No building codes?

[khsmith55]

Going to create a fire storm here. Eight Counties in Colorado HAVE never had a Building Code, bad or good? Residential: live and let live, most residential construction is empirical and works. Commercial, most lending institutions require an Architects seal on requests for payment. The I-Codes are getting out of hand, more of a nanny code as opposed to a LIFE SAFETY Code.

 

[cda]

maybe:

good for developer/ builder???

bad for building owner???

 

[brudgers]

Does the state Fire Marshal have jurisdiction and adopted codes (they do here)?

 

[steveray]

Going to create a fire storm here. Eight Counties in Colorado HAVE never had a Building Code, bad or good? Residential: live and let live, most residential construction is empirical and works. Commercial, most lending institutions require an Architects seal on requests for payment. The I-Codes are getting out of hand, more of a nanny code as opposed to a LIFE SAFETY Code.

I have seen enough MAJOR issues with stamped plans that would not have me slepping soundly at night without some other supervision.....

 

[mtlogcabin]

41 cities and 4 counties are authorized to enforce building codes in MT. The state does not issue permits or inspect 4 plexes and less except for electrical and plumbing.

So it is not uncommon

 

[gbhammer]

I have seen enough MAJOR issues with stamped plans that would not have me slepping soundly at night without some other supervision.....

I agree completely. Not every DP is as knowledgeable as brudgers.

 

[permitguy]

CO does not have a state fire marshal. The state division of fire safety basically enforces codes for the construction of new public schools and state facilities.

I wouldn't be suprised if a study found that the majority of the country -by area, not population -did not have building codes enforced.

As for the "nanny code" talk, in my experience it's largely offered by uninformed people who see the thickness of the book and freak out. I'm not saying things are perfect with the I-codes, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[ICE]

In the early 70's I worked in residential construction in Colorado Springs. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about inspectors. The guy that owned one company I worked for walked around with a 44 magnum on his hip. He drank a lot and had a bad temper. Actually, he was an as$hole with a gun and a bottle always.

I remember telling Curly that one day someone crazier than him was going to take that magnum away from him and beat him to death with it. As it turned out a laborer ran over the blue room with him in it. Used Curly's own truck to do it too. Didn't kill him but I never saw him again.

He pretty much had it coming. One day the laborer was sitting in the blue room and Curly dropped several cherry bombs down the vent. After that Curly would use a sh!ter way away from us. He would leave his F350 4x4 running with the door open. I watched the kid run across the site and jump in the truck. Curly got a surprise. One minute he's playing with his magnum and he's under his truck the next.

Those were the days. Contractors would approach me during breakfast looking to hire carpenters.

 

[Keystone]

With all the pics you post and if your still in Colorado, heck yeah they need building codes:/

Yes the I-Codes have lost the intent and are well beyond the scope of life safety but some type of minimal oversight should be in order.

I would be interested to know if that county has more or less building issues than the surrounding counties after a decade or greater of use.

 

[fatboy]

I hope he's not in CO with those pics. CO does have statewide plumbing and electrical codes. But, yes, there is a lot of square miles not under building/mechanical. Go figure, don't license the guys building the structure, or the ones that could be pumping carbon monoxide into it.

 

[ICE]

I hope he's not in CO with those pics.

Nobody wants to think that I could be anywhere near their area but I bet I can find it where you are too.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings all,

Interesting topic. Mere moments ago we had similar discussions in our office regarding the amount of regs etc and how it's really getting out of hand in many regards. We are officially on the 2011 NEC here in Tx now and I've got real reservations about some of it. Same with IBC and IRC.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not going to be too long before we are requiring doghouses to be sprinkled!

Byron

 

[permitguy]

What's interesting to me is the way so many think that more pages always means more restrictions. Many times sections are made longer to add clarity about intent (eliminating common arguments and saving us time). Other times it is taking something that used to be prohibited outright and creating regulations to allow it. For example, I recently had to refer to the 1970 UBC on a question over special (revolving) doors used for egress. Guess what? The 1970 UBC didn't allow it. The section on "special doors" was one or two sentences that basically said "these can't be used for required egress". The IBC allows this, with conditions; therefore, the 2009 IBC has several paragraphs written about special doors that the 1970 UBC did not have, but the IBC is actually less restrictive.

Without specifics on where things have gotten out of hand, improvements will never be made. So, what is it that makes the IBC more of a nanny code than the UBC? I'm not saying the statement is incorrect, I'm just saying it needs to be supported.

 

[GCtony]

The main reason I stop by this site is to become more educated. There are some posts that can fire me up, the kind when I see "big Brother" going too far (Icodes) Or a AHJ, looking to "burn" someone to get their way. (see the pool fence thread) It's really refreshing seeing some of you positioned on the other side of the fence also thinking it's gone too far and the intend is no longer about protecting peoples lives and well being. Back in the day, I worked (and learned) construction in an area that didn't have a building code office. Most construction people took on the responsability of building it right. The boss, came out to the jobs and inspected our work, if it wasn't right, we fixed it. After all, it was is name and reputation on the line. When we didn't know something, we asked someone who did know, like an Architect of Engineer. I'm proud to say. I think we built it better 25 years ago than some of the trash I see being built today. However I do think public buildings are MUCH safer today, from a fire and life safety standpoint but that seems to come from the old BOCA, NEC days.

From my perspective, I think the Icodes are trying to address every condition that could come up. When you start getting "incidental" items in a book, the important big items can start to loose some credibility with the end users (the tax payers). Stop coming out with a new version every 3 years, DP's and contractors can't keep up. If a AHJ see's something that needs to be adressed in their community, let them do that locally. I would love to see the AHJ start using the Icodes as a guide and not an answer to everything. Allow the local code officials to have some flexabily to use what works best for them and their community. Of couse we would need to get ride of all the lawyers first!

Back to the orginal post....Are the DP's and Contractors in places without codes better than places that live and die by the codes? Maybe. Have DP's and contractors gotten lazy when you have code officials counting every nail, screw and lightbulb? Definatly!

 

[Yankee]

Technology is advancing so rabidly, if we want to "permit" or accept/allow the use of new products, we need to have regs on how the use is appropriate. Could be ICodes, could be ANSI, but there has to be some formal documentation to turn to, for us, AND for the user.

 

[Msradell]

It's not only building codes that have lost sight of their original purpose in many cases. There are many NFPA regulations that apply to fire department equipment and while they are not mandatory many places feel they are. Recently even FDNY (the New York City fire department) which is the largest in the world has begun not complying with many of the NFPA regulations. The reason? They just don't make sense and they feel like many others that the NFPA is just trying to justify its existence! There are many examples they can be cited in the building codes that form along the same lines. It's not saying that some types of codes are not needed but the number and complexity of them seems to be becoming ridiculous even for those who were trying to enforce them!

 

[permitguy]

Sixteen posts into this thread, and still nobody has posted a specific example to illustrate their point. If there are "many examples that can be cited", then cite them. That's how debate occurs. That's how change occurs.

Do you all vote, or do you just complain about the poor job others did in voting?

 

[codeworks]

there are lots of places(?) that don't adopt/enforce codeds, but it is less common. i recently relocated from vermont to texas, in vermont there were 5 "local jurisictions" that looked at residential work, all "small cities (40,000) or less. that's the population. very rural, and independant. the state regulates public buildings, but when it comes to private residential the sentiment is " i don't want some a@#hole from the capital down in montpelier trying to tell me what to do on my own property". legislature is hard to move there,for years we tried to change the electrical licensing rules to make it a requirement that only licensed electricians could wire houses, it' never leaves committee. you wind up with licensed guys competing with any old handyman for work, hang a level in the back window of you're truck and you're in business. you wind up with a mess. if you don't have the right selling points, the fiqures (fire deaths, insurance savings, importance with respect to safety, child safety etc, ) it may not happen. then, there are places where they've had codes for 30 years, but no real inspectors, so you get c#@P work and installations, it takes time

 

[mtlogcabin]

Sixteen posts into this thread, and still nobody has posted a specific example to illustrate their point. If there are "many examples that can be cited", then cite them. That's how debate occurs. That's how change occurs.Do you all vote, or do you just complain about the poor job others did in voting?

Here is one

2009 IMC

1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps.

Just because a few huffers died from huffing freon. It was an emotional reaction to adopt this code requirement

 

[mtlogcabin]

How about this one

[F] 903.2.8 Group R.

An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .

There are many single room cabins in campgrounds such as a KOA or single story motels with 4, 8 or 16 rooms that have direct access to the outside from every room that makes this requirement excessive.

 

[georgia plans exam]

Here's one.

IBC's Chapter 13 referencing the IECC.

The IECC should be a recommendation, not a requirement, in my humble opinion.

GPE

 

[permitguy]

Here is one2009 IMC

1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps.

Just because a few huffers died from huffing freon. It was an emotional reaction to adopt this code requirement

I agree, especially since these are only available from one manufacturer and the tool to remove them can be purchased on ebay for less than most kids' weekly allowance. The membership really dropped the ball on letting this get voted in.

How about this one[F] 903.2.8 Group R.

An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area .

There are many single room cabins in campgrounds such as a KOA or single story motels with 4, 8 or 16 rooms that have direct access to the outside from every room that makes this requirement excessive.

Has an exception ever been debated during code hearings for these cabins or small motels with direct access to the outside? Anyone here could propose the change. Given such a small percentage of these types of occupancies being constructed (compared to other R occupancies), I can see where this could have been an oversight.

I understand the sentiment, though I'm not in complete agreement that this is excessive. In a single room cabin, the occupants would be sleeping in the compartment where the fire originates. The environment can easily become untenable from the time a sleeping person is made aware of the problem (smoke detector activation) to the time it takes them to react (including waking their kids who slept through the smoke detector activation) and get to safety. Zero visibility can occur in a matter of seconds in such a small compartment, and this is also an unfamilar environment to the occupants.

 

[Frank]

Here is one2009 IMC

1101.10 Locking access port caps.

Refrigerant circuit access ports located outdoors shall be fitted with locking-type tamper-resistant caps.

Just because a few huffers died from huffing freon. It was an emotional reaction to adopt this code requirement

I argued against that one on the floor and got eyed as if I wanted to kill kids--I pointed out that they already were using tools and could just puncture the lines or condensor to get at the freon.

In a side conversation, one of the mother's that testified that she had lost her daughter to huffing said that the daughter had been introduced to huffing by her HVAC tech boyfriend.

 

[Frank]

Here are a few more

2009 IPC table 604.3 requires that a lavatory fixture supply be a minimum of 2 gpm@ 8 psi while the adjacent table 604.4 gives a maximum flow of 0.5 gpm @ 60 psi for a public lavatory.

For a sidewalk accross the front of a strip shopping center or other accessible route adjacent to and parallel to a building

A117.1-2003 403.3 allows a maximum cross slope of 1:48, 2009 IBC 1804.3 requires a minimum slope of 2% away from the building. This is an 0.01 inch per ft difference between the required minimum and maximum slopes--about the thickness of 2 sheets of 20 pound copy paper or 4 pages of the codebook.

Per 2009 IFC 3404.3.4.1 I can display 30 000 gallons of 1B flammable liquids in a 100 000 sq ft big box retail store with an occupant load of 3333 people and 2B construction but by 307 of the 2009 IBC, I can only store 480 gallons in a 100 000 sq ft S-1 warehouse with a maximum occupent load of 333 before it becomes an H-3 use with greatly increased construction fire resistance requirements (1B Construction required). If you take a Home Depot close the doors to the public and call it a warehouse with the same goods in the building it suddenly does not meet code. The extra 3000 people must make the paint thinner safer?

2009 IPC 705.14.2 requires purple primer before solvent cementing PVC but there are many solvent cements for PVC on the market that do not require the use of primer.