8 ms·

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 lum

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.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    In this case, I think the "stamp" referred to the lumber used. However, I think you are right that having an architect sign off would have gone a long way to preventing his problems.
    - jethro_tell 10y ago
      I'm not confused about what stamp they are talking about. In this case, the stamp means the lumber mill has an eng or testing process that tests and stamps certain wood as having certain strength properties. If the lumber with confirmed strength properties is installed in a certain way, the non engineer building inspector will sign off on the structure of the property. If your lumber doesn't have a stamp, then you need an architect or engineer to signoff on the size/shape/material of the lumber to insure that it has the correct structural properties for the building you are building. As a side note, most building departments have engineers on staff, but not every plan needs to be reviewed by the engineer. If you use a stock plan, stock materials, you are good to go and the jr guys can review your plan. These are templates that can be downloaded you can send a drawing of a square to the inspector, and slap some copy pasta on the corner of the print that says, 'Walls are build with 2x4 stud with a 2 grade stamp at 16" intervals and 5/8" 1 hour burn rating sheetrock, fire blocking at 4' with a 6" concrete foundation wall with standard #4 rebar at 16" spacing. . . .' and it will get approved. This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth and the building inspector being out of his depth. How did the guy get moved in before they had inspected/denied the structural framing? At that point, he could have had an eng come and sign off on it. But after he sheet-rocked and covered everything up, there's not much anyone can do.
      - ploxiln 10y ago
        > This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth Let's just read the first two sentences of the original story: > It was the fifth house that Craig Morrison built with his own hands, and the last. He had built things with his own hands for 70 years, often using lumber he produced at his own small sawmill. Now he would build a modest, single-storey house Looks like he knew how to prepare lumber and build a house. So, sure, he was out of his depth when it came to the regulations of houses today. But it's very understandable that the regulations were a surprise and didn't make sense to him. Because the house and the wood was fine, pretty good even...
- jwatte 10y ago
  Government will hire rules followers who aren't experts, for as long as we think that government is inefficient and we don't want to pay taxes. If government was prestigious and well paid, competent people would flock there in addition to business. As it is, you have to be /very/ dedicated to go into government, and most people are not.
  - snowwindwaves 10y ago
    Not sure where you live but in Canada government is well paid with job security, benefits and pension second to none. Retiring after 30 years and getting 70% of the average of your best 5 years of salary for you or your spouse until you are dead is not something I've seen in the private sector. I'm an ee.
- hyperpallium 10y ago
  It's the same principle as trademarks, "badge of origin" - a short-cut for assessing quality. Same for degrees/qualifications/credentials. It seems amazing that they are such a big deal. But when you're faced with assessing a professional in a field in which you're a layman, you see how crucial their role.
  - scaryspooky 10y ago
    But when you see the quality of lumber at the big box stores that carry the stamp and in no way should be entitled to it you start to question the game and who it is designed to help.
    - webmaven 10y ago
      That is actually the crux of the matter: The standards are in place to make sure buildings don't collapse even if the materials aren't very good and the construction is shoddy.
jmspring 10y ago
A lot of times the process differs if you are known or a no body. Which is what you describe. The town I live in has slum lords that are linked with the powers that be (friends, etc) that get away with appalling conditions unless someone points it out. The city also is cracking down on AirBnB/Short term rentals due to a "lack of housing", yet we have a university that has added 6000 people in the last 20 years and about 1000 beds (including converting doubles into triples). The 2-300 short term rentals aren't the problem. The process to add an ADU (we looked into it), fees were 30+% of the budget. I'm rambling, but process has replaced safety and holds up actually adding housing stock.
cm2187 10y ago
It's not just safety. Sound insulation, thermal insulation, not having to wait for hours for hot water. The standards aren't just meant to protect against dangerous houses. They also try to protect against crappy quality. A family shouldn't need to be an expert in construction to buy a house.
- donatj 10y ago
  That's silly. You pay for a home inspection before buying a house anyway. Leave safety to the government and comfort to the private sector.
  - cm2187 10y ago
    A home inspection can't tell what materials were used inside the floors and the walls, and how the pipes were installed. Particularly in a modern apartment block. And for new constructions you often buy ahead of completion. In the UK for instance, health safety regulation mandates that all doors shut automatically in an apartment block. As a result doors spend their time slamming in modern flats. You'd better have good sound insulation. How can you check that unless you pay someone to make noise in every flat around yours to test it?
    - donatj 10y ago
      I don't think apartments have any real bearing on this conversation, I don't know of any apartments built by a single person for their own use. They should rightly be held to a higher standard than a single occupancy home.
tomarr 10y ago
You are looking at a conflict of the needs of many and the needs of a few (scale). Maybe it is higher quality, but how can an individual inspector assure that without evidence? The reality is housing is often up for 100+ years with ~10 owners. If everyone does their own thing, a significant portion of this will be poor quality housing that damages the quality of life of people in the future, and is too costly to justify rebuilding. Compare this to individual developers using their own syntax and coding styles across a massive codebase, some of it is inevitably adding in technical debt for the future.

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.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  In this case, I think the "stamp" referred to the lumber used. However, I think you are right that having an architect sign off would have gone a long way to preventing his problems.
  - jethro_tell 10y ago
    I'm not confused about what stamp they are talking about. In this case, the stamp means the lumber mill has an eng or testing process that tests and stamps certain wood as having certain strength properties. If the lumber with confirmed strength properties is installed in a certain way, the non engineer building inspector will sign off on the structure of the property. If your lumber doesn't have a stamp, then you need an architect or engineer to signoff on the size/shape/material of the lumber to insure that it has the correct structural properties for the building you are building. As a side note, most building departments have engineers on staff, but not every plan needs to be reviewed by the engineer. If you use a stock plan, stock materials, you are good to go and the jr guys can review your plan. These are templates that can be downloaded you can send a drawing of a square to the inspector, and slap some copy pasta on the corner of the print that says, 'Walls are build with 2x4 stud with a 2 grade stamp at 16" intervals and 5/8" 1 hour burn rating sheetrock, fire blocking at 4' with a 6" concrete foundation wall with standard #4 rebar at 16" spacing. . . .' and it will get approved. This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth and the building inspector being out of his depth. How did the guy get moved in before they had inspected/denied the structural framing? At that point, he could have had an eng come and sign off on it. But after he sheet-rocked and covered everything up, there's not much anyone can do.
    - ploxiln 10y ago
      > This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth Let's just read the first two sentences of the original story: > It was the fifth house that Craig Morrison built with his own hands, and the last. He had built things with his own hands for 70 years, often using lumber he produced at his own small sawmill. Now he would build a modest, single-storey house Looks like he knew how to prepare lumber and build a house. So, sure, he was out of his depth when it came to the regulations of houses today. But it's very understandable that the regulations were a surprise and didn't make sense to him. Because the house and the wood was fine, pretty good even...
jwatte 10y ago
Government will hire rules followers who aren't experts, for as long as we think that government is inefficient and we don't want to pay taxes. If government was prestigious and well paid, competent people would flock there in addition to business. As it is, you have to be /very/ dedicated to go into government, and most people are not.
- snowwindwaves 10y ago
  Not sure where you live but in Canada government is well paid with job security, benefits and pension second to none. Retiring after 30 years and getting 70% of the average of your best 5 years of salary for you or your spouse until you are dead is not something I've seen in the private sector. I'm an ee.
hyperpallium 10y ago
It's the same principle as trademarks, "badge of origin" - a short-cut for assessing quality. Same for degrees/qualifications/credentials. It seems amazing that they are such a big deal. But when you're faced with assessing a professional in a field in which you're a layman, you see how crucial their role.
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  But when you see the quality of lumber at the big box stores that carry the stamp and in no way should be entitled to it you start to question the game and who it is designed to help.
  - webmaven 10y ago
    That is actually the crux of the matter: The standards are in place to make sure buildings don't collapse even if the materials aren't very good and the construction is shoddy.

jmspring 10y ago

A lot of times the process differs if you are known or a no body. Which is what you describe. The town I live in has slum lords that are linked with the powers that be (friends, etc) that get away with appalling conditions unless someone points it out. The city also is cracking down on AirBnB/Short term rentals due to a "lack of housing", yet we have a university that has added 6000 people in the last 20 years and about 1000 beds (including converting doubles into triples). The 2-300 short term rentals aren't the problem. The process to add an ADU (we looked into it), fees were 30+% of the budget. I'm rambling, but process has replaced safety and holds up actually adding housing stock.

cm2187 10y ago

It's not just safety. Sound insulation, thermal insulation, not having to wait for hours for hot water. The standards aren't just meant to protect against dangerous houses. They also try to protect against crappy quality. A family shouldn't need to be an expert in construction to buy a house.

donatj 10y ago
That's silly. You pay for a home inspection before buying a house anyway. Leave safety to the government and comfort to the private sector.
- cm2187 10y ago
  A home inspection can't tell what materials were used inside the floors and the walls, and how the pipes were installed. Particularly in a modern apartment block. And for new constructions you often buy ahead of completion. In the UK for instance, health safety regulation mandates that all doors shut automatically in an apartment block. As a result doors spend their time slamming in modern flats. You'd better have good sound insulation. How can you check that unless you pay someone to make noise in every flat around yours to test it?
  - donatj 10y ago
    I don't think apartments have any real bearing on this conversation, I don't know of any apartments built by a single person for their own use. They should rightly be held to a higher standard than a single occupancy home.

tomarr 10y ago

You are looking at a conflict of the needs of many and the needs of a few (scale). Maybe it is higher quality, but how can an individual inspector assure that without evidence? The reality is housing is often up for 100+ years with ~10 owners. If everyone does their own thing, a significant portion of this will be poor quality housing that damages the quality of life of people in the future, and is too costly to justify rebuilding. Compare this to individual developers using their own syntax and coding styles across a massive codebase, some of it is inevitably adding in technical debt for the future.