• 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.

recognition

I also searched that. But I got an error saying my access was not private and I couldn't go an further. I sent it to IT to figure but how to gain access.

However.....since you are on the topic of recognition I want to share one where the forum was also recognized. It is from an architectural group forum where an aspiring DP was asking if any discussion groups were out there for codes. The second answer was a link to this forum. The 5th post/answer was this:

Hint for you; Most of those type forums tend to advise solidly in code and often are dominated by code official types (reviewers) versus designers. Though they hate being told this, a plan's examiner requirement is HS diploma and a open book 4 hour test on code. Its not even remotely close to what it takes to get your license. But they are used to being 'the authority', so don't like punks like us coming in and arguing.

So... lead the horse to water. Formulate your interpretation how you want it interpreted citing code and bounce it. So don't go in asking 'how would you' or you'll get a bombproof answer like; sprinkle, update all the ratings and exiting like you are doing ground up. It isn't really what you want to hear.... Those forums like the buildingcodeforum are good to test out because they often answer like your plan's examiner would when you submit. And don't argue there; they like to ban so they live in a bubble of windowless 2hr fire stair solutions.. :)
 
Sifu said:
a plan's examiner requirement is HS diploma and a open book 4 hour test on code. Its not even remotely close to what it takes to get your license.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much code knowledge it takes to get an architect or engineers license? Little to none is what I hear DP's admit to in the training classes I have attended over a 29-year period.
 
Not sure, I can't tell from inside my windowless bubble.

My experience on here is that we have quite a few designers on this forum, that are here to seek opinions and expand knowledge, and I don't think most of them share that opinion. Doesn't mean they have to agree, but I think it does mean they have an open mind. We also have a fair share of very knowledgeable DP's that help guide us "forum types" as well, which means maybe we too have open minds. Not sure that poster does.
 
Sifu said:
Though they hate being told this, a plan's examiner requirement is HS diploma and a open book 4 hour test on code.
Click to expand...
If only it was that simple. I spent a solid year in a college immersed in code. It was an intense experience. The certification exam for Plans Examiner was two hours of closed book and two hours of open book.

Sifu said:
they live in a bubble
Click to expand...
There's only one member that lives in a bubble. There's a few that are in a box.
 
ICE said:
The certification exam for Plans Examiner was two hours of closed book and two hours of open book.
Click to expand...
Ah the old UBC legacy codes. Where you actually had to know something in lieu of just how to find it in the book. 4 hours versus today 2-hour open book test.
 
We had some very basic building code teaching in architecture school, mostly stairs & corridors. Of course, the codes were A LOT simpler back in the 60s. I got most of my code knowledge on the job, code update seminars, and taking a couple night classes. Most licensing boards require architects to have a certain number of hours in various aspects of architectural practice, including codes.
 
Paul Sweet said:
We had some very basic building code teaching in architecture school, mostly stairs & corridors. Of course, the codes were A LOT simpler back in the 60s. I got most of my code knowledge on the job, code update seminars, and taking a couple night classes. Most licensing boards require architects to have a certain number of hours in various aspects of architectural practice, including codes.
Click to expand...
Besides the old UBC, the planning codes were a lot simpler (not form-based codes) when I started in the 80s. No design review boards.
There were no energy codes. Heck, in the 60s when the San Onofre nuclear plant was built, Edison had studied the idea of doing away with house meters entirely and going to a fixed fee for unlimited power.
Buildings envelopes were breathable (drafty) enough that you never worried about condensation in wall cavities, or indoor air qualify. Not a lot of waterproofing detailing in our dry climate - - some galvanized flashing, and some pitch on the back side of a CMU retaining wall. Never had to learn about frost line, heaving, etc.
No lighting design (photometrics, dark sky, etc.)
No stormwater infiltration design (at least not in California) or SWPPP.
Very little seismic (".14 times dead load" was about all you needed to know)
Very little historic preservation in the work I did.
No asbestos / LBP / mold remediation during remodels.
Almost no accessibility codes, unless you were on a UFAS or state-owned project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top