New Cities - New Codes

[tmurray]

Cost is a tricky one, I value high quality construction, but code approvals of cheap crap like OSB and plastic pipe should not be the way to lower costs, also Green and Energy codes have been a disaster in many cases creating the "sick home syndrome", in other cases causing buildings to rot out in a few years. When Vancouver had it's "leaky condo" crisis we were experiencing something similar here so I flew up to see what was going on, after reviewing the problems it became apparent that the code requirement to seal up buildings was the problem, after all the buildings didn't leak until they started sealing them up, at first they were requiring that 2" holes be drilled in the plywood sheathing to let air in but with all the insulation in the walls they started requiring rain screen construction, construction practices didn't all of a sudden become terrible over night, the problem coincided with code compliance.

Actually, the condos always leaked. the only thing that changed was that people wanted more energy efficient buildings (the code didn't deal with energy efficiency in 1970). So, designers increased the thermal resistance of the walls and air tightness of the building enclosure. The problem was that by reducing the thermal transmittance and airflow, they reduced the drying capacity of the enclosure without preventing bulk water from entering the building envelope. The architects made changes to their building enclosures without understanding how they worked, a dangerous thing for anyone to do. Now, we have rainscreens required in areas that meet certain precipitation rates (I'm in one), because the architects did something stupid, the insurance industry got involved and asked; "why are they allowed to do this stupid thing, it's costing us a lot of money", so it ends up in the code. Things don't end up in the code "just because" (at least in ours). Generally, someone has to die, severely injured or, as in this case, a systematic industry failure.

"sick building syndrome" is the same thing. If you make your building more airtight, you need to provide mechanical ventilation. I love hearing the argument from everyone that doesn't understand how ventilation works; " you're making the building more airtight just to ventilated it with fans?". Yes, because I can turn a fan off and on. I can run a fan at different speeds if I need more or less ventilation. It's the same thing as having a window that you can close or open or simply a hole in your wall.

It's not the ventilation that's the problem, It's the lack of control.

 

[steveray]

Good posts tmurray!....

 

[conarb]

Actually, the condos always leaked. the only thing that changed was that people wanted more energy efficient buildings (the code didn't deal with energy efficiency in 1970). So, designers increased the thermal resistance of the walls and air tightness of the building enclosure. The problem was that by reducing the thermal transmittance and airflow, they reduced the drying capacity of the enclosure without preventing bulk water from entering the building envelope. The architects made changes to their building enclosures without understanding how they worked, a dangerous thing for anyone to do.

Absolutely correct, after seeing the problems here I read about the Vancouver problems, I called one of my suppliers in Vancouver (Canadians make vastly superior building products than anything made in the United States) and discussed the problems with them, I arranged a meeting and flew up to be shown around about 1999, contractors were being blamed and sued, in Canada they were blaming and suing both architects and builders, in reality it was government energy saving policy and the codes. Anyone who has ever remodeled an old building can easily see the problem when he opens up the walls, water runs in and water runs out, add insulation and you have the interior of walls that acts like a huge sponge trapping the water to slowly dry out, add plywood sheathing and you seal the water in the sponge. A good example was a woman living in a 1905 Victorian called me saying she needed new windows because they were leaking, those were very fancy windows that would cost several thousand each to replace, as we looked at the water stains on the plaster I asked how long she had lived there thinking she might have just bought the house and the prior owner covered up the evidence, she said 25 years and this was the first year they leaked, she then said she didn't know why because she had the house painted and the painter did a good job caulking around the windows. At this point I said you don't need windows, get that painter back and make him strip all that caulking out, call me when he gets here and I'll make sure he does it right. After the caulking was removed the windows never leaked again, the water went back to running in and running out just like it had done for a century.

That's why I say that political codes like Energy and Green do far more harm than any energy that they might save and it's questionable that in a moderate climate like mine that they do any good at all. In all of my homes I try to put an electrically operated skylight over a bathtub in some bathroom, I tell my customers to leave it open 24/7, if it rains the rain sensor will close it, for peace of mind should that fail water falling into the bathtub can't hurt anything, why should I seal up a house or be forced to pay for a fan running, or listen to the noise of the fan when I' going to have a 12 square foot opening in the ceiling 24/7?

As far as Canada is concerned our idiot President has royally fu¢ked the Canadian economy by killing their oil sands, just like he has fu¢ked the Russian economy by stopping the export of gas and oil to Europe, like he has fu¢ked the Venezuelan economy, Venezuela sits on the world's largest oil reserves and the people are shooting and eating cats and dogs on the streets for food.

 

[tmurray]

in reality it was government energy saving policy and the codes.

As far as Canada is concerned our idiot President has royally fu¢ked the Canadian economy by killing their oil sands

the Canadian government really didn't have anything on energy efficiency until the 80s. Even then, they were voluntary programs (R2000) that dealt with single family homes. not the large condominium buildings that suffered from the leaky condo crisis. Energy codes for these buildings were enacted at provincial and municipal levels in the early 2000s and the federal level in 2011. I actually know one of the people who helped start the R2000 program 25 years ago and he said that the reason the federal government started this was because of the number of builders who claimed to be building energy efficient construction, but did not construct actual energy efficient buildings, or did so in a way that violated proper building science. R2000 was developed as a voluntary standard for people who were interested in energy efficient, new home construction. Basically, an attempt to deal with the systematic failure of the builders to provide products that their clients were requesting. The issue was that people had to pay for the R2000 evaluation. People weren't interested in paying for it, but still wanted the efficient housing, so they went back to the same builders who were building poor houses. The problem persisted and there were more and more complaints until energy efficiency was included in the code.

The thing that always gets me is that I see the same people complaining about the government doing two, but opposite things. They complain about lazy government employees and then in the next breath complain about regulations put into place by government and enforced, presumably both by the same "lazy" government employees. It's easy to let the market decide things from a regulatory standpoint. The issue is that tax paying voters often are the ones on the losing end of the deal. If enough of these people get together and tell politicians that they want something, the politicians will tell us to do it. It doesn't matter if I think it's a good idea or not. I need to eat and the community that I work for democratically elected this person to govern on their behalf. No one elected me, so who am I to undermine them.

Actually, killing Keystone XL just put more emphasis on Canada East pipeline to a refinery just down the street from where I am. Moving oil by pipeline results in far fewer contamination issues than many other transportation methods and way better for the environment, so I was a little confused when people are against pipelines for "environmental" reasons.

I guess they're just against oil in general.

 

[steveray]

"As far as Canada is concerned our idiot President has royally fu¢ked the Canadian economy by killing their oil sands, just like he has fu¢ked the Russian economy by stopping the export of gas and oil to Europe, like he has fu¢ked the Venezuelan economy, Venezuela sits on the world's largest oil reserves and the people are shooting and eating cats and dogs on the streets for food."

So are the greedy pigs that sent all of "our" manufacturing jobs out of the country for cheaper labor responsible for our economy? That is why the "global economy" is being pushed these days because they know they now need to cannibalize some other countries working class....Or is it just the Democrats fault?

While every industry gets perverted (especially when it is subsidized by the government) the reasoning behind the energy codes is so that people can afford to heat their houses and pay the mortgage. The fact that builders will not learn how to build houses that won't leak or rot is all of our issue, but their problem...I don't agree with all of the energy code by any stretch (or the other codes for that matter) but it is what it is. I don't get to disregard the laws I don't like (on or off the clock) or the world would certainly be a much more interesting place...