Building Codes

flyingvan · May 25, 2012, 08:18:10 AM

Somebody else here noticed a trend of owner/builders trying to work around the building codes....I'm by no stretch a pro-regulation guy and think it's killing our economy on many fronts, but building codes are a different animal. They come from mistakes learned in failed structures, good science, and tempered by developers not wanting to spend more than they have to. Building codes represent a MINIMUM, designed around a 30 year lifespan. Raise your hand if you've ever lived in a structure more than 30 years old.
I believe as owner builders we should be targeting 100 years. I want my grandchildren to tell their kids I built this place, and have them looking at a straight walled warm structure where the toilets flush properly.
Overbuilding, instead of underbuilding, is a huge advantage. Example---you're trying to decide whether to frame with 2x4's or 2x6's. Since you are building ONE unit, the difference in cost is negligible, and you end up with a stiffer structure with thicker insulation, where you can run your pipes and wires deep enough that siding nails can't reach them. It's superior in every way. If you were planning on building 3,000 units, that $200 you are saving would add up to serious cash and you'll build to the very edge of the minimums in not just the framing, but everything else. Without the watchful eye of an inspector, you could even frame with 2x3's. If your goal is to build a place as inexpensive as possible, go ahead. Just remember the biggest expense for a house is the labor and you're providing that for free so why cut back on materials?

So here's a question. Can you come up with some building codes you think are unreasonable? Just completely arbitrary rules that are only there to make life heck for owner/builders?

The only one I can come up with is the requirement for handrails to be 42" high. It looks and feels odd and I suspect it's one of those things that got adopted from the commercial building code into the residential

Erin · May 25, 2012, 09:31:10 AM

Sprinklers!

Another that comes to mind is the latest revision with spindle spacing on railings. I can't recall what the measurement was, but it used to be it needed to be narrow enough so that ambulatory-age children couldn't get their heads between the spindles. Now it's more like premature infants.

I don't think they're in place to annoy builders. I think they're there to protect home-owners from less scrupulous builders who would try to cut too many corners.

However, building to code and building to safe and square aren't necessarily the same thing. Nor does working around some codes mean someone is going to end up with an inferior home.

BTW, this place has always had people who try to work around building codes. Shoot, John has plans posted for a Jefferson staircase (which isn't even remotely to code).

QuoteRaise your hand if you've ever lived in a structure more than 30 years old.

Me. I grew up in a 1914 Craftsman that my folks still own (and are currently remodeling...again). It's not at all to code, but it was straight, square and mostly-safe for almost 100 years...
In adulthood, my husband and I have lived in a dozen homes. The youngest of which was 50 years. Not a one of them would pass a modern inspection, but they were all snug, safe, and dry.

May 25, 2012, 12:02:59 PM

Sorry, as a fireman I disagree with you 100% about sprinklers. They keep small fires small, which keeps the neighbor's houses from burning down. Our department responds to quite a few incidents where you show up and a sprinkler is spraying on the charred remains of a burned up couch---that would have spread quickly to the people sleeping upstairs. The argument against sprinklers in my forest was, they wouldn't have saved my house from a forest fire. That is true. The forest fires that start as house fires, though, are no longer common.
Spindle spacing is 'such that a 4" sphere cannot pass through any point'. Not sure if that's just San Diego County or UBC. I do wish I had more latitude in stair and rail design. Your code may have a stricter requirement, or maybe they are concerned about pets?

Your older craftsman style house may be 'existing non-conforming' in many ways, my point though is building codes are a minimum---don't build to just meet code, build to meet the test of time--like your craftsman home.

davidj · May 25, 2012, 12:32:26 PM

In general, my feeling is that the codes aren't too bad provided they are interpreted sensibly. There are lots of ways that you can technically violate the code without violating the spirit and these situations are where a reasonable interpretation by officials makes all of the difference.

The only part of the code that really annoyed me was the California Title 24 lighting fixtures - lots of places where you need to put fixtures that only take low energy (essentially square-base fluorescent) bulbs or use dimmers. But by far the most cost-effective way of doing low-efficiency lighting is regular fixtures and screw-base CFLs, which mostly don't work with dimmers anyway! GU-24 bases and dimmable LED bulbs have made this all a bit more sane but you still end up jumping through expensive hoops to achieve what you could easily do using normal fixtures and cheapo screw-base CFLs/LEDs. And given they're phasing out incandescent bulbs anyway the whole thing is completely stupid!!!

One of my next tasks is to rebuild the square-base fluorescent cans in the kitchen and porch. The square-base fluorescent bulbs take too long to warm up when the cabin's cold and I want screw bases so I can use LED bulbs. This involves stripping out all the $35 electronic ballasts and throwing them away, and buying new cans so I can use the guts for the retrofit.

rocking23nf · May 25, 2012, 01:12:49 PM

Poly with rock under my cabin extension was a complete waste of time IMO.

# of outlets per wall is silly also.

Code in my new home now requires that all attached garages are insulated and drywalled and taped, althought i kinda like having a warm garage in our -30C winters.

May 25, 2012, 02:09:21 PM

Poly with rock? Is that a local code?

rocking23nf · May 25, 2012, 02:14:38 PM

not sure, never knew such a thing existed until I spoke with the inspector and he gave me a list of what he wanted to see on the extension.

He was adamant about Poly with crushed rock under the extension.

Something about ground smells. The rest of the cabin doesnt have such a thing.

MountainDon · May 25, 2012, 02:22:24 PM

Quote# of outlets per wall is silly also.

The US NEC calls for a receptacle every 12 feet with special rules for kitchens. Is that the same in Canada? Personally there have been many times I have wished the spacing was more like 6 to 8 feet. Another example I think of the minimum code requirement being insufficient in some cases. It's not that more receptacles are actually needed; it's that in many cases one is behind the heavy sofa and hard to reach. Or behind the waterbed headboard.

Squirl · May 25, 2012, 02:40:54 PM

I'm familiar with the code citation in the ICC.

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2009/icod_irc_2009_4_sec008.htm

http://publicecodes.citation.com/icod/irc/2009/icod_irc_2009_4_sec008_par002.htm

With the ICC, it is a choice, ventilate or class 1 vapor retarder. I went with ventilation.

May 25, 2012, 05:35:28 PM

Quote from: flyingvan on May 25, 2012, 12:02:59 PM
Sorry, as a fireman I disagree with you 100% about sprinklers.

You are welcome to do so. You asked for opinions, I gave mine.

Fortunately, my state has exempted single family dwellings from that requirement and my county doesn't enforce codes anyway...We don't even have zoning. Nor do we have neighbors whose house would burn if ours went up.

QuoteSpindle spacing is 'such that a 4" sphere cannot pass through any point'.

Precisely. And that's just stupid. Four inches is barely bigger than a PostIt! What on earth are they worried is going through there??

QuoteYour older craftsman style house may be 'existing non-conforming' in many ways, my point though is building codes are a minimum---don't build to just meet code, build to meet the test of time--like your craftsman home.

That's my point as well.
"The test of time" doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with code... My folks' house is a beautiful, old house that would never be approved today.

MountainDon · May 25, 2012, 06:04:03 PM

QuoteAnd that's just stupid. Four inches is barely bigger than a PostIt! What on earth are they worried is going through there??

I'm not positive, but I believe I'm correct in stating that the idea is to prevent a young child's body from slipping through and then hanging there by their head.

And as for old homes not meeting present day code that's fine. Nobody is forcing them to be brought up to date, though when renovations reach a certain point it is common to require updating to current standards. There may be some exceptions in some places. OR for example, requires removal of old non EPA conforming wood stoves before a home is sold, IIRC.

muldoon · May 25, 2012, 10:33:11 PM

I am likely the poster that commented about building codes that spurred this post. I commented on another thread where someone was asking about something plumbing related and I commented that codes exist for a reason and I did not understand the mindset behind trying to get around it in the context presented.

I wound up deleting the comment because after re-reading it I got the impression that my comment was attacking the poster and that was not my intent. I have nothing but respect for the folks here at CP and don't really want to come off as some know it all about things I really am not a know it all about.

Building codes have their place, but common sense does as well. I am not a die-hard pull the permit, pay the man, adhere to every code no matter what kind of guy. In fact I am quite the opposite. I have done dozens of projects at home and in my place in the country. I have never filed for a permit in my life, and I do not ever intend to. My country place does not fall under city, and their is no code enforcement, my city residence does fall under code -- but I strongly believe that I have the right to do as I choose and do so.

My comment was with the mindset of some folks that say, I know this is wrong, but it would be a lot of work to do it right, so I am going to do it wrong anyway - what do you think? Invariably comments show up saying, you know those rules exist for a reason and you might want to reconsider. Then the blowback where people defend their thinking citing rediculous things like my neighbor has his house on rocks, or when I was a kid in the dust bowl we built houses out of mud and we were fine.

I don't think any of that helps build the community this site is about. I do not think that knowing something is wrong, and ignoring it but trying to look for validation is helpful in a building forum. I personally want to build for longevity, at either places I am working on. For example, I never pulled a permit for my patio covered porch, but after Hurricane Ike passed and my patio covering was intact and I know of 5 "contractor built" permitted patios that blew away, I kinda think the whole do it to code thing is just another BS money grab.

You do not need some government goon to tell you how to build. But if you want to build the equivalent of a cardboard box because it's cheaper, don't ask others for their opinion. You my not like what you hear. If you are that sure of your choices, just do it and live with the consequences.

Those consequences can be more than you initially expect. Like, the house will never pass inspection, thus you will never be able to sell it to a buyer that needs financing. Like you cannot get the structure insured. Let's say you leave the place to your kids or spouse .. then they fall under those constraints as well without you there to "keep the bandaids" on. I just don't think it's a smart move in the longterm.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have learned that building is a young mans game. I do not want to be fixing mistakes in 20 years when my knees and back are in worse shape than they are today just because I was able to save 100 bucks. Build it right, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Build something you are proud of.

flyingvan · May 26, 2012, 01:30:29 AM

I think I pretty much agree. It isn't government's job to protect us from ourselves, and you can still buy a house built to code that was built pretty shoddy. However, I can drive one hour south to Mexico to see what a community without any code enforcement looks like.....There are a few nice areas, but for the most part not good and it doesn't take much of a weather event to cause real problems
What's interesting is you couldn't hire me to change a light switch since I'm not a contractor, but I CAN design and build an entire house and sell it to you
Building is a young person's game? I better stop building or re-define young---I've got two more houses planned

alex trent · May 26, 2012, 08:09:12 AM

"My comment was with the mindset of some folks that say, I know this is wrong, but it would be a lot of work to do it right, so I am going to do it wrong anyway "

I think a key distinction that is applicable to this site, is the difference between building it differently, ...then advice, opinions, codes..... not necessarily cheaper, although it may be.

I too have the utmost respect for the people who give advice on here...but it is just advice and when it is all considered and processed one has to do what they think is best for them. if you disregard it all, then no sense in asking. But, if you amalgamate the advice and what you find other places and evaluate that with your own wishes and knowledge you get what you want, not what someone else thinks is the way to do it. Codes and regulations have to fit a wide variety of circumstances, so while they are a good base, you have to customize for yourself and I think that is a lot of what this site is all about. As I have said before, I have had people who differed with my ideas, but then come back and help with them. In other instances, I have seen "advice" when questioned turn into a lecture on cost/quality, etc....more of less, "you are wrong and I will prove it".

May 26, 2012, 09:45:37 AM

Quote from: muldoon on May 25, 2012, 10:33:11 PM
snip......................
Building codes have their place, but common sense does as well.......snip

Oh how I agree. However I have a buddy. Great guy, lot of common sense. Many times I had to trust his judgement on the railroad for my safety and others. On the railroad stupid people do not live and they kill others. In Nam my buddy was a Chinook crew chief and knew his stuff. He had a cool head when ever I worked with him. Not stupid until the great cement pour. Point and only point is common sense applies so long as you understand what you are working with and how it works.

As I used to says, "When in doubt build it stout." Then I seen Peg post "When in doubt build it stout with something you know about." That made so much more sense. Because one mans stout is not another mans stout nor right.

Code goes a lot further than just dwellings falling down around your ears. There is the matters of safety, injury and real lives being lost. As far as sprinklers in homes. I feel some what hypocritical. We do not have them, however I think they are a good idea. Especially in two story dwellings. Why? Because I have felt the pain. I lost a close childhood friend in a fire, an old two story farm house. I was in and out off that house thousands of times, played a million hours there so it seemed. It was the house her mom grew up in as well. She had just purchased it back from another family. It was one of those old classic two story farm houses, it had one of those old steep narrow stairways. There was no - now 'legal egress' from that room. The electrical caught fire somewhere in the up stairs. They said most likely a ceiling light.

Several neighbors received bad burns and smoke inhalation trying to get her out. The fire department when they got there got it out. However they had a rough time in the narrow stairway and no room to work. The tall walls without any real fire blocks were sort of a conduit pulling gases up in to the upstairs where she was at so the firemen told us. I think I was twelve or fourteen at the time. I think it would have been easier on all of us if the $%^#@#% old house would have just burned to the ground. We have looked to buy property and a couple had house similar and I would not even look at them. Just drive on Mister Realtor Man just drive on. Old wounds like that are hard to heal.

Then I look at codes and rules and laws of building and permits. I do not like being told what to do as much as the next person. But how many Shannon's and others would have been here today........... I can not help from just wondering what if......

Erin · May 26, 2012, 11:01:19 AM

QuoteI'm not positive, but I believe I'm correct in stating that the idea is to prevent a young child's body from slipping through and then hanging there by their head.

No, the OLD code (pre'97 IBC, if I'm thinking right) was something like 6" and THAT was to prevent a young child from slipping through. But 4" is just downright ridiculous.
Like I said, that's just a smidge bigger than a Post-It. At this rate, in another 20 years it'll have to be solid. No gaps at all!

QuoteFor example, I never pulled a permit for my patio covered porch, but after Hurricane Ike passed and my patio covering was intact and I know of 5 "contractor built" permitted patios that blew away, I kinda think the whole do it to code thing is just another BS money grab.

Which is precisely my point. Building to code and building to safe and square aren't necessarily the same thing. Obviously there is a lot of overlap, but in some cases (the 4" spindle gap as an example) code is just silly...

flyingvan · May 26, 2012, 03:39:09 PM

Building to code, I think, is the absolute minimum. Going way past what's required is commendable. There are some building techniques that are probably superior to common practice, but the code just hasn't addressed them---here in San Diego they make what I think is a reasonable provision for that----get an engineer's stamp. I had to do that for two different issues---One, a deck beam that cantilevered out more than the typical 1/3, and two, the sheer transfer methods used to allow lots of windows on the view side.
If nothing else, the codes make a pretty good checklist to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I agree with the California Title 24 lighting requirements being unreasonable. People should be able to choose for themselves how efficient their lighting is. Not really a structural issue

Erin · May 26, 2012, 04:38:04 PM

QuoteBuilding to code, I think, is the absolute minimum. Going way past what's required is commendable.

So you're planning on putting rail spindles closer than 4 inches?
(Why?)
Your sill plate washers are larger than 3"?
You're installing more sprinklers than required?

And then we start looking at things where going beyond "code" is detrimental.
For example, too many nails weaken the structure of the lumber. Or better, I can think of several conversations where people have said they were going to go with screws instead of nails, thinking they were going above and beyond code. Not realizing that screws are actually weaker than nails when in stress applications. And so on and so forth.

So often I've seen people make that blanket statement "code is a minimum" without stopping to consider how MUCH is in the various codes. There is no way on earth ANYONE is building greater than code in their entire structure. It wouldn't make any sense.

Do you see what I mean?

suburbancowboy · May 26, 2012, 07:22:50 PM

How about putting electrical in a cabin that doesn't have electicity even to the mountain the cabin is on.

AdironDoc · May 26, 2012, 07:53:50 PM

Quote from: suburbancowboy on May 26, 2012, 07:22:50 PM
How about putting electrical in a cabin that doesn't have electicity even to the mountain the cabin is on.

Agreed. Was originally told by the building inspector that even with a battery and 12V setup, he wanted outlets in each wall, panel, ground rods, etc. I asked why on earth that would be necessary, to which he replied, "someone someday could upgrade the cabin to 120V in and I'd like to think it wouldn't cost you much extra". If the dwelling will be lived in it must have electric. If it has electric, it must be to code. There is nothing specific noting any differences between 12V and 120V. Brilliant.

Although not the case upstate NY, I've heard tales of minimum size requirements. Want a hunting camp? Great, it will be a big one. Want smaller? Better put up your tent. Lastly, even here, there are minimum septic requirements that greatly exceed the use. Example: occasional use seasonal one room hunting camp. Want a toilet? You'll need to drop a big septic tank and two 60ft leeching pipes. Better just get a shovel and talk a walk.

May 26, 2012, 10:14:57 PM

Erin---

Yes!

My 'spindles' (I think you mean balusters) will be re-purposed weathered fence stakes, 2 1/2" wide with 3" spacing. THey look great.
My plate washers are 3" but spaced a lot more frequently than required. This house is taller than it is wide, with heavy wind loads and seismic activity.
I'm installing three more sprinklers than required. Actually you can install too many and create a situation where they are too close together and you keep one from activating if needed...I added them in closets and under the house in case I ever use the crawlspace for storage.
Adding all this up, the three examples you gave come to (ballpark) $45.

My sheer panel and roof decking are both thicker than required. Every structural beam is one size larger. My post to beams have stainless steel rodding drilled through. My nail schedule is much more frequent than required. I added radiant barrier anywhere sunlight will hit (except where airflows were needed)

Not much extra expense. Great thing is my inspector trusts my construction and inspections are a breeze.
Best thing about being an owner/builder is doing things like you want. I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at anyone building to the minimums---it's still a heck of a lot of work to take on. My opinion is, for a little extra money and a little more effort, you can end up with a much better home. Trying to get by below the minimums and do things a cheal as possible seems to me to be a waste of a lot of hard work.
You're right---there are places for screws, but not in framing. Flexibility of a structure is important, and screws don't bend---they're brittle compared to nails. I think you'd have to really add a lot more nails before you'd weaken the lumber though.

alex trent · May 27, 2012, 07:52:46 AM

If the codes are meant to help you withstand a lot more than the worst thing that can affect your house.....within reason. Say 150% of the minimum. And you build for an additional 20%, what does that get you except bragging rights? You still cannot withstand the ultimate event.

But you have used resources you don't need. Not a very environmentally sound way to build. I can afford to leave my water run all night, not bad for me, but not good for others. so, calculating everything on the "just a few dollars more" scale does not work for us a a group..only for you.

flyingvan · May 27, 2012, 09:02:49 AM

Well, that's one side of the things you're balancing against. I think just getting a structure up is bragging rights enough. A solid structure has a solid feel, for one. I'm planning hundred year structures second.
Here's a picture to defend 'overbuilding'--

This was my first owner/builder project. I went all out to overbuild and to make it fire-resistive. At the beginning of the week there were 134 homes in Cuyamaca---by the end of the week there were 17. The Cedar Fire wiped them all out--my two houses remained. (other than yard damage and one cracked window)

Environmental concerns---if you believe that atmospheric carbon load (CO2) influences weather in a negative way (I do not. If you'd like to debate THAT, there are better places than this building site though) consider that every ounce of lumber represents carbon taken not from the ground, but from the air around us. Taking wood and preserving it in the form of a useful structure binds up a whole lot of CO2 for a very long time and will be re-released either very slowly by termites and rot or very quickly by fire. If you believe the whole carbon footprint rhetoric, build houses with as much heavy timber as you can, lock up that carbon, and trees will be grown in their place to lock up more carbon. 'overbuilding' and protecting from the elements and fire further extend the time you are keeping all that carbon tied up and out of the air. (each pound of wood is about two pounds of CO2 taken from the air)
Consider also the environmental impact of a hundred year structure versus a 30 year structure. If the 100 year structure takes 15-20% more material, but can house people more than 3 times longer, isn't that a positive impact? How much landfill is taken up by a demolished home, that now has to be rebuilt with 100% more materials, 2.33 times (assuming of course you always have a structure on the same spot that gets replaced every 30 years. In reality it happens incrementally through additions and remodels)

alex trent · May 27, 2012, 09:19:43 AM

I do not think building a fire resistive structure in a fire prone area is overbuilding... just good sense. Seems to me it points out some flaws in the "code" though.

Clearing the land around the place likely has as much to do with it as anything. Do codes include that?

As for environmental...it has many more considerations than carbon load, but your logic on CO2 stuff is flawed..not on the "believe it or not" stuff but on the things you use to defend "locking it up". None of that works from a scientific basis or a practical one. sounds like timber industry propaganda.

Deforestation is taking place all over the world and trees are not being replaced to match the logging....not to mention the habitat destruction that is for the most part irreversible. I realize that all this is beyond the scope of this site to "solved", but it should be recognized as a factor in what we do.

Erin · May 27, 2012, 10:11:46 AM

QuoteMy opinion is, for a little extra money and a little more effort, you can end up with a much better home. Trying to get by below the minimums and do things a cheal as possible seems to me to be a waste of a lot of hard work.

You're still falling for the notion that "code" is somehow connected to "quality"...

Monticello wasn't "to code" for the first couple hundred years of its life. Does that mean it wasn't a quality structure before it was brought up to code (because it's now a public building?)

Also, I think what alex was driving at is that "building to code" is already overbuilt. Which is true.
There is a lot of redundancy in the various codes for a reason. They exist to protect people, afterall. Joist sizing, for example, is more than adequate as prescribed. I mean, if you want to go beyond that, have at it. But there's really no reason you have to. (beyond deflection, of course, which is more of a preference than safety issue)
Nor does it somehow mean your structure is going to be longer-lived than the one that didn't. Strong enough is strong enough. More than that is still going to be "strong enough."

Having grown up in a 100 year old house (and spent most of my life surrounded by them), it's been my observation that the initial construction isn't what determines the lifespan of a house...it's the on-going, faithful, maintenance.