Negative. It gives you the option to consider it several buildings. It also gives you the option of considering it a single building. You don't get to pick and choose.brudgers said:It considers it several buildings as well.
Whoa.... just because the chapter regulates additions, doesn't mean that everything is an addition.... It also regulates existing buildings. That doesn't mean everything is an existing building.alora said:501.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter control the height and area of structures hereafter erected and additions to existing structures.
Understood.texasbo said:Whoa.... just because the chapter regulates additions, doesn't mean that everything is an addition.... It also regulates existing buildings. That doesn't mean everything is an existing building.
Correct. One makes it apply as they need to based on the scope defined in 501.1 -- whether for additions or new construction.Again, 503 says nothing about new, existing, additions, or alterations.
It actually says:It simply says the requirements for the aggregate apply to the parts.
"This code" meaning the entire codebook, including Chapter 34....The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.
Fair enough.alora said:The provisions of "THIS CODE" applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building."This code" meaning the entire codebook, including Chapter 34.
Depends.texasbo said:Fair enough. So you're saying then, that each part of this aggregate building only has to comply with the code provisions for that portion of the building?
And you're also saying that Ch 34 is applicable to the aggregate building?
And lastly, am I understanding you correctly that your opinion is that if each of these 3 buildings complies with "this code" on its own, then they get the benefits of 503.2.1, and separation, wall ratings, opening protection, etc are not required?
OK, so let me get this straight: 503.1.2 says that two or more buildings on the same lot may be regulated as separate buildings or may be considered as portions of a single building...alora said:It seems that the above excerpted section considers an existing building an "addition" to an existing building."An existing building" is singular, meaning literally one building.
"plus additions" is plural and defined in the first sentence of 3403.1 and would, therefore, include all remaining existing building and new buildings.
And, those "additions or alterations" would have to meet the requirements for new construction.
OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together.alora said:If the aggregate building is being modified to include a new building addition, then the new building has to meet the provisions required for new construction.
Thanks alora and tex for putting your thought processes out there. I find them very helpful in understanding the code. I believe there is also an exception for change of occupancy, if the occupancy is less hazardous, but again, this is new to me, and I am not sure if it is "applicable."alora said:Depends.I think the key word for what you're asking is "applicable".
I also think the order of the applicability is key: what applies to aggregate building >>> applies to each building; not vice versa.
If the aggregate building is being modified to include a new building addition, then the new building has to meet the provisions required for new construction.
Likewise, if the existing aggregate building is being added to, then the provisions of 3403.1 will affect each building.
Did I understand the question correctly?
Section 202: Definitions: Addition. An extension or increase in the floor area or height of a building or structure.texasbo said:OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together. Where in the world are we getting "addition" from?
503 addresses multiple buildings on a lot.
What we have here are multiple buildings on a lot.
This isn't an "addition" this is a third building. 503 says we can consider them separately, or consider them together. Why are we polluting the discussion with "additions, alterations, Ch 34," etc? The example we've been discussing is EXACTLY what the code intends to address, and it does so very simply.
Edit: if the code language specifically said to treat new buildings as additions, I'd be fine with that. My point is that the code doesn't say to do it that way.
Some definitions:texasbo said:OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together. Where in the world are we getting "addition" from?
503 addresses multiple buildings on a lot.
What we have here are multiple buildings on a lot.
This isn't an "addition" this is a third building. 503 says we can consider them separately, or consider them together. Why are we polluting the discussion with "additions, alterations, Ch 34," etc? The example we've been discussing is EXACTLY what the code intends to address, and it does so very simply.
Edit: if the code language specifically said to treat new buildings as additions, I'd be fine with that. My point is that the code doesn't say to do it that way.
Using scope description of 501.1, a new building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing aggregate building.ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure.ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition.
BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.
So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"? And nowhere in the code is the term "existing aggregate building". It's kinda like being pregnant; it's either an aggregate building or it's not. More specifically, it's either one aggregate building, or three separate buildings. There is no "existing", or "new," or "addition", or "alteration".alora said:Some definitions:Using scope description of 501.1, a new building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing aggregate building.
In other words, an "addition".
I would say yes, if you want to use the provision of 503.1.2 in that way; it's your choice.texasbo said:So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"?
Construction a new detached building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing building, IF you're using 503.1.2 in that manner.If this was an expansion of a building, it would be an addition.But it's not; it's a new building. We get to decide whether we consider it 3 separate buildings, or one big building.
In other words, we get the choice of pretending it's a single building.
But pretending it's one big building is where the code stops. It doesn't give us the authority (or the permission) to pretend anything else.
Well congratulations; you just won. Because if you believe that every building built is an addition to another building, then I have no argument. Can I believe that every building built has a refrigerator full of Guiness waiting for me?alora said:I would say yes, if you want to use the provision of 503.1.2 in that way; it's your choice.Construction a new detached building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing building, IF you're using 503.1.2 in that manner.
That's what I was saying earlier; don't all provisions that would apply if it was a single building apply to the individual buildings, if they are considered as an aggregate building?alora said:So then, a serious question, at what point do the provisions of "this code" stop with regard to an "aggregate building"?Which chapters/sections specifically apply to - or don't apply to -- 'aggregate buildings'?
texasbo said:Can I believe that every building built has a refrigerator full of Guiness waiting for me?
I am sticking by it being an extension of the floor area, and thereby an addition to that building, (insert pregnant pause here) IF on chooses to view it as a single building. This type of design gives an option to consider multiple buildings as one building. In doing so, the existing building(s) would be one part of the aggregate and the new building(s) would be the other, in this case the addition). Brudgers I believe sees it differently, in that only one of the existing buildings would be permitted to be considered existing, and all others are new additions. Not sure I am in complete agreement, but I do understand the logic here (and it is not farmers, of which I am familiar, being one myself). (sigh) Furthermore, if it exceeds the allowable area with frontage increases and sprinklers are required to comply with allowable area, the existing portion would then (Chapter 34) need to be designed in accordance with "this code," which includes Chapter 34. As much as we would like to dismiss 34, it is required by this code for all work applicable to existing buildings. In this case, it was noted that multiple buildings are existing, and area would added to these as one building, even though they are so many feet apart. (breath)texasbo said:So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"? And nowhere in the code is the term "existing aggregate building". It's kinda like being pregnant; it's either an aggregate building or it's not. More specifically, it's either one aggregate building, or three separate buildings. There is no "existing", or "new," or "addition", or "alteration".This is in response to Papio too:
If this was an expansion of a building, it would be an addition.
But it's not; it's a new building; a third building. And the code gives us the choice to decide whether we consider it 3 separate buildings, or one big building.
In other words, we get the choice of pretending it's a single building.
But pretending it's one big building is where the code stops. It doesn't give us the authority (or the permission) to pretend anything else.
or, (not sure we want to go here yet, but what the heck) what if you decided to sprinkle instead of a fire rated separation for occupancy? Sprinkle all buildings? Sprinkle the exterior areas between the buildings? Or like you said, would you allow fire separation distances to serve as occupancy separations? interesting direction for the discussion, but I think we should solve addition question first.texasbo said:^ Great..Here's something else to consider:
Let's say we have our three buildings and we're considering them an aggregate building. Let's say they are separated 5' from each other, but that's ok, because it is considered one building, so no rated exterior wall or separation required.
Now, let's say that one of the buildings has an occupancy that requires an occupancy separation from the occupancy in another building. What do you do? Occupancy separation? One building or both? Is 5' equal to an occupancy separation?
Straying a little OT only because OP said they liked to see the discussion.
If in fact you consider two of the three buildings to be additions, then you are bound to look at how they affect the third building that you randomly choose to be the "existing" one.Papio Bldg Dept said:As much as we would like to dismiss 34, it is required by this code for all work applicable to existing buildings. In this case, it was noted that multiple buildings are existing, and area would added to these as one building, even though they are so many feet apart. (breath)Okay, so does that help shed some light on the addition argument?
If sprinklers are the direction you choose, then I firmly believe that 503.1.2 requires all buildings. The provisions of this code that apply to the aggreg... well, you know the rest.Papio Bldg Dept said:Sprinkle all buildings?
I would say if I am considering this an addition to an existing structure, then the provisions of "this code" stop when Chapter 34 tells me so, and I believe that is the intent of the IBC Chapter 34\portion of "this code." Otherwise it would only be in "that code," affectionately known as IEBC. There is a choice to be made by the designer in Chapter 5. Once the designer makes that choice, you live with the choice. In this case, the choice is to take an existing building(s) and add area to it, by adding another building(s), and considering 1 building in order to avoid fire-rating exterior assemblies. I don't believe you can ignore the fact that a portion of this example is existing, the new part is an extension of the building area as defined by this codes definition for "addition," and thus should be treated as such in Chapter 34.alora said:So then, a serious question, at what point do the provisions of "this code" stop with regard to an "aggregate building"?Which chapters/sections specifically apply to - or don't apply to -- 'aggregate buildings'?