• 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.

Making the Case for Metric: Why the U.S. Building Industry Needs to Switch

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,720
Location
Not where I really want to be

Introduction​

The United States stands as one of the last bastions of the imperial measurement system, a vestige of British colonial history that persists in our daily lives and, critically, in our industries. While many sectors, particularly in manufacturing, have already recognized the merits of the metric system and made the switch, the building industry largely continues to measure in feet and inches. This article aims to build a compelling case for why the United States, and especially its building sector, should transition to the metric system once and for all.

The Logical Appeal of Metric​

The metric system, designed on a base-10 structure, is universally easier to understand and apply. Conversions are straightforward, involving nothing more complex than shifting a decimal point. In construction, where precision is paramount, the straightforward nature of metric calculations can substantially reduce the margin for error. While the imperial system involves complex fractions and inconsistent unit conversions (12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1,760 yards in a mile), metric is seamless and intuitive.

Global Competitiveness​

In a world where the metric system is the lingua franca of measurement, adherence to an archaic system hampers the U.S. building industry's competitiveness on the global stage. Many American companies involved in international projects have to convert their plans and components to metric, adding unnecessary complexity and room for error. It’s not just a matter of “translating” units; it’s about rethinking the entire design and construction process to align with global standards.

Learning Curve and Resistance​

The most common argument against switching is the learning curve. Many fear that generations of architects, builders, and inspectors trained in the imperial system will struggle to adapt. However, this argument overlooks the reality that numerous professions have successfully transitioned. A significant portion of U.S. manufacturing, for example, now operates exclusively in metric, despite the broader nation’s reluctance to switch. These sectors have demonstrated that the initial inconvenience of learning a new system is short-lived and outweighed by long-term benefits.

Financial and Logistical Implications​

One of the lesser-discussed advantages of a universal metric system in the building industry is the potential cost-saving and logistical streamlining. Existing manufacturing companies that have switched to metric no longer need to maintain dual inventories or deal with conversion errors, leading to increased efficiency and reduced operational costs. The building industry, if it were to switch, could expect similar financial benefits in the long run.

Addressing Cultural Resistance​

The resistance to the metric system isn't just practical; it's cultural. Many Americans view the imperial system as a part of their national identity. But it's worth asking: Should nostalgia dictate the way we build the future? Metrication is not a surrender of cultural identity but an embrace of global collaboration and technological advancement.

Conclusion​

The metric system offers a logical, efficient, and globally recognized method of measurement that is already widely used in many U.S. industries, including manufacturing. The building sector, by clinging to the imperial system, not only perpetuates inefficiencies but also limits its competitiveness and adaptability in a world that has largely moved on. It's time for the U.S. building industry to make the metric switch, embracing the short learning curve as a necessary step towards long-term gains in efficiency, safety, and global relevance.

The argument for metrication in the U.S. building industry is not just about aligning with global standards but about optimizing for efficiency, precision, and innovation. A shift to the metric system is not just inevitable; it is imperative.
 
Canadians generally work in both. I don't find it confusing at all.

One aspect for consideration, any international materials available in imperial sizes are simply to satisfy the US's market. If the US position as hegemony were ever to falter, the availability of these materials would disappear overnight.

The question then is not if the US should convert to metric, but when. Now when you can own the transition, or later when it becomes forced on you.
 
Rick18071 said:
I remember in the 70's when they tried to swich us to metric.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Carter was doing the right thing, but, of course, thick-headed old farts who don't like change acted like it was a crazy thing to do. Now the US is one of two countries that are NOT in the metric system. The US and Myanmar, Liberia. The rest of the world gets it.
 
jar546 said:
of course, thick-headed old farts who don't like change acted like it was a crazy thing to do
Click to expand...
I wasn't an old fart in the 70's, however, I was thick headed and thought it was crazy to convert to the metric system. Come to think of it today, I still think it is a crazy idea to convert to metric.

The U.S. government passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, which made the metric system "the preferred system of weights and measures for U.S. trade and commerce". The legislation states that the federal government has a responsibility to assist industry as it voluntarily converts to the metric system, i.e., metrification.
 
One of the best arguments for using the International System (SI) is the alternative: the chaotic collection of confusing, illogical non-SI units we use in the United States, known as customary units (not imperial units). This measurement mess means that we Americans are ignorant of much of the quantitative information we encounter. We can’t use it, relate it to other information, or calculate with it. It’s just a bunch of arbitrary numbers.
 

It's in the code already​

R311.7.1 Width.​

Stairways shall be not less than 914 mm in clear width at all points above the permitted handrail height and below the required headroom height. The clear width of the stairway at and below the handrail height, including treads and landings, shall be not less than 787 mm where a handrail is installed on one side and 698 mm where handrails are provided on both sides.
Exception: The width of spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.

R311.7.2 Headroom.​

The headroom in stairways shall be not less than 2032 mm measured vertically from the sloped line adjoining the tread nosing or from the floor surface of the landing or platform on that portion of the stairway.
Exceptions:
  1. 1.Where the nosings of treads at the side of a flight extend under the edge of a floor opening through which the stair passes, the floor opening shall be allowed to project horizontally into the required headroom not more than 121 mm.
  2. 2.The headroom for spiral stairways shall be in accordance with Section R311.7.10.1.

R311.7.3 Vertical rise.​

A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise greater than 3835 mm between floor levels or landings.

R311.7.4 Walkline.​

The walkline across winder treads shall be concentric to the curved direction of travel through the turn and located 305 mm from the side where the winders are narrower. The 305 mm dimension shall be measured from the widest point of the clear stair width at the walking surface of the winder. If winders are adjacent within the flight, the point of the widest clear stair width of the adjacent winders shall be used.
 
This is part of the summary from a 1968 US Department of Commerce Study:

The cost and inconvenience of a change to metric will be substantial, even if it is done carefully by plan. But the analysis of benefits and costs made in this chapter confirms the intuitive judgment of US business and industry that increasing the use of the metric system is in the best interests of the country and that this should be done through a coordinated national program. There will be less cost and more reward than if the change is unplanned and occurs over a much longer period of time.
 
Even the NFPA is in on it:

110.26
(2) Width of Working Space.
The width of the working space in front of the electrical equipment shall be the width of the equipment or 762 mm, whichever is greater. In all cases, the work space shall permit at least a 90 degree opening of equipment doors or hinged panels.
 
jar546 said:
This is part of the summary from a 1968 US Department of Commerce Study:

The cost and inconvenience of a change to metric will be substantial, even if it is done carefully by plan. But the analysis of benefits and costs made in this chapter confirms the intuitive judgment of US business and industry that increasing the use of the metric system is in the best interests of the country and that this should be done through a coordinated national program. There will be less cost and more reward than if the change is unplanned and occurs over a much longer period of time.
Click to expand...
Iirc, when us previously considered this and gave up - I think home builders were among the strongest opponents of the change - Canada didn't give up, and the cost was much less than anticipated. When does that ever happen with a government program?
 
On paper the metric system sounds good. It is, after all, intuitive ... anybody can figure it out ... and that's the biggest selling point ... trouble is, that's the only selling point. Why are we supposed to abandon a system that has been in place forever? It's said that we should be like the rest of civilization. We have ten fingers for a reason. Well we are the premier nation on Earth. We call the tune. It will never happen.
 
ICE said:
On paper the metric system sounds good. It is, after all, intuitive ... anybody can figure it out ... and that's the biggest selling point ... trouble is, that's the only selling point. Why are we supposed to abandon a system that has been in place forever? It's said that we should be like the rest of civilization. We have ten fingers for a reason. Well we are the premier nation on Earth. We call the tune. It will never happen.
Click to expand...
LOL. The old "this is the way we've always done it" defense. Now, where have I heard that before...
 
Try working on a John Deere tractor built after 1990 or just about any car out there without metric tools. The transition has been going on for decades. Except the building industry of course.
 
My first motorcycle came with metric wrenches. It was a BSA. There was a half hour of tightening nuts and bolts for every hundred miles ridden.

We are Americans first and World travelers second. Every man worth his salt has good tools. The metrics get tossed in there and make a mess of it.
 
Last edited:
I preferred the old centimeter/kilogram metric system to the SI. It didn't require scientific notation for many units, especially pressure. Measuring distances to the millimeter is ridiculous in an industry where many workers can't measure closer than an inch (25.4 mm).
 
United States conversion could cost about $334 million. (Jul 7, 1995)
However, this estimate could vary depending on the length of implementation and the replacement method chosen. using metric speed limits, distances, or other measurements.
US Government Accountability Office
 
Last edited:
mark handler said:
United States conversion could cost about $334 million. (Jul 7, 1995)
However, this estimate could vary depending on the length of implementation and the replacement method chosen. using metric speed limits, distances, or other measurements.
US Government Accountability Office
Click to expand...
You can triple the cost in 2023. Then half way into it we would abandon ship. It’s a good idea that won’t grow legs unless our current system quits working.
 
ICE said:
You can triple the cost in 2023. Then half way into it we would abandon ship. It’s a good idea that won’t grow legs unless our current system quits working.
Click to expand...
Hopefully we will convert to metric just like almost every single manufacturing industry in the US. This is long overdue in the construction industry. Many articles that I read tout the long term benefits and money savings that will be realized.
 
jar546 said:
Hopefully we will convert to metric just like almost every single manufacturing industry in the US. This is long overdue in the construction industry. Many articles that I read tout the long term benefits and money savings that will be realized.
Click to expand...
While I have worked in the industrial environment the majority of my career most of working with a international company and thus much of the equipment was metric I still really don't see any advantage to that system. Yes, conversions etc. are much simpler but in reality how often do you need to do that? Also, especially in the construction industry the transition would be extremely difficult and a pain in the proverbial you know what. Everything we have built is 2x materials and 4'x8' sheets in most cases, doing repairs or remodeling with metric materials in that environment would be painful to say the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
The savings from measuring errors as a result I using the imperial system will pay for the conversion before many years.

"We lost the Mars Climate Orbiter because Lockheed Martin provided software that measured thruster impulse in pound-seconds, while NASA’s software expected newton-seconds. Lockheed Martin had failed to observe one of the terms of its contract with NASA. It boggles my mind that an aerospace company would continue to use US customary units instead of SI units."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top