5 ms·

If ICC generates less revenue, they won’t be able to fund as many new building codes. Wouldn’t that result in a less fractured and more simplified code system?

If ICC generates less revenue, they won’t be able to fund as many new building codes. Wouldn’t that result in a less fractured and more simplified code system? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

iratewizard 8y ago
I don't agree with that. The way I see it, looser codes could very well start making the US look like China with man-eating escalators and frequent structural failures.
- mortenjorck 8y ago
  How many different versions of escalator safety codes does the world need? Even for something like pile foundations that may have some geological variance by region, aren't there certain heuristics that should always be followed, with appropriate site surveying and structural analysis?
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    Exactly, and does each state and county really need its own of each code or have to add its own amendments? There are some particular scenarios though where they do: NYC has an extra code related to flooding, California has an earthquake code. Still you'd think a couple states or even a couple countries could all use the same earthquake code.
    - metaphor 8y ago
      > There are some particular scenarios... Building considerations are waaaaaay more involved and complicated than you can even begin to imagine.
      - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        Well, a lot of the inter-state differences, I've never understood. For example, Massachusetts changed the stair riser height from 7-3/4" to 8-1/4" (https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/building-planning#R311.7.5.1 https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/bui...). Why do 49 states (I think) have one height and MA has a different one? Not saying all the differences don't make sense just a fair amount of them. I'm also not an industry professional (despite staring at these codes all day, I'm usually not actually reading them), so honestly asking here.
        metaphor 8y ago
        Couldn't tell you what the philosophy or justification behind MA's stair riser requirement is. Have you considered that perhaps the engineers who contributed that change to the MA residential code have done their homework, identified value worth pursuing (whether for safety, building optimization, new material availability, future planning, etc.), and decided it was worth going through what surely isn't a painless ECP process to amend what you've dismissed to be trivial minutae?
        Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        I haven't, on second thought, I should have done my homework before taking a stance on that.
        wahern 8y ago
        I imagine a lot of differences relate to different regional building practices, stemming from both historic trends but also geographic realities. Especially in older areas (but arguably in newer areas, too) you want to permit a greater range of configurations otherwise you risk people abstaining from fixing or replacing unsafe areas, or avoiding permitting altogether. Notably, 8-1/4" is the maximum height--the change allowed more options but people are perfectly free to continue using more common dimensions. All that really matters is 7-11: the magic ratio for building your own stairs. Perhaps not the most ideal, but the easiest to remember and also trivial to build from common dimensional lumber[1] :) On a more serious note, what _truly_ matters is consistency of the steps. Interstep deviations are what cause most injuries. After the first or second step, w'ever the rise/run, the brain has already adapted. [1] 2x6" boards are actually 1.5x5.5". 5.5+1.5==7 and 5.5*2==11. 7-11 is the traditional American rise/run ratio. I think it's mostly coincidental, though, that 2x6 dimensional lumber adds up the way it does.
    - vvanders 8y ago
      We have 3 different codes for wind rating just within our county alone based on the exposure zone. Given some of the peak winds we see it's very much a good thing. Structural codes are fine by me, the newer energy codes are great too, our new house is so much cheaper to heat/cool than the 70s house we previously owned.
- wefarrell 8y ago
  I hardly see how that's connected to the number of laws on the books. My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. In developed countries, buildings are funded by banks, which require insurance, which require inspections.
  - metaphor 8y ago
    > My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. You clearly haven't seen the kind of half-baked crap that comes out of unregulated construction. Even in places with established building code, certain outcomes aren't always guaranteed, e.g. the dumpster fires known as LA and SF.
  - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
    Building codes do definitely play a role. A lot of them are written in reaction to some tragedy (fire, earthquake, structural failure, etc). Here's an interesting assertion: "the biggest potential saving of lives in rural areas lies in compliance with better building standards, so that homes and schools do not collapse so easily" (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507/enforcing-building-rules-will-save-lives https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507...)
tomohawk 8y ago
Code is "minimal acceptable", so yes. Meeting code does not imply "quality". The code bodies are really out of control at this point. They are unelected and unaccountable to anyone. Meanwhile, the codes they come up with get incorporated by local political hacks. Detached residential buildings in our area now require fire sprinkler systems to be installed. This is way over the top, adding considerable cost and risk. Talked to a local fire department volunteer who said a large number of their calls are to go to peoples homes and turn off the sprinklers that were activated by false alarm (you're not allowed to). The owners suffer extensive flood damage for nothing, and often don't realize their homeowners insurance doesn't have a flood rider to cover the damage. So, this one change wastes emergency personnel time and destroys property. Good job! Meanwhile, the people who wrote the code are not impacted in any way by this. It gets better. People not on municipal water (very large percentage) have no hope of feeding such a sprinkler system, so are required to install a water tank in their attic. This complicates remodeling to such an extent - its yet another reason people are getting uninspected work done.

If ICC generates less revenue, they won’t be able to fund as many new building codes. Wouldn’t that result in a less fractured and more simplified code system? Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

iratewizard 8y ago

I don't agree with that. The way I see it, looser codes could very well start making the US look like China with man-eating escalators and frequent structural failures.

mortenjorck 8y ago
How many different versions of escalator safety codes does the world need? Even for something like pile foundations that may have some geological variance by region, aren't there certain heuristics that should always be followed, with appropriate site surveying and structural analysis?
- Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
  Exactly, and does each state and county really need its own of each code or have to add its own amendments? There are some particular scenarios though where they do: NYC has an extra code related to flooding, California has an earthquake code. Still you'd think a couple states or even a couple countries could all use the same earthquake code.
  - metaphor 8y ago
    > There are some particular scenarios... Building considerations are waaaaaay more involved and complicated than you can even begin to imagine.
    - Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
      Well, a lot of the inter-state differences, I've never understood. For example, Massachusetts changed the stair riser height from 7-3/4" to 8-1/4" (https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/building-planning#R311.7.5.1 https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/irc-2015/chapter/3/bui...). Why do 49 states (I think) have one height and MA has a different one? Not saying all the differences don't make sense just a fair amount of them. I'm also not an industry professional (despite staring at these codes all day, I'm usually not actually reading them), so honestly asking here.
      - metaphor 8y ago
        Couldn't tell you what the philosophy or justification behind MA's stair riser requirement is. Have you considered that perhaps the engineers who contributed that change to the MA residential code have done their homework, identified value worth pursuing (whether for safety, building optimization, new material availability, future planning, etc.), and decided it was worth going through what surely isn't a painless ECP process to amend what you've dismissed to be trivial minutae?
        Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
        I haven't, on second thought, I should have done my homework before taking a stance on that.
      - wahern 8y ago
        I imagine a lot of differences relate to different regional building practices, stemming from both historic trends but also geographic realities. Especially in older areas (but arguably in newer areas, too) you want to permit a greater range of configurations otherwise you risk people abstaining from fixing or replacing unsafe areas, or avoiding permitting altogether. Notably, 8-1/4" is the maximum height--the change allowed more options but people are perfectly free to continue using more common dimensions. All that really matters is 7-11: the magic ratio for building your own stairs. Perhaps not the most ideal, but the easiest to remember and also trivial to build from common dimensional lumber[1] :) On a more serious note, what _truly_ matters is consistency of the steps. Interstep deviations are what cause most injuries. After the first or second step, w'ever the rise/run, the brain has already adapted. [1] 2x6" boards are actually 1.5x5.5". 5.5+1.5==7 and 5.5*2==11. 7-11 is the traditional American rise/run ratio. I think it's mostly coincidental, though, that 2x6 dimensional lumber adds up the way it does.
  - vvanders 8y ago
    We have 3 different codes for wind rating just within our county alone based on the exposure zone. Given some of the peak winds we see it's very much a good thing. Structural codes are fine by me, the newer energy codes are great too, our new house is so much cheaper to heat/cool than the 70s house we previously owned.
wefarrell 8y ago
I hardly see how that's connected to the number of laws on the books. My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. In developed countries, buildings are funded by banks, which require insurance, which require inspections.
- metaphor 8y ago
  > My understanding is that buildings in developing countries are more prone to disaster because of the way they're financed. You clearly haven't seen the kind of half-baked crap that comes out of unregulated construction. Even in places with established building code, certain outcomes aren't always guaranteed, e.g. the dumpster fires known as LA and SF.
- Old_Thrashbarg 8y ago
  Building codes do definitely play a role. A lot of them are written in reaction to some tragedy (fire, earthquake, structural failure, etc). Here's an interesting assertion: "the biggest potential saving of lives in rural areas lies in compliance with better building standards, so that homes and schools do not collapse so easily" (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507/enforcing-building-rules-will-save-lives https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2106507...)

tomohawk 8y ago

Code is "minimal acceptable", so yes. Meeting code does not imply "quality". The code bodies are really out of control at this point. They are unelected and unaccountable to anyone. Meanwhile, the codes they come up with get incorporated by local political hacks. Detached residential buildings in our area now require fire sprinkler systems to be installed. This is way over the top, adding considerable cost and risk. Talked to a local fire department volunteer who said a large number of their calls are to go to peoples homes and turn off the sprinklers that were activated by false alarm (you're not allowed to). The owners suffer extensive flood damage for nothing, and often don't realize their homeowners insurance doesn't have a flood rider to cover the damage. So, this one change wastes emergency personnel time and destroys property. Good job! Meanwhile, the people who wrote the code are not impacted in any way by this. It gets better. People not on municipal water (very large percentage) have no hope of feeding such a sprinkler system, so are required to install a water tank in their attic. This complicates remodeling to such an extent - its yet another reason people are getting uninspected work done.