Maybe y’all have heard this before but I heard it a few years ago when consulting with a building science non-profit and couldn’t rightfully disagree.
“People brag about a building being fully code-compliant, but a fully code-compliant building is the worst building that you are legally allowed to build!”
Apparently the quote is from an anonymous architect.
Let the dissent begin? or hell yea?
Edited 4/13/2005 6:41 pm ET by dogfish
Replies
Not so much a controversial quote so much as a simple statment of fact. Heard it worded similarly a thousand times, so no need to worry about who siad it first. Truth is truth no matter who says it.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
What Piffin said.
Of all the things that I have lost, I miss my mind the most!
Keep in mind that a building/plumbing/elect/etc code is a set on MINIMUM standards.
Edited 4/13/2005 7:30 pm ET by DIRISHINME
I agree with y'all.
Recently in JLC there was a letter from a contractor who argued against an article demonstrating the inadequecy of Rail-Post Connections for Wooden Decks. All of the connections that failed the test were code-compliant. But JLC suggested a method that would allow a continuous 200 lb. load to be applied to a single post without failure.
In his letter the contractor says, "Looking at it from a contractor's point of view, I have the following observations: The bolted connection(which failed -- dogfish) passed code, so no further refinement is needed."
I read this and was dumbfounded. There are certain parts of the code that may not be good enough from a builders perspective but nobody is likely to get hurt as a result. But his argument that because the code says it's o.k. there is no further need for new, safer approaches is crazy, especially when the article clearly shows that the code requirements are not good enough.
The authors who wrote the article responded and disputed his contention and took a definite stand looking at it from a customers point of view. I'm sorry that the letter writer included his company name and location. Hope none of his customers are reading JLC.
I read that article in JLC, but not the follow up letter...
Just as a point of clarification, the article writer was designing a railing post that would resist 500#s of lateral force (if I remember correctly). The idea was to produce a deck post that would give the code required 200# support over the entire expected lifetime of a deck. Where I think the article missed it was that what you need to do is produce a rail system (all components considered) that produces a safe railing over the lifetime of the deck. For example, how strong is a deck railing that has a post every 8', verses one that has a post every 3'?
I thought the article was a little overkill, but some of the common deck rail post attachment methods they presented are marginal even though they are code compliant. If you are building a deck that is 30" off the ground - then they may be fine, but if you were building a deck that is 6, 8, or 10' off the ground some extra insurance is a good investment.
In some instances building above code minimums is a very good thing. A builder has to exercise his judgement and common sense to determine when it is warranted though. On the other hand, roof sheathing that is screwed down just because screws are stronger is ridiculous!!! LOL - unless maybe it is in very high wind or seismic area.Some people around here though talk like money is no object... To, me that is what makes the difference between a pro and an armature - someone who is able to make the call, based on knowledge and experience. "Why didn't those framers screw my studs in place?" Then you will have someone who responds in agreement... what a joke!!!
Matt
What? You find no comfort living in a house built to the Minimum standard by the Lowest bidder?
Picky. Picky. Picky.
LOL.
Kind of puts inspectors in perspective. They are just trying to keep contractors from building Below the Minimum standard.
"What? You find no comfort living in a house built to the Minimum standard by the Lowest bidder?"
4LORN1,
I had me laughing hysterically at that one. Isn't that why we're here?
ie. We want to build it better, ....not to code.
Jon
Re: "ie. We want to build it better, ....not to code."And yet so many people, including a few on this board, will spend a whole lot of time and effort arguing that they should be able to, sometimes even celebrated for, taking short cuts. Usually using reasoning that 'the code is too strict' or 'unnecessary' or 'doing so interferes with their freedom'.
I have seen some code articles I find absurd; others I find insufficient; others I simply fail to understand the logic behind.
And that's at the NBCC level. At the local level, it gets even worse...but you stand a chance of sweet-talking the permitting lady if ya remembered to brush yer teeth that morning....
In general, I find that the less abstract engineering is used to create a code item, the stronger/better the resulting code specs will make the structure. An awful lot of 'rule of thumb' or 'seat of the pants' calculating was traditionally finished off by adding on a mental safety factor that, if done by the numbers, would be considered overkill.
Engineers don't deliberately undersize stuff; but a good portion of their work is based on standard numerical assumptions, some of which might have been a little on the shy side 'way back when they were established for whatever reason. By now, nobody remembers the source or questions these assumptions and the result of using them in calculations is, well....
GIGODinosaur
'Y-a-tu de la justice dans ce maudit monde?
I think that's a GROSS oversimplification.
For instance - Which code is he talking about? I've seen some utterly ridiculous code requirements. If they're already outlandish, what purpose is there in exceeding them?
Other code requirements are perfectly reasonable, and there' no reason to go beyond them.
Like if your code requires adequate attic ventilation, and you do that, why should you say that's "minimual"? What benifit is there in adding more than you need?
The quote you referenced makes me think of the quote in this tag line:
"For instance - Which code is he talking about? I've seen some utterly ridiculous code requirements. If they're already outlandish, what purpose is there in exceeding them?"
Right, and then there are codes that are just stupid and based upon faulty science. Complying with some codes will net a worse structure.
Crawlspace vents come to mind. Many venting requirements in general are questionable and fail to look at the thermal performance of the structure as a whole.
Some of you may have noticed that the whole bruhaha around deck attachment has gotten very ridiculous; specing massive fasteners every 4 inches, or whatever they came up with. Some crazy stuff is likely to get into codes here due to a few high-profile cases.
I just tore out some plumbing that operated trouble-free for 75 years that would not meet minimum venting requirements today. Some things are overkill.