I appreciated this article and the comments.

As a practicing PE, you are clearly focused on actual solutions and getting from point A to point B. Unfortunately, that is not the case with the regulatory entities.

As a building designer, I not only deal with the IBC and IRC, but also state (Oregon) adjustments to the IBC and IRC (they call them “blended codes” whatever that means), the NFPA (they are willing to accept me as a member for only $150 per year and promise to help me navigate their codes… what a great deal), local codes and last, but not least, local land use ordinances for the various jurisdictions in which I work. Each of these entities is constantly busy churning out new regulations in order to keep us safer, better, or whatever.

As a small child playing with blocks, one of the first things I learned was – don’t put a lot of weight up high. It seems that things can become somewhat unstable. Unfortunately, we have yet to learn that as a society. As regulations and regulators multiply, navigation (successful application of the regulations) becomes increasingly difficult. The people at the top, the regulators, are able to exist and thrive in a myopic world, focused on their particular set of rules or concerns. Unfortunately, most of them do not get to experience the broader spectrum of attempting to navigate the entire system. There is simply no motive for them to consider the larger regulatory picture.

I’m not saying anybody is bad, the regulators are simply doing what most lifeforms do, exist and thrive in their environment.

I do not hate the codes, but I think it is important to understand the actual reasons they have grown from a useful tool, into a monster. All one has to do is follow the money. The code industry has grown into a huge self-perpetuating business, one rationalization at a time. I think the theory is, don’t mind the big picture, it’ll take care of itself. I would agree. I believe we call it natural selection.

We do have some code competition between the ICC and NFPA, but that doesn’t seem to help… maybe they’ve worked something out, I don’t know. What I do know, after over 40 years in this industry (the first 20 with a hammer), is that we are quickly reaching a point where the complexity of the regulatory system will override the larger concern, which is quality of the structure.

I would like to see us start over with a clear destination (other than perpetual employment) in mind. I would like to see a component of that destination be a clear navigable code where components actually relate to one another and work together (like a building). It should be a tool rather than a burden.

Thanks for letting me rant,
Rick

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

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