Also considering replacing the R and U value prescriptive tables of the 2015 IECC with the 2009 IECC tables. I know that there are other ways to demonstrate compliance besides the prescriptive path but the contractors around here like the simplicity of prescribed R-values. The cost saving is in the materials needed to adhere to the table.
-
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
Cutting codes to cut costs of construction
- Thread starter Coder
- Start date
jeffc
Bronze Member
On my own projects, I usually use less window area than the prescriptive path is designed for. Using the component performance path, I have been able to reduce the floor insulation and joist depth with a crawlspace house and on another project, eliminated perimeter foam on a slab on grade. The projects complied with the energy code and I was more than happy to save on construction costs.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I believe you are right.
How does the councilor know that this is a problem that needs solved?
To evaluate sprinklers, we have to look at the expected performance of a building during a fire. For most housing, the expectation is that the building will burn to the ground. We know this when there are no fire separations required, you have interconnected floor spaces connecting multiple stories, and there are no facilities to allow fire fighters to fight the fire from within the building. With this in mind, the intentions of most codes is for life safety only for single family residential.
To look at what best helps in a fire, you first look at what occupants were doing during the fire. Most deaths are when people are sleeping (also from a NFPA study), which means the fact that there is a fire isn't the problem. The problem is that there is a fire the occupant doesn't know about. A better solution might be advanced detection and notification.
We had a builder who was building a nice front end split for about 250000. Thats a good price for a single family dwelling here. He has moved into the 350000 market because he was having trouble selling the cheaper houses. My point is, it's all good saying you need "affordable housing", but if the market won't support it, I have to question if it is really needed. Look at your own market. How many builders do you have building a house that meets the minimum code with few, if any, upgrades? This should give you a good idea if this is actually something the market wants or not.
fatboy
Administrator
Done, it is there, and it will be here for 2 days, then disappear from this forum.
conarb
Registered User
Why, the subject is "cutting codes to cut costs of construction", somehow we zeroed in on two of the most useless and expensive codes, Green and fire-sprinklers, we can get rid opf a lot more codes and code provisions without impacting health and life safety.
We sent Jim Brown to Washington to try to clean up the corrupt codes, he has come back to admit that he's "drunk the Koolaid", he also admits that most everything the ICC does is at the direction of the corrupt U.S. Government.
Codes have driven the costs of construction well beyond the ability of most people to pay.
conarb
Registered User
Here in California the new governor wants to build 3.5 million new homes, the workers are going to be, for the most part, incompetent, we need new reasonable codes:
The most expensive line item in residential construction is the costs of permits and other government fees, eliminate government fees and allow private inspection. I've told of my lawyer friend who jsut build a new $2.7 million retirement home in Nevada, total permit fees and private inspection were just over $3,000 as opposed to around $200,000 here over the hill/
¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...s-threatened-by-construction-worker-shortage/
East Bay Times said:
The most expensive line item in residential construction is the costs of permits and other government fees, eliminate government fees and allow private inspection. I've told of my lawyer friend who jsut build a new $2.7 million retirement home in Nevada, total permit fees and private inspection were just over $3,000 as opposed to around $200,000 here over the hill/
¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...s-threatened-by-construction-worker-shortage/
RJJ
Co-Founder
Everyone remember it is a minimum code!
Keystone
SAWHORSE
Residential wallboard inspection, not sure about you but I have had one handful of inspections fail and it was due to them not being ready. What about replacing this inspection with an affidavit from the responsible party, dated, print and signed. Indicating material placed, method of fastening, material to do so and spacing. A simple one page form you generate could become the affidavit.
The exception to this would be if the wallboard is part of a braced wall assembly and without question core walls.
The exception to this would be if the wallboard is part of a braced wall assembly and without question core walls.
I could see dropping the drywall (wallboard) inspection. Kind of a waste of time unless it is for an important feature of the building. Don't see how that is going to save money on construction though. We do not charge a "per inspection" fee.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Getting rid of an inspection does not save money. Maybe a little bit of time in the summer months but here in the winter they will have the heat on for 24 hours before the finishers can work.
Get rid of the continuous insulation requirement for one and two family dwellings. The added cost for adding backing for door and window trim and extending door bucks cost more than the insulation and it adds very little to the energy savings. My state is 3rd in the lowest energy cost in the nation so some of the requirements have a 40 year payback.
The Cheapest States for Utilities
10. Wisconsin ($390.65)
9. Arkansas ($388.28)
8. South Dakota ($382.57)
7. Oregon ($381.30)
6. Louisiana ($380.79)
5. Nevada ($376.93)
4. Washington ($369.18)
3. Montana ($359.03)
2. Utah ($350.17)
1. Idaho ($343.71)
Get rid of the continuous insulation requirement for one and two family dwellings. The added cost for adding backing for door and window trim and extending door bucks cost more than the insulation and it adds very little to the energy savings. My state is 3rd in the lowest energy cost in the nation so some of the requirements have a 40 year payback.
The Cheapest States for Utilities
10. Wisconsin ($390.65)
9. Arkansas ($388.28)
8. South Dakota ($382.57)
7. Oregon ($381.30)
6. Louisiana ($380.79)
5. Nevada ($376.93)
4. Washington ($369.18)
3. Montana ($359.03)
2. Utah ($350.17)
1. Idaho ($343.71)
conarb
Registered User
Its' not the cost, the state has no business telling a man how much energy he can use, that's tyranny. The Green Code is a political code, that new socialist congresswoman Alexandra Occasio Cortez has campaigned on a new Green Bill of Rights, she is an avowed Socialist.
In today's paper there is an article about the Mayor of San Francisco wanting to provide emergency shelter for the homeless:
San Francisco Chronicle said:
Getting rid of the stupid bureaucracy and red tape would be a good start.
¹ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...would-cut-red-tape-help-homeless-13533569.php
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
The state doesn't, the people that can afford it install a snow melt system on their driveways that can be 600 feet long and let them run throughout the winter whether they are there or not. Outdoor Hot tubes and patio heaters are all over the place up here.
I agree the energy codes as written are over the top for one and two family dwellings.
conarb
Registered User
In a free country people nave a right to heat their driveways and hot tubs if they are willing to pay for it.
The problem here is the stupid ICC, there was a time here that most of us were against them, Jim went to Washington to clean up the mess when the ICBO changed to the ICC and spent triple the going rent on a "Green" headquarters in Washington, we need to get rid of the ICC and get back to something like the ICBO, if that's even possible, if San Francisco can get rid or permits and codes why can't the rest of us? Building permits have become nothing but taxes.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Building permits fees that are kept exclusively to operate a building department (special revenue fund) to cover the cost associated specifically with that department only are not taxes but fees for services rendered. It sounds like you live in an area that does not operate that way an I agree the fees can get out of hand.
Our permit fees do not exceed 2% of the cost of the building. We do not include any cost that are outside the foundation such as driveways, parking lots, landscaping sidewalks etc.
Our permit fees do not exceed 2% of the cost of the building. We do not include any cost that are outside the foundation such as driveways, parking lots, landscaping sidewalks etc.
Coder, Some lady in Colorado had all the windows in her house replaced with new triple-insulated energy-efficient windows. Twelve months pass and she gets an irate call from the installer complaining that they haven't been paid for the job or received the first payment. The young lady replies, "Now, don't try to pull a fast one on me!" The salesman who sold me those windows told me that in one year they would pay for themselves!
I think the newer energy code is a bit too much to swallow with requiring blower test and additional insulation when it's not needed and that's one reason to stayed with the 2009 IECC.
I really don't have a problem with a little heat escaping the heat runs in a basement, but we now require the joints to be sealed. Dollars up front by the contractor but may not be saving any $$ on energy by the homeowner.
But jacking with the thermostat and house air changes, sounds like the EPA and other agencies have found their way into the codes and it's not about safety anymore, IMO.
There was a proposal to reduce water flow rates again, a 1.5 toilet sometimes need another flush. At some point the solids will not go down the line and the plumber will be called to dig up the front yard sewer line, where's the savings in that?
I think the newer energy code is a bit too much to swallow with requiring blower test and additional insulation when it's not needed and that's one reason to stayed with the 2009 IECC.
I really don't have a problem with a little heat escaping the heat runs in a basement, but we now require the joints to be sealed. Dollars up front by the contractor but may not be saving any $$ on energy by the homeowner.
But jacking with the thermostat and house air changes, sounds like the EPA and other agencies have found their way into the codes and it's not about safety anymore, IMO.
There was a proposal to reduce water flow rates again, a 1.5 toilet sometimes need another flush. At some point the solids will not go down the line and the plumber will be called to dig up the front yard sewer line, where's the savings in that?
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
I don't know why you think 3rd party inspectors are cheaper. I'm 3rd party and I make more than the inspectors make in a city near by plus the company I work for makes a profit. The local government is not allowed to make a profit on permits. Also get to use the company car for anything I want but the city guys don't. And they have to pay to park there own cars. We charge about 2% of the cost of construction.
Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.
Land cost more around here than construction cost of a ordinary house. Especially where they have strict zoning laws that require a house to be on so much land and try to "zone out" townhouses, trailer parks and apartments. Also I forget what it is called but they have a scheme where if a property owner promises to keep a area "open" by not developing it, they get a big break on real estate taxes. Farmers take advantage of this. So if someone buys the land later and wants to develop it they have to pay back all the back taxes that the previous owner saved. All these things just makes land more expensive for the whole area.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Energy codes are not just to save the home owner money but when they need to build more electrical plants everyone pays more.
Years ago the local utility needed more power and said if they built a nuclear power plant it would save money for the utility and it's customers. Before that I would only got an electric bill every other month. Right after they built it i started getting bills every month for the same amount as the every other month bills.
Years ago the local utility needed more power and said if they built a nuclear power plant it would save money for the utility and it's customers. Before that I would only got an electric bill every other month. Right after they built it i started getting bills every month for the same amount as the every other month bills.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
You beat me to it Rick
It's not about saving energy for the sake of conservation.
It's about, not Building new power plants, not damming up the fishing streams to build new hydro plant reservoirs.
It's about, not Building new Coal power plants, polluting the Air.
Some old farts don't care they will be dead soon, others care about our kids and grandkids.
It's not about saving energy for the sake of conservation.
It's about, not Building new power plants, not damming up the fishing streams to build new hydro plant reservoirs.
It's about, not Building new Coal power plants, polluting the Air.
Some old farts don't care they will be dead soon, others care about our kids and grandkids.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
If it is about not building new power plants then why the push for electric vehicles?
Where do you think the power will come from to recharge them, and the demand for quick charging stations will require a huge amount of electricity.
What is your solution for fueling a power plant? Nuclear, gas, hydro and coal are the only consistent reliable methods currently available.
Wind and solar are not consistent or reliable and there are a lot of NIMBY out there who believe wind farms and solar panel farms are noisy and ugly .
Electrify America, a subsidiary of VW, announced earlier this year that it plans to install EV charging stations at more than 100 Walmarts in 34 states. ChargePoint, which operates one of the world’s largest charging station networks, said it is targeting a nearly 50-fold increase by the middle of the next decade: 2.5 million charging stalls by 2025, up from a network of around 53,000 currently.
Where do you think the power will come from to recharge them, and the demand for quick charging stations will require a huge amount of electricity.
What is your solution for fueling a power plant? Nuclear, gas, hydro and coal are the only consistent reliable methods currently available.
Wind and solar are not consistent or reliable and there are a lot of NIMBY out there who believe wind farms and solar panel farms are noisy and ugly .
Electrify America, a subsidiary of VW, announced earlier this year that it plans to install EV charging stations at more than 100 Walmarts in 34 states. ChargePoint, which operates one of the world’s largest charging station networks, said it is targeting a nearly 50-fold increase by the middle of the next decade: 2.5 million charging stalls by 2025, up from a network of around 53,000 currently.
Ha! Good one!
JCraver
Sawhorse
Talk about drinking the kool-aid... You guys drank the whole gallon!
Let me ask you a question: Is there an exception in any energy-related law or in any energy code in either of your states/jurisdictions that exempts an off-grid property owner from said energy regulations? In other words, can I buy a piece of land in your town, pay the taxes on it, and then take care of my own well and my own power generation and not have to follow your energy code? "No", you say? Well then, there's your answer.
The energy codes have f*^%-all to do with energy.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
It's about the reduction of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. Regardless of you beliefs in global warming, no one I know of can breath carbon monoxide.
I have designed net zero buildings and the reality is that if you want an "off the grid" building, you will be far and above the energy code for that climate zone. The alternative is to install significantly more site generation at an extremely high cost in comparison to the insulation requirements. I would hope no one is that crazy, but whatever floats your boat.
We actually had a net zero building recently that we waived a couple provisions of the energy code because they were so significantly over in other areas.
This is no different than when public places started to go non smoking. All the smokers get up in arms over their "right" to smoke, but no one thinks about the non-smoker being forced to breath in cigarette smoke. You want to use as much energy as you want? I don't care. You want to pollute my air to do it? I don't think so.
I have designed net zero buildings and the reality is that if you want an "off the grid" building, you will be far and above the energy code for that climate zone. The alternative is to install significantly more site generation at an extremely high cost in comparison to the insulation requirements. I would hope no one is that crazy, but whatever floats your boat.
We actually had a net zero building recently that we waived a couple provisions of the energy code because they were so significantly over in other areas.
This is no different than when public places started to go non smoking. All the smokers get up in arms over their "right" to smoke, but no one thinks about the non-smoker being forced to breath in cigarette smoke. You want to use as much energy as you want? I don't care. You want to pollute my air to do it? I don't think so.