5 ms·
Ask HN: Why Can't We Make Approved Building Plans Reusable?
Why do people have to go through an entire architectural drawing and engineering process for every single building we create? Maybe we would require a soils test to make sure the ground has the same bearing capacity. If a building plan is approved by government officials, that plan should be available on the approved list for anybody to use at any time going forward. It is stupid that people have to spend $20,000 or $30,000 every time they want to build a box that has been approved and built literally hundreds of thousands of times before.
The architectural and engineering special interests have really captured their regulators on this one.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- appreciatorBus 10mo agoBecause city planners and Nimby homeowners do not want it to be easy to build new building buildings. Every extra dollar you can force a proponent to spend, increases the odds that the project will no longer be economic to build, and simply not be built. For those most active in city politics, this is a win. It goes way beyond design. Early housing reformers in the 1920s, explicitly called for punitive fire regulations for multifamily buildings to make them on economical while admitting that they would not ask for any fire regulations for single-family buildings whatsoever. [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944369208975533 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0194436920897553...
- silexia 10mo agoHow can we fight back against the special interests in every portion of society putting themselves ahead of everyone else?
- bigyabai 10mo agoMove to an anarchist commune?
- appreciatorBus 10mo agoThe fastest way to turn an anarchist into a Central Planner is to propose a building whose aesthetics they dislike.
- baubino 10mo agoIt’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structure meets all legal and safety requirements. If something goes wrong, whoever signed that plan is personally liable.
- silexia 10mo agoThe liability can simply be on the builder if they choose to use a separately approved plan. The builder has liability anyways.
- baubino 10mo agoIn most places (in the US at least), all building plans over a certain size require a stamp from an architect or engineer. Builders get their plans stamped by an architect or engineer too. No builder will willingly take on liability that they currently don’t have, especially since it will cost them more money (in insurance premiums). The exception is smaller buildings (usually less than 2000 sq ft) and in some places, all single family is exempt from needing a stamp. edit: I should add that I’m not against the idea of reusable plans. But the liability issue would need to be solved somehow. Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?
- yorwba 10mo agoI don't see why the person who assumes liability for the plans for one building couldn't also assume liability for n exact copies built using the same plans. Of course that goes against OP's wish of not having to pay for the plans, but if you're willing to pay, liability is not an issue.
- baubino 10mo agoI imagine that would raise the price of the plans significantly because, again, no one wants to take on more liability than they already have, and definitely won’t do so without additional compensation. At the very least, liability insurance would increase (if it even allows it).
- jamesgill 10mo agoTL;DR: liability.