4 ms·

Where did your responsibility to have a home you want to buy inspected and certified become the governments job of forcing people to build the same cookie cutte

Where did your responsibility to have a home you want to buy inspected and certified become the governments job of forcing people to build the same cookie cutter structures over and over? Significant portions of England were built well before modern codes. Why can those be legal residences and something built in the same style and method be illegal? Edit: So if you can downvote you've been here long enough to know you should tell me why. Shame.

Tempest1981 10y ago
A fair point. But many things get hidden behind drywall, making them very expensive for a new home buyer to get certified. Sure seems more efficient to inspect once during construction.
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  People do interior remodels all the time without getting a permit so you still have the same problem.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Home inspections really depend on the competency of the inspector, and for most people this is hit and miss. This is really where the article gets wacky: If he had had a knowledgeable city inspector, who was versed in construction practices, he might not have had so much trouble. He needed a specialty bureaucrat and he got the run-of-the-mill variety: In addition, he should have double checked the building codes before starting and could have saved himself some trouble. Sometimes you catch something, and sometimes you don't, and sometimes the previous owner masks normal markers of problems. Most the ones I've seen check for major problems in places you can see them. Codes don't make it so you don't have the responsibility: They, in theory, make sure your electrical system is as safe as possible when you are building and other such things. The inspections help to identify known problems, especially important to older houses built to different standards. Which is why buying a pre-existing house is slightly more risky than a new house. My parents had to treat a basement boiler for asbestos: One house the owners covered up signs of the roof leaking and the electrical was obviously not professional, even for the time of the upgrade. This house was inspected pre-purchase. Most codes grandfather in old codes, but if you upgrade the system, you need to meet the new code for safety reasons. I often think you should be able to rebuild in the same general visual style and size. But method? Lets face it, some of the old places were the cookie-cutter houses of the time - it isn't like every old building is of high quality. They used lead paint and asbestos, for example! But so long as the old methods meet current codes (some of which, like the number of nails, was meant to deter shoddy construction) I don't see where most folks get into trouble. Part of your statement, the bit about style, gets to be a mix of aesthetic zoning laws and safety, the first I generally disagree with and the second usually helps folks when there is fire.

Tempest1981 10y ago

A fair point. But many things get hidden behind drywall, making them very expensive for a new home buyer to get certified. Sure seems more efficient to inspect once during construction.

scaryspooky 10y ago
People do interior remodels all the time without getting a permit so you still have the same problem.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Home inspections really depend on the competency of the inspector, and for most people this is hit and miss. This is really where the article gets wacky: If he had had a knowledgeable city inspector, who was versed in construction practices, he might not have had so much trouble. He needed a specialty bureaucrat and he got the run-of-the-mill variety: In addition, he should have double checked the building codes before starting and could have saved himself some trouble. Sometimes you catch something, and sometimes you don't, and sometimes the previous owner masks normal markers of problems. Most the ones I've seen check for major problems in places you can see them. Codes don't make it so you don't have the responsibility: They, in theory, make sure your electrical system is as safe as possible when you are building and other such things. The inspections help to identify known problems, especially important to older houses built to different standards. Which is why buying a pre-existing house is slightly more risky than a new house. My parents had to treat a basement boiler for asbestos: One house the owners covered up signs of the roof leaking and the electrical was obviously not professional, even for the time of the upgrade. This house was inspected pre-purchase. Most codes grandfather in old codes, but if you upgrade the system, you need to meet the new code for safety reasons. I often think you should be able to rebuild in the same general visual style and size. But method? Lets face it, some of the old places were the cookie-cutter houses of the time - it isn't like every old building is of high quality. They used lead paint and asbestos, for example! But so long as the old methods meet current codes (some of which, like the number of nails, was meant to deter shoddy construction) I don't see where most folks get into trouble. Part of your statement, the bit about style, gets to be a mix of aesthetic zoning laws and safety, the first I generally disagree with and the second usually helps folks when there is fire.