes have been built 20, 30, 50 and 100 years ago. They would not meet current code.Whether you choose to build your new house to code or beyond code, I can assure you that within a few years it too will not meet code. Does that mean it will suddenly be unsafe? Unless you are driving a 2011 automobile you are not driving a code car. Does that mean you are in an unsafe vehicle? Both building and automobile regulations are constantly evolving - generally, at least in the safety realm, in the direction of attempting to provide more and more protection from less and less likely events. Things such as driving into a lake (in your car) or getting hit by a tornado (in your house). I think it is great that there are members of this forum who have studied building code regulations and can provide guidance to those who want to follow the path. It is not necessary that we all be of one religion, however. Those who might follow their own common sense or build using techniques of a few years ago are not going to burn in hell. Nor are they throwing their families to the wolves. They are just getting a head start on being out of compliance with current code. So, go easy on the non-believers guys. This is one of the few places left where people can feel free asking practical building questions and showing projects that might not be kosher with every building inspector that wanders by.Keep it solid and keep it safe. Satisfying your county inspector is your option (but always suggested).
Quote from: Bob S. on April 03, 2011, 11:50:18 PMI always thought the main purpose of building codes, where to keep a professional house builder from cutting corners in areas that can not be seen by a unsuspecting house buyer.
Quote from: Alan Gage on April 04, 2011, 09:17:18 AM It's highly likely they'll move out of the house at some point and future owners will have no way of knowing how the house was constructed or what risks they're assuming.Alan
Quote from: archimedes on April 04, 2011, 09:33:06 AMThat is simply not true. The governing body could simply change the "Certificate of Occupancy" to a "Certificate of Compliance" to the building codes. It would be a matter of public record.If an owner builder chose not to obtain a "Certificate of Compliance" it would certainly affect the marketability of the house, and affect their insurance and financing costs, but if they choose to assume that responsibliity that should be their choice. Any future buyer of the property would have the choice to accept it or not.
Quote from: umtallguy on April 02, 2011, 02:23:27 PMjust because something is to code does not make it good, or safe in all aspects. Engineered I beam lumber is perfectly to code and great for long spans, but kills firefighters as it has a much shorter burn through time then traditional floor joists.