4 ms·

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 cer

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...
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Looks like he knew how to prepare lumber and build a house. " No. There is a difference between experience and wisdom. He could have built 5 unsafe and dangerous houses, and been building stuff wrong for 70 years. (This happened to my parents, good old tiling person who had " been doing it 20 years", when he had been doing it wrong for 20 years, and the installation catastrophically failed due to fairly basic and obviously wrong choices). So just because he built 5 houses, doesn't mean he knows how to do it or create anything safe. (it may be he does, of course, just that the fact that he's built houses before does not tell you that one way or the other)
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Just like most people have encountered a software engineer whose been in the industry since the Nixon Administration... and still can't code.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > He could have built 5 unsafe and dangerous houses But according to the story, an independent expert inspected his house and concluded that it exceeded the building code standards. So while in theory he could have been building unsafe houses, the evidence in this case is that he wasn't.
    - xyzzyz 10y ago
      Said evidence surfaced late in the process, and the inspector didn't have access to it during the inspection. If the house builder reached out to building engineer to have his house plans and materials approved before the inspection, there would have been no problem in the first place.
      - pdonis 10y ago
        > Said evidence surfaced late in the process, and the inspector didn't have access to it during the inspection. That's true, but I wasn't talking about the inspector, I was responding to DannyBee's comment that he could have been building unsafe houses. We here in this thread all know about the evidence that it was sound, so we don't have the excuse the inspector had (for whatever it's worth) for not knowing the actual structural soundness of the building. > If the house builder reached out to building engineer to have his house plans and materials approved before the inspection, there would have been no problem in the first place. Agreed. Whether that excuses the inspector (or the government that employs him), though, depends on the rules in that particular jurisdiction. Some places require stamped plans, or at least stamped plans for anything not using standard materials, others don't. If the rules just say the building has to be structurally sound, then it should be the inspector's job to determine if it is using all reasonable evidence, not just looking for stamps. But that also means the government needs to fund and train inspectors to be able to do that.
marcosdumay 10y ago
"This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth" Out of his depth in legal knowledge. At some point people decided everybody must study Law to even step outside of home. Things didn't use to be this way, how exactly did it change? And, well, it is certainly a bad thing today, but do we want to revert as it was at some time on the past, or reform in some unprecedented way? And yes, it's kinda crazy. I am entitled into stamping a house around here, even though I have no idea how to decide if a construction is safe or not. Yet, I do know people with perfectly good history of creating good construction that isn't.

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...

DannyBee 10y ago
"Looks like he knew how to prepare lumber and build a house. " No. There is a difference between experience and wisdom. He could have built 5 unsafe and dangerous houses, and been building stuff wrong for 70 years. (This happened to my parents, good old tiling person who had " been doing it 20 years", when he had been doing it wrong for 20 years, and the installation catastrophically failed due to fairly basic and obviously wrong choices). So just because he built 5 houses, doesn't mean he knows how to do it or create anything safe. (it may be he does, of course, just that the fact that he's built houses before does not tell you that one way or the other)
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Just like most people have encountered a software engineer whose been in the industry since the Nixon Administration... and still can't code.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > He could have built 5 unsafe and dangerous houses But according to the story, an independent expert inspected his house and concluded that it exceeded the building code standards. So while in theory he could have been building unsafe houses, the evidence in this case is that he wasn't.
  - xyzzyz 10y ago
    Said evidence surfaced late in the process, and the inspector didn't have access to it during the inspection. If the house builder reached out to building engineer to have his house plans and materials approved before the inspection, there would have been no problem in the first place.
    - pdonis 10y ago
      > Said evidence surfaced late in the process, and the inspector didn't have access to it during the inspection. That's true, but I wasn't talking about the inspector, I was responding to DannyBee's comment that he could have been building unsafe houses. We here in this thread all know about the evidence that it was sound, so we don't have the excuse the inspector had (for whatever it's worth) for not knowing the actual structural soundness of the building. > If the house builder reached out to building engineer to have his house plans and materials approved before the inspection, there would have been no problem in the first place. Agreed. Whether that excuses the inspector (or the government that employs him), though, depends on the rules in that particular jurisdiction. Some places require stamped plans, or at least stamped plans for anything not using standard materials, others don't. If the rules just say the building has to be structurally sound, then it should be the inspector's job to determine if it is using all reasonable evidence, not just looking for stamps. But that also means the government needs to fund and train inspectors to be able to do that.

marcosdumay 10y ago

"This sounds like a case of the house builder being out of his depth" Out of his depth in legal knowledge. At some point people decided everybody must study Law to even step outside of home. Things didn't use to be this way, how exactly did it change? And, well, it is certainly a bad thing today, but do we want to revert as it was at some time on the past, or reform in some unprecedented way? And yes, it's kinda crazy. I am entitled into stamping a house around here, even though I have no idea how to decide if a construction is safe or not. Yet, I do know people with perfectly good history of creating good construction that isn't.