Changing long-cherished code provisions, and a Chesterton quote

[Yikes]

I’ve recently posted about cities changing codes to make buildings more space-efficient, specifically that they are allowing more multifamily lowrise and midrise buildings with just one exit stair. As people concerned with public safety, it is hard to consider such changes without wondering if we have deprioritized safety. In that sense, we are “conservative”, in that we don’t want to change things that previously seemed settled. But in the philosophical sense, a conservative approach to code development is not opposed to change, it’s only opposed to unexamined, “leap before you look” change. I offer this 1929 quote from G.K. Chesterton regarding a sensible approach to change:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."​

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. ​

But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”​

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

There has always been a "tension" between advocates of stricter codes for safety, vs. laxer codes in the interest of reduced construction costs. I have known building officials who came into the profession from being home builders, and they generally ranted endlessly about how all the "unnecessary" code requirements (which just means provisions they didn't understand) are there only to increase the cost of construction. I always suspected that those building officials basically turned a blind eye toward enforcing provisions they personally didn't agree with -- which, IMHO, is not a professional or acceptable approach.

So the U.S. has a "housing crisis." The reality is that there's no such thing any more as a "starter house," such as what my parents bought when my father returned from service during WW2. The house was a small two-story colonial-ish house with three [small] bedrooms, one [small] bathroom, a tiny kitchen, and a dining alcove (not a real dining room). My parents at the time had two children (me and my younger brother). It wasn't luxurious, but it was new, the roof didn't leak, and it provided far better shelter than what a huge percentage of the world's population lives it.

No developer today is interested in building such affordable starter houses. Today's "starter house" has at least 2-1/2 baths, a huge kitchen with granite countertops, a master bedroom suite with an "en suite" bathing environment, yada, yada -- and the base price before upgrades is half a million $$$.

So the political solution is to abandon decades of progress in building safety in order to lower construction costs -- which will just allow builders to keep charging the same prices but make more profit.

It's a race to the bottom. It won't end until people start dying, at which point the code pendulum will again swing in the direction of building/life safety.

 

[steveray]

[A]Purpose​

The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation, and for providing a reasonable level of life safety and property protection from the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

We will always have different reasons...

 

[Yikes]

 

[ICE]

I wonder how much of the triennial code changes are the result of make work for the ICC and their partners in quasi governance?

 

[Yikes]

There has always been a "tension" between advocates of stricter codes for safety, vs. laxer codes in the interest of reduced construction costs.

There's an axiom in engineering:

“Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”​