-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Cutting codes to cut costs of construction
- Thread starter Coder
- Start date
Where/how did you get that information?
The photo is taken from an NFPA video that discusses the importance of maintaining combustibles away from the home.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
I got it from Google Photos, not from the video. I searched for Fire Sprinklered buildings in wild fire areas. Woop Woop….
I never said it was the current fire series
I also said with "Chapter 7A, which is the structure protection."
Do you feel better now. nothing is different.
Not about feeling better. The information and evidence that you gave to support your claim was false. The home pictured is most likely not protected by a fire sprinkler system, and even if it is, had no impact on protecting the home from the forest fire.
The structure pictured and being discussed survived because of good property maintenance, which is something the building codes for the most part do not and should not regulate. If you build in a fire prone or susceptible area, then it is necessary to keep trees and shrubbery away from the home. Keep gutters and roof clear, pine needles cleaned up, etc. Use of buffer zones is hugely important. Even a typical underground irrigation sprinkler system and landscaping can be a fundamental part of a buffer zone.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
A wildfire is clearly outside of the scope of what a residential fire sprinkler system can handle from a fuel load/heat creation perspective.
Non-combustible materials? That will certainly help.
Non-combustible materials? That will certainly help.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Obviously you did not read the post relating to Chapter 7A
Obviously you do not know what an example is.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Sure is a lot of green trees and bushes around those homes.
If 7A was part of your codes at the time this subdivision went in how come the other homes where destroyed.
If 7A was part of your codes at the time this subdivision went in how come the other homes where destroyed.
Anyone.. anyone?
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
I find it interesting where the word "reasonable" was added to the intent of the code. At some point a code provision could be determined by the courts as unreasonable based on any number of findings changing or empirical data.
Example: Energy code requirements that do not contribute to the overall performance of the house. Example all the mandatory air sealing requirements that are not enforced or installed in this state yet the homes are achieving a blower door test of 2.8 to 3.4 ACH and the state maximum is 4 ACH. If you meet the blower door test then the rest of the mandatory requirements could be found to be an unreasonable cost and requirement to the builder and homeowner.
2012 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
2018 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire, explosion and other hazards, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
Our government was founded and operated for over 100 years by decisions based on "reason". Today we hear "compromise" is what is needed to get things done in government at all levels. However it seems to be emotions and pre-conceived beliefs are what guides most people today. I believe the code development process is falling into that same mindset. Numbers used to justify a code proposal can be large, emotional and horrifying when taken as presented but turn them into percentages and they can quickly become a minuscule amount. We all hear about "follow the money" when you want to know the truth or motive behind something political or criminal. The same can be applied to code development. Is the proposal to get a specific product into the code such as locking caps on refrigeration systems or the intent of the code proposal for "safety to life" such as CO detection in residential homes.
reason
[ree-zuhn]
noun
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:the reason for declaring war.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action:I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!
verb (used without object)
to think or argue in a logical manner.
to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
verb (used with object)
to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).
to conclude or infer.
1. intelligent, judicious, wise, equitable. Reasonable, rational refer to the faculty of reasoning. Rational can refer to thereasoning faculty itself or to something derived from that faculty: rational powers; a rational analysis. It can also mean sane or sensible: She was no longer rational; a rational plan. Reasonable most often means sensible: A reasonable supposition is one which appeals to our common sense.
emotion
[ih-moh-shuh n]
noun
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from
cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
compromise
noun
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposingclaims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
Example: Energy code requirements that do not contribute to the overall performance of the house. Example all the mandatory air sealing requirements that are not enforced or installed in this state yet the homes are achieving a blower door test of 2.8 to 3.4 ACH and the state maximum is 4 ACH. If you meet the blower door test then the rest of the mandatory requirements could be found to be an unreasonable cost and requirement to the builder and homeowner.
2012 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
2018 IBC
[A] 101.3 Intent.
The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire, explosion and other hazards, and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
Our government was founded and operated for over 100 years by decisions based on "reason". Today we hear "compromise" is what is needed to get things done in government at all levels. However it seems to be emotions and pre-conceived beliefs are what guides most people today. I believe the code development process is falling into that same mindset. Numbers used to justify a code proposal can be large, emotional and horrifying when taken as presented but turn them into percentages and they can quickly become a minuscule amount. We all hear about "follow the money" when you want to know the truth or motive behind something political or criminal. The same can be applied to code development. Is the proposal to get a specific product into the code such as locking caps on refrigeration systems or the intent of the code proposal for "safety to life" such as CO detection in residential homes.
reason
[ree-zuhn]
noun
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.:the reason for declaring war.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action:I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!
verb (used without object)
to think or argue in a logical manner.
to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
verb (used with object)
to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out ).
to conclude or infer.
1. intelligent, judicious, wise, equitable. Reasonable, rational refer to the faculty of reasoning. Rational can refer to thereasoning faculty itself or to something derived from that faculty: rational powers; a rational analysis. It can also mean sane or sensible: She was no longer rational; a rational plan. Reasonable most often means sensible: A reasonable supposition is one which appeals to our common sense.
emotion
[ih-moh-shuh n]
noun
an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from
cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
compromise
noun
a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposingclaims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
These do not have clearances
Is this supposed to be where I live, because I'm not Ty J. Lathrop of Bothell
I read it, but we do not have your Chapter 7A requirements.
And I know an example, but you did not provide as an example. You indicated that you knew what happened.
Last edited:
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Having done many blower door tests, I would agree that it does not take much to get to around a 3 ACH.
A single death is a tragedy. Those events can easily be used to polarize people into action. We don't think about the overall costs of a provision, just that one life it could have saved. Once people get in that mindset, they just think about the fact that something that only costs a dollar could have saved that person's life. Often forgotten is the fact that that one dollar piece of hardware might need to be installed on millions of homes in order to save that life. Here, our codes council requires a cost per life saved analysis. This helps to ground us in "reason".
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Does CA use the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code or do they have their own code??
JCraver
REGISTERED
The less than 1% that sprinklers save vs. smoke detectors won't even hold up statistically - it's within the margin of error that that part of 1% even exists.
The energy code(s) have not saved a single life since they've been in existence. Not a single one. Prove your work, or that's just a made up talking point. I'll give you that some people die every year when it is very hot or very cold - but any energy code anyone has ever adopted wouldn't have saved even one of those lives.
An 8 foot bathroom could easily add 10K to a bid over that 5 footer when you add architect fees, plan review fees, more architect fees, the cost of re-arranging the other areas in the space, etc. etc. It's not as cut-and-dried as contractors being dirtbags.
fatboy
Administrator
Look what you started...... 
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
I do not think it is the codes that drive up the costs of the home; it is keeping up with the Jones and what the market will bear.
The is no need for a 3000 sf cut up home with marble tops and top of the line fixtures and finishes. Build a rectangular building with durable materials 8-foot ceilings. I my opinion most cost-effective 2 story 26x32 cape style home for the northeast and cold climates, 26x48 foot ranch for sab on grade where frost deep is not deep and a raised ranch for the middle latitudes.
The is no need for a 3000 sf cut up home with marble tops and top of the line fixtures and finishes. Build a rectangular building with durable materials 8-foot ceilings. I my opinion most cost-effective 2 story 26x32 cape style home for the northeast and cold climates, 26x48 foot ranch for sab on grade where frost deep is not deep and a raised ranch for the middle latitudes.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
tmurray
SAWHORSE
The issue with energy efficiency being a "life safety" code is that it is not the clear cause and effect relationship that we are used of. When someone is required to install a smoke alarm, it could save their life. When people are required to build more energy efficient buildings, coupled with more fuel efficient cars, reduction in industry emissions, we start to see less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This in turn prevents deaths from related illnesses; lung cancer, heart attacks or respiratory diseases. Fundamentally, this is no different than radon gas, VOCs, or other long term health hazards.
Just playing the devils advocate here. Dow Chemicals: Lets increase the R-values of residential construction so much that they have no choice but to use our spray foam and rigid foam plastics (plastic=petroleum=$$$) So that we can keep churning out more more more plastic and continue destroying the planet in the name of energy efficiency. Makes sense to me.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
yes, with CA amendments
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Cannot prove that, nor can they prove Seat belts save lives. Some that use them live, some die; some that don't use them live, some die. But fatalities appear less....
Cannot prove that drinking and driving will end in an accident. Some do, some don't. But fatalities appear less....
It's all a best guess.
I have never heard of a death in a sprinklered SFD house.
Last edited:
tmurray
SAWHORSE
Absolutely. But on the other side, the utility companies are making more money. Either way you make that argument someone is making money. The only difference is in adding more insulation Dow makes less than the utility companies would over time, meaning the building owner has saved money.