Comments for ConstructionCalc

Comment on Twitters and Forums and Blogs, Oh My! by BMD

BMD — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:02:35 +0000

I enjoyed the latest article. Where and how to spend advertising money efficiently and effectively has long been a mystery to me. We advertise primarily in the phone books. The fact that there are 2 of them now basically doubled our advertising expense to around $8,500/year. Somehow I think that was a mistake. They try to sell you on the concept that 1 good job obtained as a result of advertising more than justifies the expense, and that you’d have to be a complete idiot to pass on this sure-fire way to increase revenue. This may be true in the short term, but how many jobs have we obtained in the last 7 years as a direct result of phone book advertising? Is there any reason to think that someone shopping for a contractor would not look in both books, making the choice to advertise in both books redundant and a 50% waste of money? We’ve also advertised in a local economic development association’s annual book for around 10 years at an average cost of $700 or so. We have probably spent in excess of $60,000 on advertising over the last 10 years and have no idea what the net effect has been, but I suspect we’d be better off if we kept the majority of what we spent on advertising in our bank account. Cumulative errors are a b****.

Comment on Stand Out by wlm754

wlm754 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:28:18 +0000

Isn’t it amazing the similarities that baseball has when compared to every day life. There is so much failure in both, and just like life they both are a matter of endurance where we can get back up and try again.

Tell Connor to keep his chin up and eye on the ball.

Comment on Too Many Holdowns by Tim Garrison

Tim Garrison — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:32:40 +0000

Thanks for your reply. If enough of us common sense types raise a ruckus about ridiculous building practices and outrageous building codes, someday we will get noticed. I just hope it’s in my lifetime. Thanks again.
Tim.

Comment on The Port-a-Potty Predicament by Tim Garrison

Tim Garrison — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:27:08 +0000

I think there are many, many real good port-a-potty stories out there. Not that I want my blog to be the dumping ground for them, but, they are pretty darned funny! Well, maybe not to my gal…

Comment on The Port-a-Potty Predicament by wlm754

wlm754 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:55:55 +0000

…and I thought I used to have problems when I would drop my Blackberry underneath my Tahoe at the Post Office and the battery, SIM Card, Blackberry, and back of the Blackberry would scatter in various directions. Yes, I did that more than once.

I used to get nervous about using a Port-a-Potty on a vacant jobsite
early in the morning for fear that I would open the door to find a disposed body courtesy of some mob hit. Now I will ave to be on guard for my local engineer.

Wade

Comment on Too Many Holdowns by tspencer57@gmail.com

tspencer57@gmail.com — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:48:31 +0000

Hey Tim…just read the above without realizing it was written by you ’til the end…couldn’t agree more…
Have been in residential building in Hawaii for 30+ years and the sort of thinking that leads to the holdown craze
drives me nuts…Nobody seems to care what this stuff costs and everyone acknowledges that it’s overbuilding…
thanks for shining the light…and thanks for the help with the log-in…I’m going to order Probeam now…
(it helped me to make the decision that it was you that replied and not just some minion or robot)

Comment on Our Building Codes Are Broken by markg

markg — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:25:38 +0000

Mulch,

Your piece on “Broken Building Codes” is shear (Sic) genius!

I don’t have the time (translation: economic woes) to research such a writing, but if I could, I would.

Your writing hits the nail on the head and countersinks it. As a competent engineering and building contractor building to code daily, I see first hand the discrepancy in current code continuously. To try to keep up with them is ludicrous. What I have chosen to do is keep up with a smaller section of the code, and be competent at it: concrete and structures. That in itself is a menagerie of confusion, and I find few who have close to real competency in them – thus, I make a living.

In our world, the building department and reality are our two checkpoints. The first, are usually a group of well meaning government employees who cannot possibly keep up the the myriad of changes, and vast knowledge required to know all code, so they rely on either outside plan check companies (that cash in on the amount of minutiae in the building code, so they can charge hourly to review and make comments on drawings), or two, the same format of review with a few exceptions from the previous 20 years or so. The second is less cunning, and more direct – mother nature herself. That’s where the rubber meets the road. We don’t get call backs on previous work for code violations, but we do get call backs on water leaks, wind damage, and my favorite topic “doughnut construction modifications”. The first category usually are related to poor existing materials, ie bad substrate, corroded or weak surfaces to apply membranes, sealers and hardware to etc. The second is the weekend warrior that invites his buddies over to help him “remodel”, and pays them in Schlitz Malt Liquor, or worse yet, the low bidder, who does slipshod work, blames the previous company, charges extensively and splits the scene never to be seen again. The honest tax paying contractor that did work two years ago, and still has his phone number, is the obvious candidate for blame for repair.

The overhaul you recommend will be instantaneously fixed, by having the ICC code folks attempt to competitively design a structure or two, and realize that it (Code) needs “mayor suryery”. Then develop a team consisting of the aforementioned groups of active design professionals, builders and architects, and offer them a royalty based on a percentage of their volumes and copies downloaded or purchased, and liable for any failures inherent in their design criteria.

At any rate, it’s refreshing reading your well thought out information, but the likely hood of getting any change without championing a campaign is nil. However, I will be the first in line to be a staunch supporter and leader in the effort!

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll retire, and pull down a Schlitz myself.

Reg

Mark Garrison MG Constructors & Engineers Inc. 15650 Vineyard Blvd. , Suite A, #232 Morgan Hill , CA 95037 (408)842-5599 Office (408)590-7737 Cell (888)234-8057 Fax

Comment on Our Building Codes Are Broken by sdaggers@iccsafe.org

sdaggers@iccsafe.org — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:52:01 +0000

If our building codes are broken as you suggest, and we strongly disagree with that assumption, you can be part of the solution by participating in the code development process. In that arena, you can object to what you see as an “agglomeration of gobbledygook,” propose changes to clarify, and discuss your issues with professional colleagues and peers. Code content is the result of input from code officials, architects, engineers, designers and many others from inside and outside of the construction industry.

As you may know, the International Code Council uses the governmental consensus process to develop its building safety and fire prevention codes. It is an open, inclusive process that allows input from all individuals and groups. Committees hear all code change proposals. Final decisions are made by International Code Council voting members—code enforcement and fire officials who, with no vested interests beyond public safety, represent the public’s best interest. An appeals process allows anyone to appeal an action or inaction relating to a code change.

For more information about the Council’s Code Development Process and how you can be a part of it, visit http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes.

Steve Daggers
VP Communications
International Code Council