1. 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 clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Mexico City Quake

Discussion in 'Commercial Seismic' started by conarb, Sep 25, 2017.

  1. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    I'm sure all here have read about the recent Mexico City quake, I just read the article below on Zero Hedge (a hedge traders' site) and read some interesting comments below the article, including this one:

    He's probably right, 80% of the codes is now political garbage like disability, Green, and energy saving, looks like the public is starting to wake up, codes are necessary, honest enforcement is necessary, but too much garbage in the codes is counter-productive.


    ¹ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-25/doesnt-mexico-have-building-codes
     
  2. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    146
    My sense is that building codes per se are not the major contributor to cost of housing. For existing buildings the cost of housing is based on demand and what the market will pay. My house will now sell for more than 10 times the amount that I put into it in the past.

    For new construction will suggest that the cost of planning approvals is a major contributor. We now pay tradesmen healthy wages at least in California. In many cases the Owner wants a more interesting building which means more engineering and more detailed work.

    I am trying to replace some window sashes and it is 2 weeks so far. I have got building code signoff when they realized that my application was correct. They initially wanted me to submit a property plan and provide low U glazing but a reading of the code makes it clear that this is not required for sash replacement. If I had rolled over it would have cost an additional $2,500. The initial plan check comments were obviously generated without thought in order for the checker to say that the review had been completed within the time expected.

    I am trying to resolve zoning comments but I cannot reach the commenter to resolve the comments. Zoning asked for dimensioned property lines and distances from building. No code section was provided. I am not changing occupancy or changing the exterior look of the building. I consider the comments to be chicken sh-- comments generated so the checker could claim to have processed the application with in the targeted time. The net result is that they will spend more time and the supervisor will be involved.
     
  3. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    Mark:

    I had a similar problem, I was going to add a double garage in my back yard, a few years ago that would have been a $30,000 project, in going over it with the City I found that I no longer had an R occupancy with a U in the back yard but the current zoning would allow me to connect them, so I decided to extend and remodel two baths and include an art gallery between them, the structural engineering was over the top considering the existing house has no engineering but that didn't stop me, what stopped me was the requirement that I have civil engineering with an extensive drainage plan including large hard surface fees for driveway etc.

    I decided it now looked like $200,000 and my son didn't want it preferring to keep the back yard for vegetable gardens, he was also concerned about property tax increases since my intention is to leave it to him with a Prop 58 transfer retaining the Prop 13 tax base. As it is I paid an architect, a structural engineer, and a civil engineer and did nothing, the drainage plan was the killer, I would have paid the structural upgrades joking with the wife: "If an earthquake hits we'll go out and stand in the garage."
     
  4. Pcinspector1

    Pcinspector1 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    3,176
    Likes Received:
    447
    Like controlling how much water exits a faucet or how much water goes down the loo?
     
  5. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    I think the point is that the general public is all for building codes and strict enforcement, but against all the extraneous stuff that's been crammed in, like this statement: "If everything was cut out from the building code which did not significantly affect safety (about 80% of it, these days), then safe houses could be built economically".

    Seems to me you guys should take this seriously.
     
  6. tmurray

    tmurray Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    475
    If the public is against extraneous stuff, why do they keep electing people that make the codes into laws?

    Trust me we do take codes seriously. That's the job. It also appears to be why you are here complaining;)
     
  7. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    I wasn't complaining when we were on the UBC, it's when codes went political with the I Codes, the codes have no business in social engineering, they have no business in civil rights, as the commenter said, 80% of the codes are good, it's all the bullshit that's been incorporated into the codes for political purposes, we have a Green Party in this country, worldwide the Greens are major political parties, and we have incorporated their agenda into the codes with the Green and Energy Codes. Forcibly regulating the amounts of energy a man uses is collectivism and tyranny.
     
  8. tmurray

    tmurray Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    475
    But you didn't address my first statement. You say there are all these new Green political parties. So as these parties gain strength, could it not be that the public wants the construction codes to address items like energy efficiency? How is the government to regulate something, but not "forcibly" as you stated. What of the builder who shows complete disregard for the code and builds structures that are inherently unsafe? Are we to stand by and waive our fingers at them so as to not be tyrannical? And how is regulating how many toxins are released into the atmosphere through your building's energy use not a life safety issue? That's kind of like saying you should be allowed to drink and drive cause it's only you who will be injured. Except it's never only you.

    I refuse to believe as you do that there is a massive scientific conspiracy simply because some scientists (3%) don't agree with the findings. I can pay 3% of anybody to agree with anything. I can probably find more than 3%. I probably would not need to pay them much either. I also refuse to believe that people are skeptical of climate science because there is not complete consensus among scientists. I think it is far more likely that people have a desired outcome and look for evidence to support that outcome and only that outcome. After all, it's hard to admit that we need to change and harder still to actually change. People who believe the earth is flat, vaccinations do more harm than good, and people who do not believe in climate change all have decided that the limited and flimsy science that supports their positions rates higher than the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. This is simply not a reasonable conclusion. And above all else, I think most people are reasonable.

    But then again, that's just my opinion...
     
  9. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    The real thing that's going on is worldwide redistribution of wealth through the United Nations, the I Codes are part of that, The real issue to discuss here is the statement from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, that it's all about redistribution of wealth to developing countries,
    .
    Scientists are for the most part in our universities, and have received at last count $56 billion to advance this fraud, as a former philosophy student I can tell you post modernism has taken over, there is no right or wrong, there is not true or false, everything is relative and "The Greater Good" replaces true, or right. Of all the academics fighting post modernism your Canadian Jordan Peterson does one of the best jobs, Jordan Peterson

    Our universities will do anything for money and power, just today FBI indictments came down on basketball endorsements and they are less than football. ²


    ¹ http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

    ² http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-26/fbi-arrests-several-ncaa-coaches-amid-broad-crackdown-college-basketball-corruption
     
  10. Mark K

    Mark K Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,557
    Likes Received:
    146
    There are the codes and there is how they are enforced. My fundamental problem is with the way in which the codes are enforced not whether they should be enforced. A separate issue is what should be in the codes.

    I got the building department to signoff on my original application. I am now trying to get zoning to sign off. They asked for a plot plan because building did, and which I did not provide and which I do not intend to provide since it is not necessary in order to approve the permit.

    Remember that building officials control the process that produces the model building code.
     
  11. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    That's like appointing the cops to write the Criminal Code.
     
  12. Keystone

    Keystone Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    110
    Agree with above comments, land development costs are out of control. The changes I see for my area, small builders being knocked out of the business due to underground drainage/seepage pit requirements. 10 to 45K in stone underground is nonsense and can't be recouped by homeowners, banks have difficulty with this costs as part of the home as well.
     
  13. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,519
    Likes Received:
    837
    We are still building homes and businesses in flood plains, wildfire interface zones, other high hazard areas, Poor Soil and Hillsides, The owners of the properties and the developers should pay, not everyone, when a disaster hits, and it raises our national debt.
    Why should I pay, through my taxes, to rebuild a house that was knowingly built in a high hazard area?

    Developers walk away with their millions and say, "not my problem, the city let me build there."
    All Legal......

    One way to battle future flooding: stop building on flood plains
    One way to battle future firestorms: stop building in wildfire interface zones
    One way to battle future landslides: stop building on hillsides
    One way to battle future building cracking: stop building on poor soils
     
    #13 mark handler, Sep 27, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
    tmurray likes this.
  14. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    Well then reduce the population so we don't have these problems.
     
  15. tmurray

    tmurray Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    475
    But that's just the thing isn't it? as we keep building more and more houses we run out of the cheap land. So we start building on land that costs more money. Then we run out of that land, so now you need to build on land that costs even more than that. Then no one can afford a new single family home due to the site requirements, so we need to start building higher density housing. This is just basic economics.
     
  16. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,519
    Likes Received:
    837
    yes you nailed it, And some will equate that with "Social engineering" and redistribution of wealth and not basic economics.
     
  17. conarb

    conarb Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    252
    So we let the population continue to expand and stack and pack people like sardines in our urban cores? This all started with Erlich's "Population Bomb" of 1968, followed by the Club of Rome with it's "Limits to Growth" in 1972:
    This means the American Dream is over, better to deport the oversupply to the frozen wastelands of Canuckistan.


    ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
     
  18. tmurray

    tmurray Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    475
    No land left anywhere? Or just not close to major urban centers? Surprise! highly sought after land in popular urban centers is expensive!

    ...Isn't this the basis of capitalism? Market demand and all that?
     
  19. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,961
    Likes Received:
    1,012
    Not true....ICC and NFPA control the process...."Governmental members" get the final vote on changes (at least at ICC), but most of what we would want or want to get rid of will never make it to a final vote....
     
  20. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,519
    Likes Received:
    837
    Most building officials are...."Governmental members"
     

Share This Page