Affordable Housing

[conarb]

The cost or rentals has gone so high that there is a desperate need for more low cost rental housing, historically when demand outstripped supply builders moved further out for cheaper land with fewer restrictions; however, the environmentalists have us boxed in not wanting any more building, we now have proposals supported by the governor lifting government restrictions to accommodate it.

Southward, in Los Angeles, two competing measures are headed for the November ballot, one to freeze housing development in the name of preserving neighborhoods, the other to fast-track projects whose developers agree to hire local -- and unionized -- workers.

Meanwhile, at the Capitol, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León is pushing a "no place like home" proposal that would divert $2 billion from a special income tax on the wealthy, passed by voters in 2004 to finance mental health services, into housing for the homeless. It has the blessing of de León's predecessor as Senate leader, Darrell Steinberg, who sponsored the 2004 measure.

Gov. Jerry Brown endorses the plan, which would not involve the big increase in state spending that many housing advocates seek, and is also proposing to fast-track housing projects that meet certain criteria, bypassing local governments' traditional control over land use.

Under Brown's "by-right" proposal, multifamily housing that avoids urban sprawl, is close to transit and meets set-aside ratios for low- and moderate-income families can evade local government permitting.

It's aimed at what housing experts say is the chief impediment to closing California's demand-supply gap -- the reluctance of local officials to approve large-scale housing projects, due to resistance among existing residents worried about traffic and crime and concerns about costs of new public services.

It is, Brown says, one of the needed "new approaches that increase the housing supply and reduce its cost."¹

The single biggest cost of building today is government costs to get a permit, also on average it takes 7 times as long to get a permit as it takes to perform the actual construction. Union labor would be required so the buildings should be competently built, a design Professional of Record must be a licensed architect, if the permit and it's attendant fees are waived the architects would be responsible if anything wasn't constructed to code, it's become apparent that building permits and inspections have little to do with health and safety, look at the Berkeley balcony collapse, all that work was inspected and it failed in 7 years.

In a way it would be a return to a free market system, the cities need low cost housing, codes, permits, etc. are very time consuming and costly, let the market build to the low cost price point and if there are failures the architects', engineers' and contractors' insurance should pay the damages.

¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_29903292/walters:-fixing-californias-housing-crisis

 

[jdfruit]

I might trust an Engineer to "observe" and report on structure because of the rigor required in their professional practice. Being a licensed Architect myself, I get a "WTF" moment thinking that Architects would be the persons in charge of safety for everything else. Don't lump the building permit fee into the "exhorbitant" fee structure for approvals and permits. The range of "permit dependent" fees by Planning, Public Works, School Districts, Water Districts, ad infinitum add up to some "real money". I didn't find a reasonable checks and balances system in the proposed legislation that adequately addresses construction safety issues like "competent" inspections.

 

[conarb]

Don't lump the building permit fee into the "exhorbitant" fee structure for approvals and permits. The range of "permit dependent" fees by Planning, Public Works, School Districts, Water Districts, ad infinitum add up to some "real money".

But we do, in the 50s I had a line item in my cost breakdowns for "Permits", by the 60s there were so many government fees attached that I changed it to "Government Fees" so my customers know how much their government is taking out of the project. By the 90s as Special Inspections became a big item I added a line item for them with a note that they had to be paid by the owner, this invariably makes owners mad as they start writing the checks themselves to the various special inspection firms. One day while standing on the site with the owner and the German structural engineer the owner asked me: "Why all these levels of inspection"? Since welders were on the job I responded: "County inspectors can't stand around all day while welding is going on plus they are not certified as welding inspectors." The Engineer injected: "In Europe all government inspectors are certified as welding inspectors". Maybe just get rid of building inspection when there are special inspectors on the job?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Special inspectors are like every other profession. There are good ones and bad ones. We don't require a special inspector for welding we card the welders and ask for their certificates

 

[Mark K]

Woe the ignorance.

Union contractors do not guarantee competent construction.

Architects and engineers are not automatically responsible if something does not get constructed per code. They are responsible if their designs are deficient or if they made other mistakes. Designers are not paid enough for them to be on site all the time.

The fact that a welder has certificate only shows that at one time he showed he could produce an acceptable weld not that the current welds were done properly.

The fact that a Contractor had a line item for special inspectors suggests that somebody is subverting the intent of the code which is that the inspectors are retained by the owner.

Remember you get what you paid for.

 

[conarb]

Woe the ignorance.

Union contractors do not guarantee competent construction.

They are a better guarantee, and they are getting better now that the unions have found the environmental quality act as a sledge hammer to force unionization in larger projects, tradesmen who work on larger projects designed and inspected by architects/engineers tend to be/become more knowledgeable than small contractors working around the fringes fo the industry like Tiger encounters on a daily basis.

Architects and engineers are not automatically responsible if something does not get constructed per code. They are responsible if their designs are deficient or if they made other mistakes. Designers are not paid enough for them to be on site all the time.

I am suggesting that all architects have supervision contracts, for years I've been paying engineers for structural observations, I get certifications of insurance from all architects and engineers, if something goes wrong and I am sued I can cross complain against the architects and engineers for indemnification, I can't do that with a city inspector, they are responsible for nothing.

The fact that a welder has certificate only shows that at one time he showed he could produce an acceptable weld not that the current welds were done properly.

Not true, I recently had an astute city inspector reject a few of the welders' certifications for not being current.

The fact that a Contractor had a line item for special inspectors suggests that somebody is subverting the intent of the code which is that the inspectors are retained by the owner.

Please clarify what you are stating, my understanding of Chapter 17 is that the owner, not the contractor, employs the special inspectors, I make the special inspection firms draft their contracts as contracts between them and the owners and I make them submit their invoices to the owners. Before I started doing this in my cost breakdowns owners became upset that there were costs that were not included in the cost breakdown, they thought the contractor should be paying for the inspections, in fact they all think all inspections are conducted by the AHJ and know nothing about special inspections.

Remember you get what you paid for.

I am proposing that all architects be required to have supervision contracts and get paid for all their work, as it is all engineers are paid for their structural observations. No matter what it costs it would be cheaper in the long run than paying the bureaucracy to do it with the attendant benefit liabilities. We now have $19 trillion in unfunded civil servant liability with no way of paying it, here is an article on it.

 

[conarb]

Special inspectors are like every other profession. There are good ones and bad ones. We don't require a special inspector for welding we card the welders and ask for their certificates

While I agree that should be adequate Chapter 17 requires special inspection of welding, piers, epoxy, and other things.

 

[Mark K]

Conarb

Structural observation is not inspections. At best it is spot checking.

Regarding having your consultants provide supervision services I suggest that you better understand what the contracts say, what the designers understand what they are providing, and what their insurance covers. The designers errors and omissions insurance is quite different from contractors general liability insurance.

Design professionals E and O insurance only covers negligence. It does not guarantee perfection. My bet is that in the case of the engineers you employ they have limited personal assets beyond their insurance policy to pay any claims.

The cheapest thing would be for the Contractor to do his job and supervise his personnel and subs to make sure that they have done the work right. Remember the contractor selects the subs and pays their bills. The contractor can fire a sub. The designers cannot, so one should wonder why do you expect the designers to be responsible for the completed project.. You sound like the type of contractor most engineers would prefer not to work for.

I will suggest that most of the problems are not with the design but rather with the way the contractor did the work.

There is a difference between having an up to date welding cert and the welder following the welding procedures. We were reminded of this when we looked at the problems that were unearthed by the Northridge earthquake.

While union contractors may be more likely to be able to do the work right this does not mean that they do.

With respect to structural inspections such as included in Chapter 17 I suggest that the owner is better of using the testing and inspection agencies as opposed to relying on the design professional. The skill set of inspectors is different that that of most designers.

When the Contractor selects the special inspectors and manages them and the only thing the owner does is pay the bill the inspectors are less likely to be aggressive since if they do so they will not get the next project.

 

[conarb]

When the Contractor selects the special inspectors and manages them and the only thing the owner does is pay the bill the inspectors are less likely to be aggressive since if they do so they will not get the next project.

Mark:

Owners do not know who to call, and most architects and engineers do not either, the reality is that it falls on us contractors, in fact when it comes to welding inspectors I always ask the structural steel subcontractor who he has the best relationship with, at this point I think most continuous welding inspection is a waste, we seem to always end up with UT testing at the end, I think eliminate the entire process and UT test everything when all steel is erected. Pier and other soils inspections are best left to the geotech who has done the soils testing if the CBO will allow the engineers to do the special inspections, the same with epoxy inspections, I think they are best left to the structural engineer who designed the system if the CBO will allow it. My point is that owners are always upset with the multiple layers of inspection, and there is no way it can be kept from them since they have to pay the bills.

While all this is going on what is the building inspector doing? Yeah, I call them periodically and when they come by, we chat and I hand them special inspection reports along with various ES Reports for their file.