• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Supreme Court Ruling on Building Codes

I may totally off base here with this statement: Weren't we better off with the previous three codes before? Personally I saw nothing wrong with the UBC.

Here on this forum, I'll make reference to the IBC and then find that were talking about the CBC or some other state code.
 
I read the article. There is so much missing in the discussion, but it did mention people knowing how to build a deck. I caught that. You don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes. I got that one covered for everyone, ha, ha!

It's hilarious to me this article about this massive issue actually mentioned deck codes. Seriously... pinch me...
 
This will not stop development of codes. In general those working on and modifying codes do not do it in order to make a profit on sale of codes. In fact a number of organizations make the standards that are referenced in the code available for free.

In addition a significant source of income is sale of books interpreting and explaining the codes. These publications will still have a copyright.
 
This will not stop development of codes. In general those working on and modifying codes do not do it in order to make a profit on sale of codes. In fact a number of organizations make the standards that are referenced in the code available for free.

In addition a significant source of income is sale of books interpreting and explaining the codes. These publications will still have a copyright.
ICC knows this... From my perspective, it appears ICC is already shifting this direction. Look at the number of certifications they keep splitting. The fact that half of the CEU's have to be from a preferred provider, and hey, ICC has a ton of new courses. ICC is shifting towards certification, training, and education as the profit center. Code Development is not, nor has it ever been, a money maker. Yes, ICC is suffering a loss in book sales, but they are adjusting like any good business will, to other profitable ventures.
 
This will not stop development of codes. In general those working on and modifying codes do not do it in order to make a profit on sale of codes. In fact a number of organizations make the standards that are referenced in the code available for free.

In addition a significant source of income is sale of books interpreting and explaining the codes. These publications will still have a copyright.
As I am not old enough to have survived anything but ICC....What happens if they tap out of the code side? Or are all of the "fringe benefits" of being the code publisher too lucrative where that is not likely to happen? Who continues code development?
 
ICC will fight tooth and nail to maintain their monopoly. Think of ICC as a corporation controlled by management that has "members" in order to give it legitimacy. The building official members are valued by ICC because they will promote the adoption of the ICC codes. The members also provide ICC with individuals that will buy ICC's certifications and continuing education products.

If the ICC were to stop publishing the ICC Codes life would go on. Much of the content of the codes are embodied in reference standards that are produced by a variety of industry and professional organizations. Somebody would step up and develop a new model code that would provide a framework that would incorporate the reference standards.

This would not take that long. Just look back to when the ICC replaced the ICBO and the other regional model codes. If anything this will be easier since in many cases much of the detailed provisions has moved from the pages of the ICC codes to the reference standards.
 
I read the article. There is so much missing in the discussion, but it did mention people knowing how to build a deck. I caught that. You don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes. I got that one covered for everyone, ha, ha!

It's hilarious to me this article about this massive issue actually mentioned deck codes. Seriously... pinch me...
Well, deck codes might have mattered to the dozens of unsuspecting folks who were killed by collapsed decks. Decks that failed not from fire or hurricane or earthquake but just from normal use. If a friend or neighbor suffered from a collapsed deck, surely the homeowner doesn't want to be the next victim.
 
Well, deck codes might have mattered to the dozens of unsuspecting folks who were killed by collapsed decks. Decks that failed not from fire or hurricane or earthquake but just from normal use. If a friend or neighbor suffered from a collapsed deck, surely the homeowner doesn't want to be the next victim.
Hey bud... I've got history with deck code like few others. My post was tongue-and-check... Deck are collapsing because our country hasn't had model deck codes until recently. I helped write almost all of them since the 2015 edition. I pitched my book idea to ICC back in 2009 to help get deck codes mainstream and in the hands of people that would never buy the IRC. Deck Construction Based on the 2009 IRC. My update to the 2021 will be available late April. There's a reason the deckcodes.com points to my bio. I have three deck code webinar scheduled for march. I developed with NADRA a deck code certification program for the deck industry. I've had a 14 hour deck code education program available online and on-demand since 2012 and it was completely free for everyone for the first few years as I grew my online school. I'm about to release all new updates to that series based on the 2021.

Decks have been my thing since building my first one over 2 decades ago.

I didn't mean to be insensitive to the deck collapses across our country. I'm just a deckhead! Ha, ha!
 
The building code (IBC) adequately addresses decks without a separate deck code.

The rationales for a separate deck code seem to be motivated by a perceived need for proscriptive provisions that do not require engineering which would supposedly result in less cost. I fear that this will have a negative impact on safety given the almost limited variation in deck configurations which are not addressed in any such standard.

On the separate question of whether a deck code could allow the deck to be designed by a non-licensed individual I believe the answer is no. State licensing law is separate from building regulations and as such the building code cannot be used to define whether a licensed architect or engineer is required.
 
The building code (IBC) adequately addresses decks without a separate deck code.

The rationales for a separate deck code seem to be motivated by a perceived need for proscriptive provisions that do not require engineering which would supposedly result in less cost. I fear that this will have a negative impact on safety given the almost limited variation in deck configurations which are not addressed in any such standard.

On the separate question of whether a deck code could allow the deck to be designed by a non-licensed individual I believe the answer is no. State licensing law is separate from building regulations and as such the building code cannot be used to define whether a licensed architect or engineer is required.

We aren't going to start beating that dead horse of "the building code cannot tell us when an RDP is required" thing again are we?
 
Why is it a dead horse?

What are the limits on what the building code can require and if there are no limits what is the legal basis for that position?
 
The building code (IBC) adequately addresses decks without a separate deck code.

The rationales for a separate deck code seem to be motivated by a perceived need for proscriptive provisions that do not require engineering which would supposedly result in less cost. I fear that this will have a negative impact on safety given the almost limited variation in deck configurations which are not addressed in any such standard.

On the separate question of whether a deck code could allow the deck to be designed by a non-licensed individual I believe the answer is no. State licensing law is separate from building regulations and as such the building code cannot be used to define whether a licensed architect or engineer is required.
EVERYONE. I was just making a joke, because I've been in decks my whole adult life and I thought it was awesome they got recognized in this big article about big stuff. I posted my decade old video only to back up my claim that I've long been trying to get deck code to the public and why I chuckled at this article mentioning decks. For me... It's cool people care now. When I started teaching "deck codes" in 2007, I got a LOT of ridicule. "Decks are easy, they teach a Saturday morning clinic at Home Depot!" Finally decks are getting respect and that's been my goal for a long time.

I want to respond to Mark K, as I very much disagree, but this is not the thread for that.

Sorry for my distraction. This thread is about the article in the original post, not decks.
 
The ABOSUTE WORST plans I see are for deck review. Some of this is the idea that anybody can build a deck, some of it because the prescriptive deck guidance has been so bad, and unfortunately so has review and inspection. Not sure an entire new deck code is warranted, but if one was to be published and referenced or adopted similar to the DCA document, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I firmly believe in less code, but not where it matters. Hundreds of pages could come out of the IRC to make room for a few more on deck construction.
 
EVERYONE. I was just making a joke, because I've been in decks my whole adult life and I thought it was awesome they got recognized in this big article about big stuff. I posted my decade old video only to back up my claim that I've long been trying to get deck code to the public and why I chuckled at this article mentioning decks. For me... It's cool people care now. When I started teaching "deck codes" in 2007, I got a LOT of ridicule. "Decks are easy, they teach a Saturday morning clinic at Home Depot!" Finally decks are getting respect and that's been my goal for a long time.

I want to respond to Mark K, as I very much disagree, but this is not the thread for that.

Sorry for my distraction. This thread is about the article in the original post, not decks.
Ok, but you said "you don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes."
But maybe some people do. The IRC costs about $150, so Upcodes might serve to help a typical homeowner obtain the code and understand what it takes to build a deck or do any other work on his home. Then he can decide if he can still do it or bring on a builder.

ICC or the state agency could ask the ICC foundation to fund donating the codes to public libraries.

Anyway it appears you are embracing the article. Hopefully you can make use of it when you talk about the keys to safe deck construction.
 
Why is it a dead horse?

What are the limits on what the building code can require and if there are no limits what is the legal basis for that position?
Because the argument serves no purpose. Everyone is entrenched in their position. No one is changing minds.

One side argues that the state licensing has been delegated the authority to determine when and RDP is required.

The other side argues that the building code was adopted by elected officials and therefore is just as binding when it states when an RDP is required in relation to building construction.

Unless delegation to one of these bodies (the licensing board or the building code) on when a RDP is required included a statement that they are the only authority to determine when an RDP is required, both can designate when an RDP is required as the state can delegate its authority to multiple entities.
 
Ok, but you said "you don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes."
But maybe some people do. The IRC costs about $150, so Upcodes might serve to help a typical homeowner obtain the code and understand what it takes to build a deck or do any other work on his home. Then he can decide if he can still do it or bring on a builder.

ICC or the state agency could ask the ICC foundation to fund donating the codes to public libraries.

Anyway it appears you are embracing the article. Hopefully you can make use of it when you talk about the keys to safe deck construction.
I question if the average person can pick up a code book and build a deck from it. It's not exactly a "how to" document. I feel the public is well served with practical, step-by-step, written in plain English documents on how to build something like a deck. The reality is if we make it easy to do it right, more people will do it right from the start.

I find it interesting about this whole argument about ICC is that ICC is providing a service to the government for free. The model codes created by ICC are turned into law by the state and local government, so ICC is essentially writing the laws for these entities for free. Yes, many of these entities also employ inspectors that buy code books and take courses, but maybe this business model is failing. Maybe a better model would be for any government agency that wants to adopt the code must pay ICC for the development of that code.
 
I'm in the code does not tell you where you need a designer camp....

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction
documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical
report and other data shall be submitted in two or
more sets with each permit application. The construction documents
shall be prepared by a registered design professional
where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction
in which the
project is to be constructed.

There is a lot of talk of "engineered design" and things like that in the code which could be done by unlicensed people but the State Law will trump that...

[A] 102.2 Other laws. The provisions of this code shall not
be deemed to nullify any provisions of local, state or federal
law.

[A] 105.4 Validity of permit. The issuance or granting of a
permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an
approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this
code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction.
 
PA took Chapter 1 out of it's code and replaced it. This is what it says under Permit and Inspection Process for Commercial Construction:

(c) A licensed architect or licensed professional engineer shall prepare the construction documents under the Architects Licensure Law (63 P. S. § § 34.1—34.22), or the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law (63 P. S. § § 148—158.2). An unlicensed person may prepare design documents for the remodeling or alteration of a building if there is no compensation and the remodeling or alteration does not relate to additions to the building or changes to the building’s structure or means of egress.
 
tmurray is not arguing the law but rather hides behind the fact that somebody is proposing an alternate position. Interesting since this means that there cannot be any discussion of the matter and since we cannot discuss the issue there cannot be change thus allowing what I believe is his position, to prevail.
 
Ok, but you said "you don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes."
But maybe some people do. The IRC costs about $150, so Upcodes might serve to help a typical homeowner obtain the code and understand what it takes to build a deck or do any other work on his home. Then he can decide if he can still do it or bring on a builder.

ICC or the state agency could ask the ICC foundation to fund donating the codes to public libraries.

Anyway it appears you are embracing the article. Hopefully you can make use of it when you talk about the keys to safe deck construction.
You're killing me... are you a media journalist, Ha, ha!, because you quoted HALF my statement, which ended, in HA HA!!

Here's what I said and the bold part you missed. "You don't need UpCodes and lawsuits to learn deck codes. I got that one covered for everyone, ha, ha!"

How can I even have a conversation with someone that responds only to the "set up" and not the "punchline" of the joke...

FREE viewing of I-codes. www.codes.iccsafe.org
 
Last edited:
In the case of PA if the change was made directly by the legislature by means of a statute there is no problem. If the change was made by a state agency I would assume that they are trying to restate law recognizing that the controlling criteria is what the legislature said and that any language in the building code that is in conflict is not valid.

I am not a fan of trying to restating state statute in the building code since inevitably there are differences between the restatement and the actual language adopted by the legislature. This results in confusion.
 
tmurray is not arguing the law but rather hides behind the fact that somebody is proposing an alternate position. Interesting since this means that there cannot be any discussion of the matter and since we cannot discuss the issue there cannot be change thus allowing what I believe is his position, to prevail.
You are right. I am not arguing the law. I am stating the fact that you have had this argument on this site with many others before. The end result before was that people had to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying you can't keep making the same argument with, what I anticipate, to be the same results. I really don't care. I'm just questioning if this is the best use of your time.
 
"If the ICC were to stop publishing the ICC Codes life would go on"

I believe the NFPA already has a model code. It went over like a lead balloon, but it would be available in the unlikely event the ICC evaporated.
 
Top