Are Codes Necessary?

[Laurie Virr]

For some time there has been passing comment in posts with regard to building codes. More recently there has been mention of the O.S.H.A. in relation to the pool at Taliesin West.

Bureaucracy irks folk in the U.S.A., but I would suggest that bureaucrats there have much to learn from their Australian counterparts. Here they are willing participants at the funeral of every good idea.

Are codes really necessary? Communities should demand that buildings have structural sufficiency, but many of the other regulations serve only to provide jobs for folk who would otherwise be unemployable. I imagine that a contractor who chose, for example, to build a house with a ceiling height of 1800mm [5’ 10 3/4�] would so do just once. Consumer resistance would ensure this.

My experience suggests that most codes are written to protect the hides of those who administer them, rather than to benefit the general public, particularly those who wish to construct a building.

Occupational health and safety provisions here have reached the level of the absurd. The color of acceptable clothing has been stipulated [fluorescent yellow and pink shirts], and the type of footwear proscribed. Hard hats became mandatory as a consequence of artisans suffering head injuries. Similar injuries still occur, now as a result of the peaks of the hard hats obscuring the vision of those moving to overhead parts of the structure.

One of Australia’s leading landscape architects [sadly no longer with us] was once confronted by a bureaucrat who demanded that he fence around a farm pond he had designed. He replied that he was willing so to do, if the public servant would find the funds to build a fence along the entire length of every river, creek, and body of water in New South Wales.

In theory, code enforcers should be facilitators, whereas so often they are obstructionists. Bereft of imagination they see life in very simple terms, and to them words have a single meaning. It is not uncommon for me to arrive at a place to submit construction documents for approval, armed not only with the drawings and specifications, and a copy of the Building Code of Australia, but also a copy of Webster’s Dictionary.

All these regulations require an army of bureaucrats to administer them. There was a time when one person in four of the Australian workforce was a public servant, employed by Federal, State or Local Government, or a quasi-Government instrumentality. A fine example of taxes at work.

[egads]

There is a bumper sticker, seen on some contractors trucks, that says (sort of mean spirited) "welfare should be as hard to get as a building permit"

[archfan]

I can support reasonable building codes. The problem comes in when bureaucrats need to justify their existence. Thus, "don't build things that fall down" becomes "wear a pink shirt". This must be a long-running debate, since the first known building code was in the Code of Hammurabi, c. 1790 BC. One example:

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

More here:

http://www.holyebooks.org/babylonia/the ... ham07.html

[SDR]

In San Francisco at present, any owner wishing to establish a new commercial kitchen must install 5 (five) sinks -- needed or not. How do you suppose such a regulation came to be ?

SDR

[Laurie Virr]

In San Francisco at present, any owner wishing to establish a new commercial kitchen must install 5 (five) sinks -- needed or not. How do you suppose such a regulation came to be ?

SDR

Perhaps the answer is, by the same procedure that obliges owner/builders in the Australian State of Victoria to employ a plumber to install a folded sheet steel roof. [In the U.S.A. this is referred to as 'Industrial Roofing']. This speaks volumes for the power of the plumbers organisation, many of whose members earn more in a year than the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. What pressures or inducements were necessary to have such
legislation enacted, and how long will it be before brick masons and carpenters ask for similar laws to be promulgated to protect their interests? What is more natural than a man building his own house?

[Roderick Grant]

I believe the United States will never fall to a foreign invader, but will collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracies. What builders and architects should do is convene to write a reasonable code, which should only address safety issues, and then use whatever clout they have to get states to adopt it to replace the mess they've created. The principal opponents of this plan would be unions, which would fight to the death to keep bureaucrats employed even if it meant having an elevator operator posted in every automatic elevator in the U.S. Capitol Building ... which is the case.

[dkottum]

Roderick, my wife and I served a total of 58 years military service to protect this country from foreign intervention, only to realize our government is hell-bent on destroying it from within. They are on a run-away train without a brakeman.

There is hope, however. They are running out of money. Nothing else can stop them.

[LikaComet]

So, what does O.S.H.A. have to say about the pool at Taliesin West?

[craig j]

I worked as a project architect for a very busy firm doing large projects nationwide for about 15 years.
I also worked as a Chief Plans Examiner for a busy City in Florida for 3 years.
For the last 8 3/4 years I've been a Building Official for a City in the Los Angeles area.
I was on the Board of the ICC Los Angeles Basin Chapter for 4 years and I'm now an appointed member of an ICC Code Development Committee for the next few years.
The building codes in this country have saved many lives; compare the results of the recent earthquake in Haiti to the results of the 1990's earthquake in San Francisco; I know; many other variables but the quakes were of similar intensity with very different results based on comprehensive building codes and much better enforcement.
At the present time I'm also doing a number of small time construction projects throughout the Los Angeles area.
Having considerable time on both sides of the counter I agree there is too much regulation in this country in general, and too much regulation regarding building codes in particular.
There's also unfortunately a very hard-headed obstructionist attitude among many building code government personnel; that is possibly worse than the over-regulation.
The amount of construction plans and details to satisfy the many, many building codes to build even a small residential addition in Los Angeles is really crazy.
I'm doing what small amount I can within the code organizations to limit the number of new codes; but that is a complicated process with thousands of people involved.
Btw; relying on architects and engineers as professionals to build 100% safe buildings on their own isn't a good idea.
As an architect licensed in several states I'm sad to say that the professional ethics and knowledge of building codes among licensed architects and engineers is not the best. Yes; some are very, very good and command a high salary for their expertise, but I have seen very, very poor efforts from many licensed design professionals.
I have instilled a very strong customer service attitude in my Building Safety Division in the City I work for; but the codes being so massive that is still a difficult task.
Those not directly involved in any way in the writing or enforcement of building codes and not making any effort to change or improve the situation really have not much to say about what's right and wrong; they're only on the sidelines expressing opinions; a waste of time.

[peterm]

Thank you for a reasonable and nuanced response to this thread. Building codes have saved many lives...

[Roderick Grant]

I agree that carping about the system from the sidelines is a waste of time, but expecting the bureaucrats to do anything substantive about trimming the unnecessary codes that do not involve safety is a wasted hope. The top priority of bureaucrats (and I have worked in my time for city, county and state bureaucracies) is job security; they have no vested interest in deleting anything from the code that might lighten their work load. A convention of professionals who do have a vested interest could force the process. This is not to say that architects, builders, developers and engineers should dictate the code, but point out where the code goes beyond its needed boundaries. Expecting government to operate efficiently is the true waste of time.

[Laurie Virr]

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread.

I am not carping from the sidelines in this matter. Having struggled for 43 years to change the more odious aspects of building codes, and appeared before committees of the Australian Senate and other government instrumentalities in this regard, my endeavors have resulted in a number of changes being made to the legislation. It has been a laborious undertaking, against an entrenched bureaucracy that has used any means, including deception, to prevent change.

The first substantial commission I received after hanging out my shingle was for a house on a heavily wooded lot. Both the clients and I were desirous of saving all the trees. My strategy was to use a 60/30 module, as a consequence of the greater flexibility it affords. Upon presenting the construction drawings in order to obtain a building permit, I was refused, on the grounds that my design did not look like a house. Furthermore, it contravened the regulation that a kitchen had to be on an external wall, and I had not provided a system of gutters and leaders as stipulated in the code. What I had proposed was a an agricultural drain around the entire perimeter of the building, an eminently more practical solution on this, or any other site.

As this was the only commission I had at the time, there was an opportunity for me to attempt to discover any precedents that had occurred within the relevant jurisdiction. I found a building without gutters and leaders, and returned to the bureaucrats to inform them of my discovery. After threatening to sue them on the grounds that there was a precedent, the reply I received was, ‘We hoped you would not find that’.

I am able to quote many other examples of such sheer bloody mindedness. The man who told me my design did not look like a house was a registered architect. When I asked him what a house looked like, he did not reply.

Of course this discussion has to involve generalizations, and I would be unfair if I failed to acknowledge those administrators I have met who, like craig j, are doing their level best, against tremendous odds, to ameliorate the system. However, on far too many occasions, attempting to obtain a building permit results in a shouting match across the counter. I am not averse to telling the administrators that I am standing on the public side of the counter because I have shown that I can do the job, whereas they are on the other side because they cannot. It does not win me many friends amongst them, but I get my permits. Do we have to suffer fools gladly?

[peterm]

In light of the two major earthquakes which have struck in the last week, one in Japan and now the massive 8.8 in Chile (at least one hundred times more powerful than Haiti!!!), I am thankful for the strong seismic codes which we have in California.

There will be far fewer casualties in Chile compared to Haiti, mainly because of the stricter building codes in place in Chile.

We have a close friend in Santiago, who is shaken but so far is ok.

Now 1/4 of the world braces for Tsunami...

[dkottum]

But is the cumbersome, often outrageous code system the only way to ensure good building? People drown in a tsunami. The World Trade center came down anyway. Midwesterners have become sickened in their code-protected homes. Perhaps it is a planning problem. Broadacre City, anyone?

[Laurie Virr]

peterm:

Thank you for all your contributions to Wright Chat.

Having formal qualifications in engineering, and being employed in that profession for 9 years before I returned to school to study Architecture, I can scarcely emphasize sufficiently that I do not oppose codes that promote structural sufficiency. I was involved in the construction of high rise buildings and reservoirs, both types of construction where the results of structural failure would be disastrous.

Structural sufficiency is that to which the influence of codes should be limited.

I know of people who have failed Architecture at college ending up behind the counter of planning departments. They are bitter that their paltry efforts at studying the profession were unsuccessful, and they spend the rest of their careers venting their frustrations on those with greater ability.

It is 45 years since I worked in an architect’s studio in the U.S.A., so I deem I may not be considered fit to judge the situation there at this time, but I surmise that it has become worse during the intervening period, as it has here in Australia. Unnecessary bureaucracy is strangling this country.

The quantity of paper contained in the application forms for a building permit in the Australian Capital Territory [= Washington D.C.], is beginning to rival that
required for the construction documents. The scope of the information considered necessary by the bureaucracy far exceeds anything that is reasonable and, moreover, is beyond the resources of the department to police. As Mr Roderick Grant avers, bureaucrats are unlikely to take measures that reduce their workload. In fact, here they spend time constructing more hurdles for the prospective owners of buildings to negotiate. Furthermore, they attempt to interfere in the design process.

An architect friend of mine is approaching his 80th birthday. He is imaginative, and extremely competent, and has spent close to 60 years in the profession. His drawings and specifications are excellent, and testament to his long experience. Recently he was called into the planning department by a young woman. Upon arrival there he assessed her age as about 21. She told him that she did not intend to approve his drawings. He remonstrated, pointing out that his proposal met all the requirements relative to easement and height restrictions. Her reply acknowledged his claims, but she added that she did not like the design! She then suggested that he add a window, change the roof line, and make a number of other amendments to his proposal before she would grant him a permit. Upon him telling her that he had been designing for more than 35 years before she was born, and that he did not require lessons from her on that subject, she replied that she begged to differ. He turned on his heel, and left the office. It took him a further ten days to receive his building permit, and that only after he had protested vehemently to the young woman’s superiors.

This is not an isolated incident. Whenever architects meet, the discussion soon turns to the problems and interference they are encountering from the bureaucracy.

Why are the code enforcers so opposed to change? Why are they so reluctant to make decisions? What right does any jurisdiction have to stipulate the size of rooms, ceiling heights, window sizes and their locations, and a whole host of other matters? Government should mind its own business. It is possible for a person here to purchase land from which they enjoy a particular view, to have a design prepared that enables that enjoyment, but to be refused a building permit because the resultant windows face east or west and are thus considered not to be energy efficient.