4 ms·

Mass production definitely papers over the inefficiencies, but I wonder if it would be needlessly burdensome to try and make building products and rules that ar

Mass production definitely papers over the inefficiencies, but I wonder if it would be needlessly burdensome to try and make building products and rules that are everything for everyone. We've already seen huge debacles with things like LP siding that would last decades in the southwest that started breaking down and growing mushrooms in the Northwest after like two years. The difference with cars is that save for some small tweaks, you're not dealing with completely different driving environments for decades or centuries on end. California has their own emissions standards, which they manage to meet (or cheat). But largely fuel efficiency is fuel efficency. Safety is safety. A seatbelt works the same whether it's rainy or sunny. Houses should be designed to emphasize the local environment needs. I don't want a flat roofed stucco house in Portland. That would be a freaking nightmare. I'm sure there's a set of federal regulations that could be applied to new construction, plumbing and electrical codes could probably mostly apply. General safety and minimum wind shear requirements. But the vast majority of the codes we had to deal with were regional and dealt with water runoff, moisture build up prevention, soil erosion, and a list of other things that I could see as being entirely not applicable to other areas of my state, let alone the rest of the country.

VLM 10y ago
I have an interesting analogy that's even better than automobiles. Clothing. Mass produced clothing. Kids pajamas federally required to be fireproof, no problemo. Almost everyone in the entire country wears mass produced clothing. Yet there's incredible variation in style. I don't have to wear a skirt, but my wife can if she wants. I can wear a sweater on a cold day while people on Florida beaches are nude or close to. Yet its all successfully mass produced. I was going to use industrially produced food as an analogy although maybe that's not seen as a winner. But its not out of business, which is something, I guess.
- manyxcxi 10y ago
  I think the premise is sound, but also basically where we are today. With the clothing analogy you buy the individual items (or not) and put together the outfit of your choosing. As it stands I can pick one of a dizzying array of products that adhere to all kinds of regulation across many jurisdictions. However, where it begins to be problematic is if we (returning back to clothing) say ALL belts must be 4" wide and made of genuine leather. Well, now that coat you wear that has a belt around the waist that is purely decorative is completely out of regulation and can't be used. Even though you and I both know it's just fine. Or the swimsuit that ties around the side gets classified as a belt because of some inane interpretation. You'll get that times a thousand for every single room in the house. Like the argument I had to have with the plumbing inspector about my ridiculously expensive dishwasher not needing a breather valve because it had mitigating features built in. Showed him the spec sheet that called it out and pulled up customer support with him there. In the end? The rules say breather valve, put one in. No common sense or room for interpretation. The intent is to keep dirty water from back flowing into your dishwasher. But now years later you have minions that don't understand the intent, they just know what the regs say.

VLM 10y ago

I have an interesting analogy that's even better than automobiles. Clothing. Mass produced clothing. Kids pajamas federally required to be fireproof, no problemo. Almost everyone in the entire country wears mass produced clothing. Yet there's incredible variation in style. I don't have to wear a skirt, but my wife can if she wants. I can wear a sweater on a cold day while people on Florida beaches are nude or close to. Yet its all successfully mass produced. I was going to use industrially produced food as an analogy although maybe that's not seen as a winner. But its not out of business, which is something, I guess.

manyxcxi 10y ago
I think the premise is sound, but also basically where we are today. With the clothing analogy you buy the individual items (or not) and put together the outfit of your choosing. As it stands I can pick one of a dizzying array of products that adhere to all kinds of regulation across many jurisdictions. However, where it begins to be problematic is if we (returning back to clothing) say ALL belts must be 4" wide and made of genuine leather. Well, now that coat you wear that has a belt around the waist that is purely decorative is completely out of regulation and can't be used. Even though you and I both know it's just fine. Or the swimsuit that ties around the side gets classified as a belt because of some inane interpretation. You'll get that times a thousand for every single room in the house. Like the argument I had to have with the plumbing inspector about my ridiculously expensive dishwasher not needing a breather valve because it had mitigating features built in. Showed him the spec sheet that called it out and pulled up customer support with him there. In the end? The rules say breather valve, put one in. No common sense or room for interpretation. The intent is to keep dirty water from back flowing into your dishwasher. But now years later you have minions that don't understand the intent, they just know what the regs say.