11 ms·

I'm torn on building codes. They increase the cost and duration of building a new dwelling by exorbitant amounts and limit the creative freedoms of the builder

by peller 10y ago

I'm torn on building codes. They increase the cost and duration of building a new dwelling by exorbitant amounts and limit the creative freedoms of the builder into practically following cookie-cutter templates (esp in terms of materials). On the other hand, they theoretically provide some semblance of assurance that when you buy a new property that it was built to a certain standard. Unless it was grandfathered in, or the builder "knew somebody," or work was done without a permit after the dwelling was built, or ... As somebody fully capable of building my own house though, damn do I wish they didn't exist. It means putting off that dream for an untold number of years of further saving and wasting money on rent instead of being able to buy a piece of land, and slowly progressing from a shack to a beautiful home worthy of a family. That ship sailed long before I was born, and instead of providing their purported benefits, building codes just feel like another tool to oppress the not-wealthy.

specialist 10y ago
Remodeling my own home. Found some pretty sketchy electrical, had a contractor that cut some corners. I'm grateful for modern building codes. Ignorance is bliss, but then you get a little bit of awareness, and realize how fragile everything is, and so forth.
- cryptarch 10y ago
  Did building codes exist when that electrical was laid down, and did it help?
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    Often, yes. Often work was done without a permit, or extra work is done after the inspection.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The thing is, a lot of things are done without upholding those building codes anyways. They often burden the common sense person, like the article subject, while people just trying to cheat the system will still do so.
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    True, but on the other hand, it raises the bar. If you know your work is going to be inspected, you probably do a better job. And make sure you know the building code. A true craftsman would always do the job perfectly, but subcontractors are often unsupervised, inexperienced, and rushing from job to job.
    - specialist 10y ago
      For me, the building codes sets the bar. Kinda like coding standards for programming. As a result of my remodeling misadventures, I've had to learn stuff like electrical. I bought every remodeling book. Filled with conflicting advice. I barely know enough to know what questions to ask. Further, I don't want to know enough to form my own opinion. Instead, I have the building codes. Installing a sink? Do it like this. Boom, done. It's been a fantastic resource.
- wyager 10y ago
  It sounds like your contractor ignored the building codes as much as they could, same as just about every other budget contractor. Building code doesn't accomplish half of what it's supposed to, but somehow manages to cost a lot more than it's supposed to.
- tomohawk 10y ago
  Where I live, all electrical work must be done by a licensed contractor. You used to be able to take a test and do it yourself, but no more. I recently had some work done by an electrician. It was permitted and inspected. The inspector merely looked to see that it had been done by a licensed electrician. I inspected and found several problems, which he ended up fixing (he wanted to be paid, after all). I know several people in the trades who say this is very common.
  - gefh 10y ago
    Where is that? do you have hardware stores that sell electrical parts? Do you need a license to buy from them? I could understand needing a license to perform work for hire but stopping people doing their own work sounds unenforceable.
    - aplummer 10y ago
      In Australia for example you can't do your own (unless you are an electrician). Imagine if you buy a house with faulty electric work, you can't "see" it or even reasonably check it all in a building inspection. These kinds of regulations are lifesavers.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    Who was the inspector working for? You may be able to file a complaint if the worked was just rubber stamped by a city inspector.
employee8000 10y ago
This isn't about building codes. It's about stickers and permits. An independent inspector said that it was built twice as strong as a regular house. The inspector was just throwing the book at the person because it didn't follow his bureaucracy. It's the same thing that Uber was doing with the self-driving car permit, if you actually pay attention to the details. Neither are less safe, it's just that both didn't kiss the ring of the bureaucracy and the civil servants didn't like it.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  the Uber permit was a story because it WASN'T safe; it got in the news for running red lights.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Tesla's automated cruise control would run a red light as well. The law on this was clear. If you have a human at the wheel, you can have whatever technology you want doing "lane assist" and automated cruise control. If Tesla is legal, than so is Uber.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      'legality' isn't the issue, it was Uber refusing to acquire the associated permitting.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        You do not have to get a permit for lane assist technology. Tesla's cars that you can buy right now have lane assist and nobody owns any permits. If there is a human at the wheel, no permit required.
        nommm-nommm 10y ago
        The California DMV disagrees with you... And they revoked the registration plates for their 16 cars. https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-driving-cars-and-takes-them-to-play-in-arizona/ https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-dr...
xkcd-sucks 10y ago
Hmm, sounds a bit like taxi licenses and hotel regulations
- praptak 10y ago
  The stakes are higher. "Building codes are written in blood."
  - prodigal_erik 10y ago
    Not all of them are. When you can't install a waterless toilet without hiring a licensed plumber, that's just corruption.
    - _asummers 10y ago
      Where is that code, out of curiosity?
      - prodigal_erik 10y ago
        All I know is what the manufacturer said about unexpected resistance to changing building codes, and the blatant make-work compromise they ended up with: https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterless-u/amp https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterl...
    - stuaxo 10y ago
      Surely just a legacy law?
  - drcross 10y ago
    Stop being overly dramatic. People need to realise that there is a happy gray area wherein regulation is most efficient. When I get into a neighbors shower I want to be nearly certain I won't be electrocuted but also the flip side of heavy regulation is the money wasted on inefficiencies when adhering to the numerous European pillow manufacturing standards, for example.
mattlevan 10y ago
Interesting to hear your perspective. As someone who'd also like to buy land and build a house for my future family some day, aren't there relatively inexpensive ways to do it despite potentially overzealous building codes? Surely there are some pretty nice "cookie cutter" templates out there, right?
- gallerytungsten 10y ago
  You build your house in an area that is not governed by a building code. No permits, no inspections, do your own thing at your own risk. This generally means a rural area.
  - peller 10y ago
    I was actually researching this with respect to the tiny house movement. They are out there. Definitely all rural, which can make it tough when you depend on fast internet to make a living.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- peller 10y ago
  I guess it depends on your definition of "relatively inexpensive" :) I've only got residential experience in two states, but from what I'm aware of, there are certainly cheaper routes you can go. Especially with high quality prefab options becoming more common. From scratch though, towns typically expect a professional architect to sign off on a design, and a licensed electrician to do the wiring, and a licensed plumber to do the plumbing, and on and on. I'm officially none of those things, even though I got myself through college working construction, and I know how to use CAD packages for statics analysis, my degree is in electrical engineering, water flows down hill, and on and on. The DIY option is for all intents and purposes off the table, is what I was lamenting.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  It's a pain pretty much everywhere. Before you buy land, and build look into zoning, and exactly what year building codes the county is using. Their are some federal lands that don't require any building codes. I'm a contractor, and scared of building inspectors. If I get an attitude, I pull out the camera, and start rolling. They become very nice all of a sudden? They can make a builder's life misserable over minor details. I knew a homeowner who was red tagged because he didn't put little stickers on a dedicated plug. The plug was obviously dedicated, but the Inspector wanted the 2 X 6 mm sticker on the receptacle behind the wall on the receptacle. My father was failed because his electrical panel had 29 3/4", instead of 30". He literally followed the building Inspecter to his car, and jumped up and down on his hood. This was the 80's in downtown San Francisco. Ironically, he grew up with the Inspector. Even as a kid, I couldn't stand this Inspector. I just remember his family's roped off living room. Yes, you Henry. You were a candy arse. No one liked you. That job went straight to you head, like a new college graduate who was just offered a Management position. I understand building codes, but they are overkill for residential building. I honestly think a lot of, especially small towns, enact the latest codes just to collect permit fees, and fines. Bigger cities are sometimes better. They don't necessarily have the latest codes because of the amount of my different stage projects. If you buy a piece of land, don't just assume you will get a variance for anything. In my town of San Anselmo, they will happily take you variance application with a check of over $1000. And, to my knowledge, spend they one minute on a discussion; and deny the variance. I have see homeowner builders over build a residence, and because it didn't look familiar to the Building inspector, was red tagged over what I consider design/aesthetic reasons.
tacostakohashi 10y ago
I think they've served their purpose, and have now taken on a life of their own. Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. Like, people don't smoke nearly as much any more, clothing and furniture is far less hazardous, and electrical appliances are lower power and safer now. These days, the only time people actually die in fires is when they are doing something hazardous and illegal anyway.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  Yes, and while we are at it, let's abolish safety belts, crash zones in car, food safety inspections , motorcycle helmets and non lead paint. These are all solved problems. Things have changed.
- daviross 10y ago
  They're a solved problem, solved by implementing fire codes. Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    But we're not talking about fire codes, we're talking about building codes. The stamp on lumber does not make it less flammable.
    - daviross 10y ago
      "Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. " We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?" I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
sandworm101 10y ago
They may seem difficult, but one upon a time cities burned. Fire was a constant threat. Thats why new york has so many fire departments. That new buildings have been built to codes for a century or more means cities as a whole are less flammable. The concept of large-scale fire spreading across neighbourhoods has almost slipped from living memory. Thats worth the extra costs. The curse of any effective regulation is that the day after it cures the evil it was meant to, people start questioning things. Vaccines, pasterization, not spitting in public, rabies shots for pets ... all were/are life or death rules that many now disregard because they have forgotten history.
- peller 10y ago
  Yes, good points. I admit I could have done a better job expanding on their benefits. It seems to me like it should really be a federal regulation, with tiers of strictness by population density or something. Then instead of having different codes for every municipality, you have one standardized set that enforces the major benefits where the stakes are highest, and yet allows more freedom on the edges. But yea, history didn't go that way.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    That might seem easier, but would have trouble adapting to local conditions. Not every city is in an earthquake zone. Not every city suffers huricanes. Many local initiatives would also be quashed. For instance, my city forbids doornobs while some small towns mandate them. (No joke. It's to do with disabled people and bears. It may sound silly but nobody really complains.)
    - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
      Tell us more about bears and doorknobs.
      - pherq 10y ago
        Doorknobs are much harder than lever type handles for people with arthritis or similar conditions to operate (since they require gripping firmly, as opposed to just pushing). However in some areas where bears are a threat, doorknobs are mandated since bears have been reported to have learned how to open lever handles (but either haven't learned or lack the dexterity/grip strength to use doorknobs), so knobs are safer.
Mathnerd314 10y ago
Trump's promised to reduce housing regulations: http://nahbnow.com/2016/08/trump-vows-to-cut-burdensome-regulations-in-address-to-home-builders/ http://nahbnow.com/2016/08/trump-vows-to-cut-burdensome-regu... Of course, he's made a lot of promises...
- zeroer 10y ago
  At this point, Trump making a promise is Bayesian evidence that he'll work towards the opposite.
pasbesoin 10y ago
My 2 cents on codes. As far as I'm concerned, every new shared dwelling should be required to construct for noise control. My understanding is that substantial improvements in this regard can be achieved for 10% or less additional cost. And the resulting livability and healthiness (stress reduction) of the the dwelling is greatly improved. Having had more than my share of crap neighbors. Please.
- wyager 10y ago
  > My understanding is that substantial improvements in this regard can be achieved for 10% or less additional cost. Are you serious? That is an insane cost increase. If you're willing to pay an extra $200-300/mo (at NYC or SF rents), you can already spend that much more money and find an apartment with thicker walls. Why do you feel the need to foist this (trivial) concern on other people? I'm sure most people in the world would happily take a ~10% reduction in rent in exchange for slightly noisier neighbors.
  - pasbesoin 10y ago
    A lot of the gain can be achieved for 1% - 2% increase, if designed and engineered in from the start -- is my admittedly second-hand understanding from people who know. Personally, I've been careful when searching for places, and I've still ended up screwed. Noise is one of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years from friends and colleagues. People worry over "sprawl" in this country incessantly. Yet one of the simplest solutions is to make shared living spaces (apartments, condos) more comfortable. Stress greatly, negatively impacts productivity. And unwelcome, persistent noise is one of the greatest sources in day-to-day life. So, engineer it out. People who don't mind noise can live in the crackerbox housing stock that became more prevalent post World War II, that still persists. Noise is finally being designated the pollutant that it is. Building codes can and should address this, especially when remediation is available and -- my understanding -- not that expensive. Require it, and economies of scale will bring the cost down further. In the U.S., individuals such as myself, plenty productive but requiring a quiet environment, are left to suss out individual circumstances. I've had enough, and I want to make life easier for the next person like me. So, I will continue to advocate for noise ordinances (that actually get enforced), improved building codes, and the like. All the noisy people who want to live on the cheap while making my life miserable? Well, after 5 decades of persistently trying to be the nice guy and politely gain their cooperation: Screw them. They can pay the cost to physically limit their noise, given that they are unwilling to cooperate in terms of polite behavior.
goodcanadian 10y ago
The problem is that the process has become more important than actual safety which is supposedly the goal. From the article, it sounds like he used superior lumber and superior building techniques, but was dinged by the inspector for not having the proper 'stamp.' I've personally seen some really silly things done because code required it and the code was applied blindly without any allowance for human judgment.
- cle 10y ago
  This can happen with any standardized process. Some analogous processes that HN can empathize with include "agile", TDD, hiring processes, etc. Standardization inherently removes some judgement and subjectivity, and can have both positive and negative trade-offs. IMO the best we can do is find the right balance, because neither extreme is palatable to me.
- Gravityloss 10y ago
  If the inspector only understands some official stamps but nothing about the substance of building, you will get this. I suspect they thought its cheaper to hire / train people to follow simple rules (there must be a sticker) as opposed to estimating if the building actually is safe. It's related to cargo culting. People who do not understand anything of the domain or substance end up making decisions. By default, we are in a constant slide toward the dark ages. We need renewal and self questioning to prevent that.
  - jethro_tell 10y ago
    As someone who's spent 15 years in construction, the sanctioned way around this is to actually pay an architect or engineer to put their stamp on your plans. The inspector is actually only there to sign off on the fact that some engineer has approved the structural integrity of the materials and installation. If you deviate from the basic products or install, you have to get an engineer or architect to put a stamp on your plans, then the inspector verifies your building is built according to the spec the engineer or architect signed off on. In the long run, it's probably cheaper for almost everyone since most houses are built with the same materials and techniques. If you want to deviate, you have to get it signed off. 99% of people benefit from the increase in the review speed and the building dept not paying for everyone to be a certified eng.
alkonaut 10y ago
It should be enough to have an approval that the house is structurally sound, has good fire safety etc. If you don't have that, obviously the building can be neither sold nor insured. I agree it should be optional to just live in an uninsured and unsellable shed if you want. The buyer or insurance company can make the inspection, should they want to. That said, possible problems include: should you be allowed to raise kids in a house that might collapse (while you can't legally drive those same kids in your car without seat belts, for comparison)? Should a publicly funded fire department put out the recurring fires in your house due to your homebuilt fireplace and diy electric wiring? There are also accessibility standards - I'm not allowed to build a house that isn't accessible (e.g I can't only have bathrooms accessible by stairs, and one ground floor bathroom door must fit a wheelchair etc). The reason being that the prices on houses that are accessible might otherwise be higher because of limited supply.
- akira2501 10y ago
  > I agree it should be optional to just live in an uninsured and unsellable shed if you want. I'm seeing a lot of that sentiment, and my libertarian nature does agree with it; however, houses are often directly connected to a shared electrical, water and sewage systems -- improper design of a structure can have serious effects on these systems and thus on the neighborhood as a whole. So, to allow that ideology, you'd also have to prevent these homes from being connected to these services.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Even if they weren't, unsafe properties affect the property values of those around it. And of course... So many other things... Your shoddily constructed deck can blow into my house during a windstorm, for example.
  - oldmancoyote 10y ago
    If you fail to insulate a wooden wall from a chimney two feet away, in twenty years the wood would now be baked so dry that it could easily ignite and burn to death someone who bought the house. A building inspector stopped me from making this mistake.
Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
I think there are two issues at hand. The first is safety, and thus the liability to others. If your house is a fire hazard and you have nearby neighbors, then some compulsory standards can be imposed. For rural areas, this justification of public welfare is often moot. In such a case, I'd much rather see inspection performed to arrive at a rating or assessment, rather than condemning a property. The top grade would be all but required for homeowners insurance, and would resemble the current code. You could have a more nebulous middle rating where no obvious dangers are present, but non-standard methods make it difficult to assess. Finally, there could a rating for buildings that are clearly a danger that may have some consequences. For instance, all occupants would have to be notified of the status, and perhaps children and animals could be forbidden to live in such structures. Or perhaps these structures could be condemned as before, but limited to extreme cases. Basically, it would be good to have a middle ground for adults willing to take on the risk.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  I don't want "adults who are willing to take the risks" as my neighbors.
  - uiri 10y ago
    That's why the parent to your comment was talking about rural areas where you don't have any nearby neighbours and the main safety implications are to you and your family and for the insurance/mortgage companies.
em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
> "they theoretically provide some semblance of assurance that when you buy a new property that it was built to a certain standard" But the same could be achieved with voluntary certification. The only advantage with building codes is that they protect idiots from themselves.
intended 10y ago
Travel! I wish building codes actually mattered in my country. Seriously, just travel. I think its the easiest way to appreciate what human beings end up with without controls or even the threat of control/speedy justice. do note that this in no way is meant to relieve your angst, just contextualize it and make it easier to bear.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Where do you live?
  - intended 10y ago
    India. Once people figured out that they could get away with crap, they never stopped. Now it's an entrenched problem.
    - mmsimanga 10y ago
      In the part of Africa I am from, building inspections are a money making scheme for councils. You get charged for every single stage of the building, the footing, the foundation, window level, roof, connecting to the sewer (if there is sewer in the area). I get the need for the inspections but like many things in life it is how they are implemented that makes the difference.
throwaway4891a 10y ago
Building codes are not a one-sized-fits-all panacea, neither good nor bad inherently. They are both policy creation and enforcement to prevent as much harm as people can reasonably afford while balancing the tyrannies of the many and the few, the poor and the rich, the DIY and the commercial. Regulation isn't always bad such as preventing lowest bidders from building garment factories which collapse, using outdated/dangerous electrical technologies (ie, aluminum wiring, lead pipes) or lacking modern safety items to prevent classes of risks (ie hard-wired smoke detectors). Certainly, people whom are more affluent could purchase additional safeguards (ie automatic external defibrillators, whole-house water-filtration) while those whom are elderly/poor will likely need assistance meeting minimum standards. Also, clipboard auditing (timber stickers) shouldn't be a substitute for inspection common-sense.
- nickff 10y ago
  The problem is often (though not always) that the inspectors applying the standards can act in arbitrary and capricious ways. A professional contractor will often have one inspector approve a technique or design, then have another inspector come along and tell them to tear that section down and rebuild it.

by peller 10y ago

specialist 10y ago

Remodeling my own home. Found some pretty sketchy electrical, had a contractor that cut some corners. I'm grateful for modern building codes. Ignorance is bliss, but then you get a little bit of awareness, and realize how fragile everything is, and so forth.

cryptarch 10y ago
Did building codes exist when that electrical was laid down, and did it help?
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  Often, yes. Often work was done without a permit, or extra work is done after the inspection.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The thing is, a lot of things are done without upholding those building codes anyways. They often burden the common sense person, like the article subject, while people just trying to cheat the system will still do so.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  True, but on the other hand, it raises the bar. If you know your work is going to be inspected, you probably do a better job. And make sure you know the building code. A true craftsman would always do the job perfectly, but subcontractors are often unsupervised, inexperienced, and rushing from job to job.
  - specialist 10y ago
    For me, the building codes sets the bar. Kinda like coding standards for programming. As a result of my remodeling misadventures, I've had to learn stuff like electrical. I bought every remodeling book. Filled with conflicting advice. I barely know enough to know what questions to ask. Further, I don't want to know enough to form my own opinion. Instead, I have the building codes. Installing a sink? Do it like this. Boom, done. It's been a fantastic resource.
wyager 10y ago
It sounds like your contractor ignored the building codes as much as they could, same as just about every other budget contractor. Building code doesn't accomplish half of what it's supposed to, but somehow manages to cost a lot more than it's supposed to.
tomohawk 10y ago
Where I live, all electrical work must be done by a licensed contractor. You used to be able to take a test and do it yourself, but no more. I recently had some work done by an electrician. It was permitted and inspected. The inspector merely looked to see that it had been done by a licensed electrician. I inspected and found several problems, which he ended up fixing (he wanted to be paid, after all). I know several people in the trades who say this is very common.
- gefh 10y ago
  Where is that? do you have hardware stores that sell electrical parts? Do you need a license to buy from them? I could understand needing a license to perform work for hire but stopping people doing their own work sounds unenforceable.
  - aplummer 10y ago
    In Australia for example you can't do your own (unless you are an electrician). Imagine if you buy a house with faulty electric work, you can't "see" it or even reasonably check it all in a building inspection. These kinds of regulations are lifesavers.
- webmaven 10y ago
  Who was the inspector working for? You may be able to file a complaint if the worked was just rubber stamped by a city inspector.

employee8000 10y ago

This isn't about building codes. It's about stickers and permits. An independent inspector said that it was built twice as strong as a regular house. The inspector was just throwing the book at the person because it didn't follow his bureaucracy. It's the same thing that Uber was doing with the self-driving car permit, if you actually pay attention to the details. Neither are less safe, it's just that both didn't kiss the ring of the bureaucracy and the civil servants didn't like it.

ajamesm 10y ago
the Uber permit was a story because it WASN'T safe; it got in the news for running red lights.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Tesla's automated cruise control would run a red light as well. The law on this was clear. If you have a human at the wheel, you can have whatever technology you want doing "lane assist" and automated cruise control. If Tesla is legal, than so is Uber.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    'legality' isn't the issue, it was Uber refusing to acquire the associated permitting.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      You do not have to get a permit for lane assist technology. Tesla's cars that you can buy right now have lane assist and nobody owns any permits. If there is a human at the wheel, no permit required.
      - nommm-nommm 10y ago
        The California DMV disagrees with you... And they revoked the registration plates for their 16 cars. https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-driving-cars-and-takes-them-to-play-in-arizona/ https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-dr...

xkcd-sucks 10y ago

Hmm, sounds a bit like taxi licenses and hotel regulations

praptak 10y ago
The stakes are higher. "Building codes are written in blood."
- prodigal_erik 10y ago
  Not all of them are. When you can't install a waterless toilet without hiring a licensed plumber, that's just corruption.
  - _asummers 10y ago
    Where is that code, out of curiosity?
    - prodigal_erik 10y ago
      All I know is what the manufacturer said about unexpected resistance to changing building codes, and the blatant make-work compromise they ended up with: https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterless-u/amp https://reason.com/blog/2010/06/24/plumbers-unions-vs-waterl...
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    Surely just a legacy law?
- drcross 10y ago
  Stop being overly dramatic. People need to realise that there is a happy gray area wherein regulation is most efficient. When I get into a neighbors shower I want to be nearly certain I won't be electrocuted but also the flip side of heavy regulation is the money wasted on inefficiencies when adhering to the numerous European pillow manufacturing standards, for example.

mattlevan 10y ago

Interesting to hear your perspective. As someone who'd also like to buy land and build a house for my future family some day, aren't there relatively inexpensive ways to do it despite potentially overzealous building codes? Surely there are some pretty nice "cookie cutter" templates out there, right?

gallerytungsten 10y ago
You build your house in an area that is not governed by a building code. No permits, no inspections, do your own thing at your own risk. This generally means a rural area.
- peller 10y ago
  I was actually researching this with respect to the tiny house movement. They are out there. Definitely all rural, which can make it tough when you depend on fast internet to make a living.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
peller 10y ago
I guess it depends on your definition of "relatively inexpensive" :) I've only got residential experience in two states, but from what I'm aware of, there are certainly cheaper routes you can go. Especially with high quality prefab options becoming more common. From scratch though, towns typically expect a professional architect to sign off on a design, and a licensed electrician to do the wiring, and a licensed plumber to do the plumbing, and on and on. I'm officially none of those things, even though I got myself through college working construction, and I know how to use CAD packages for statics analysis, my degree is in electrical engineering, water flows down hill, and on and on. The DIY option is for all intents and purposes off the table, is what I was lamenting.
icantdrive55 10y ago
It's a pain pretty much everywhere. Before you buy land, and build look into zoning, and exactly what year building codes the county is using. Their are some federal lands that don't require any building codes. I'm a contractor, and scared of building inspectors. If I get an attitude, I pull out the camera, and start rolling. They become very nice all of a sudden? They can make a builder's life misserable over minor details. I knew a homeowner who was red tagged because he didn't put little stickers on a dedicated plug. The plug was obviously dedicated, but the Inspector wanted the 2 X 6 mm sticker on the receptacle behind the wall on the receptacle. My father was failed because his electrical panel had 29 3/4", instead of 30". He literally followed the building Inspecter to his car, and jumped up and down on his hood. This was the 80's in downtown San Francisco. Ironically, he grew up with the Inspector. Even as a kid, I couldn't stand this Inspector. I just remember his family's roped off living room. Yes, you Henry. You were a candy arse. No one liked you. That job went straight to you head, like a new college graduate who was just offered a Management position. I understand building codes, but they are overkill for residential building. I honestly think a lot of, especially small towns, enact the latest codes just to collect permit fees, and fines. Bigger cities are sometimes better. They don't necessarily have the latest codes because of the amount of my different stage projects. If you buy a piece of land, don't just assume you will get a variance for anything. In my town of San Anselmo, they will happily take you variance application with a check of over $1000. And, to my knowledge, spend they one minute on a discussion; and deny the variance. I have see homeowner builders over build a residence, and because it didn't look familiar to the Building inspector, was red tagged over what I consider design/aesthetic reasons.

tacostakohashi 10y ago

I think they've served their purpose, and have now taken on a life of their own. Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. Like, people don't smoke nearly as much any more, clothing and furniture is far less hazardous, and electrical appliances are lower power and safer now. These days, the only time people actually die in fires is when they are doing something hazardous and illegal anyway.

maxxxxx 10y ago
Yes, and while we are at it, let's abolish safety belts, crash zones in car, food safety inspections , motorcycle helmets and non lead paint. These are all solved problems. Things have changed.
daviross 10y ago
They're a solved problem, solved by implementing fire codes. Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  But we're not talking about fire codes, we're talking about building codes. The stamp on lumber does not make it less flammable.
  - daviross 10y ago
    "Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. " We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?" I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"

sandworm101 10y ago

They may seem difficult, but one upon a time cities burned. Fire was a constant threat. Thats why new york has so many fire departments. That new buildings have been built to codes for a century or more means cities as a whole are less flammable. The concept of large-scale fire spreading across neighbourhoods has almost slipped from living memory. Thats worth the extra costs. The curse of any effective regulation is that the day after it cures the evil it was meant to, people start questioning things. Vaccines, pasterization, not spitting in public, rabies shots for pets ... all were/are life or death rules that many now disregard because they have forgotten history.

peller 10y ago
Yes, good points. I admit I could have done a better job expanding on their benefits. It seems to me like it should really be a federal regulation, with tiers of strictness by population density or something. Then instead of having different codes for every municipality, you have one standardized set that enforces the major benefits where the stakes are highest, and yet allows more freedom on the edges. But yea, history didn't go that way.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  That might seem easier, but would have trouble adapting to local conditions. Not every city is in an earthquake zone. Not every city suffers huricanes. Many local initiatives would also be quashed. For instance, my city forbids doornobs while some small towns mandate them. (No joke. It's to do with disabled people and bears. It may sound silly but nobody really complains.)
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    Tell us more about bears and doorknobs.
    - pherq 10y ago
      Doorknobs are much harder than lever type handles for people with arthritis or similar conditions to operate (since they require gripping firmly, as opposed to just pushing). However in some areas where bears are a threat, doorknobs are mandated since bears have been reported to have learned how to open lever handles (but either haven't learned or lack the dexterity/grip strength to use doorknobs), so knobs are safer.

Mathnerd314 10y ago

Trump's promised to reduce housing regulations: http://nahbnow.com/2016/08/trump-vows-to-cut-burdensome-regulations-in-address-to-home-builders/ http://nahbnow.com/2016/08/trump-vows-to-cut-burdensome-regu... Of course, he's made a lot of promises...

zeroer 10y ago
At this point, Trump making a promise is Bayesian evidence that he'll work towards the opposite.

pasbesoin 10y ago

My 2 cents on codes. As far as I'm concerned, every new shared dwelling should be required to construct for noise control. My understanding is that substantial improvements in this regard can be achieved for 10% or less additional cost. And the resulting livability and healthiness (stress reduction) of the the dwelling is greatly improved. Having had more than my share of crap neighbors. Please.

wyager 10y ago
> My understanding is that substantial improvements in this regard can be achieved for 10% or less additional cost. Are you serious? That is an insane cost increase. If you're willing to pay an extra $200-300/mo (at NYC or SF rents), you can already spend that much more money and find an apartment with thicker walls. Why do you feel the need to foist this (trivial) concern on other people? I'm sure most people in the world would happily take a ~10% reduction in rent in exchange for slightly noisier neighbors.
- pasbesoin 10y ago
  A lot of the gain can be achieved for 1% - 2% increase, if designed and engineered in from the start -- is my admittedly second-hand understanding from people who know. Personally, I've been careful when searching for places, and I've still ended up screwed. Noise is one of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years from friends and colleagues. People worry over "sprawl" in this country incessantly. Yet one of the simplest solutions is to make shared living spaces (apartments, condos) more comfortable. Stress greatly, negatively impacts productivity. And unwelcome, persistent noise is one of the greatest sources in day-to-day life. So, engineer it out. People who don't mind noise can live in the crackerbox housing stock that became more prevalent post World War II, that still persists. Noise is finally being designated the pollutant that it is. Building codes can and should address this, especially when remediation is available and -- my understanding -- not that expensive. Require it, and economies of scale will bring the cost down further. In the U.S., individuals such as myself, plenty productive but requiring a quiet environment, are left to suss out individual circumstances. I've had enough, and I want to make life easier for the next person like me. So, I will continue to advocate for noise ordinances (that actually get enforced), improved building codes, and the like. All the noisy people who want to live on the cheap while making my life miserable? Well, after 5 decades of persistently trying to be the nice guy and politely gain their cooperation: Screw them. They can pay the cost to physically limit their noise, given that they are unwilling to cooperate in terms of polite behavior.

goodcanadian 10y ago

The problem is that the process has become more important than actual safety which is supposedly the goal. From the article, it sounds like he used superior lumber and superior building techniques, but was dinged by the inspector for not having the proper 'stamp.' I've personally seen some really silly things done because code required it and the code was applied blindly without any allowance for human judgment.

cle 10y ago
This can happen with any standardized process. Some analogous processes that HN can empathize with include "agile", TDD, hiring processes, etc. Standardization inherently removes some judgement and subjectivity, and can have both positive and negative trade-offs. IMO the best we can do is find the right balance, because neither extreme is palatable to me.
Gravityloss 10y ago
If the inspector only understands some official stamps but nothing about the substance of building, you will get this. I suspect they thought its cheaper to hire / train people to follow simple rules (there must be a sticker) as opposed to estimating if the building actually is safe. It's related to cargo culting. People who do not understand anything of the domain or substance end up making decisions. By default, we are in a constant slide toward the dark ages. We need renewal and self questioning to prevent that.
- jethro_tell 10y ago
  As someone who's spent 15 years in construction, the sanctioned way around this is to actually pay an architect or engineer to put their stamp on your plans. The inspector is actually only there to sign off on the fact that some engineer has approved the structural integrity of the materials and installation. If you deviate from the basic products or install, you have to get an engineer or architect to put a stamp on your plans, then the inspector verifies your building is built according to the spec the engineer or architect signed off on. In the long run, it's probably cheaper for almost everyone since most houses are built with the same materials and techniques. If you want to deviate, you have to get it signed off. 99% of people benefit from the increase in the review speed and the building dept not paying for everyone to be a certified eng.

alkonaut 10y ago

It should be enough to have an approval that the house is structurally sound, has good fire safety etc. If you don't have that, obviously the building can be neither sold nor insured. I agree it should be optional to just live in an uninsured and unsellable shed if you want. The buyer or insurance company can make the inspection, should they want to. That said, possible problems include: should you be allowed to raise kids in a house that might collapse (while you can't legally drive those same kids in your car without seat belts, for comparison)? Should a publicly funded fire department put out the recurring fires in your house due to your homebuilt fireplace and diy electric wiring? There are also accessibility standards - I'm not allowed to build a house that isn't accessible (e.g I can't only have bathrooms accessible by stairs, and one ground floor bathroom door must fit a wheelchair etc). The reason being that the prices on houses that are accessible might otherwise be higher because of limited supply.

akira2501 10y ago
> I agree it should be optional to just live in an uninsured and unsellable shed if you want. I'm seeing a lot of that sentiment, and my libertarian nature does agree with it; however, houses are often directly connected to a shared electrical, water and sewage systems -- improper design of a structure can have serious effects on these systems and thus on the neighborhood as a whole. So, to allow that ideology, you'd also have to prevent these homes from being connected to these services.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Even if they weren't, unsafe properties affect the property values of those around it. And of course... So many other things... Your shoddily constructed deck can blow into my house during a windstorm, for example.
- oldmancoyote 10y ago
  If you fail to insulate a wooden wall from a chimney two feet away, in twenty years the wood would now be baked so dry that it could easily ignite and burn to death someone who bought the house. A building inspector stopped me from making this mistake.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago

I think there are two issues at hand. The first is safety, and thus the liability to others. If your house is a fire hazard and you have nearby neighbors, then some compulsory standards can be imposed. For rural areas, this justification of public welfare is often moot. In such a case, I'd much rather see inspection performed to arrive at a rating or assessment, rather than condemning a property. The top grade would be all but required for homeowners insurance, and would resemble the current code. You could have a more nebulous middle rating where no obvious dangers are present, but non-standard methods make it difficult to assess. Finally, there could a rating for buildings that are clearly a danger that may have some consequences. For instance, all occupants would have to be notified of the status, and perhaps children and animals could be forbidden to live in such structures. Or perhaps these structures could be condemned as before, but limited to extreme cases. Basically, it would be good to have a middle ground for adults willing to take on the risk.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
I don't want "adults who are willing to take the risks" as my neighbors.
- uiri 10y ago
  That's why the parent to your comment was talking about rural areas where you don't have any nearby neighbours and the main safety implications are to you and your family and for the insurance/mortgage companies.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

> "they theoretically provide some semblance of assurance that when you buy a new property that it was built to a certain standard" But the same could be achieved with voluntary certification. The only advantage with building codes is that they protect idiots from themselves.

intended 10y ago

Travel! I wish building codes actually mattered in my country. Seriously, just travel. I think its the easiest way to appreciate what human beings end up with without controls or even the threat of control/speedy justice. do note that this in no way is meant to relieve your angst, just contextualize it and make it easier to bear.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
Where do you live?
- intended 10y ago
  India. Once people figured out that they could get away with crap, they never stopped. Now it's an entrenched problem.
  - mmsimanga 10y ago
    In the part of Africa I am from, building inspections are a money making scheme for councils. You get charged for every single stage of the building, the footing, the foundation, window level, roof, connecting to the sewer (if there is sewer in the area). I get the need for the inspections but like many things in life it is how they are implemented that makes the difference.

throwaway4891a 10y ago

Building codes are not a one-sized-fits-all panacea, neither good nor bad inherently. They are both policy creation and enforcement to prevent as much harm as people can reasonably afford while balancing the tyrannies of the many and the few, the poor and the rich, the DIY and the commercial. Regulation isn't always bad such as preventing lowest bidders from building garment factories which collapse, using outdated/dangerous electrical technologies (ie, aluminum wiring, lead pipes) or lacking modern safety items to prevent classes of risks (ie hard-wired smoke detectors). Certainly, people whom are more affluent could purchase additional safeguards (ie automatic external defibrillators, whole-house water-filtration) while those whom are elderly/poor will likely need assistance meeting minimum standards. Also, clipboard auditing (timber stickers) shouldn't be a substitute for inspection common-sense.

nickff 10y ago
The problem is often (though not always) that the inspectors applying the standards can act in arbitrary and capricious ways. A professional contractor will often have one inspector approve a technique or design, then have another inspector come along and tell them to tear that section down and rebuild it.