# Code minimums



## Yikes (Mar 23, 2010)

A quick poll here:

We’ve all seen the phrase that says something like, “building to the code is building to minimum levels of safety”.

When you hear someone say their building design meets code requirements, which analogy most closely resembles your internal reaction:

1.  Do you view it like someone standing on one foot with their toes over the edge of the cliff… “safe” for the moment, but it a practical sense still very unsafe?

2.  Do you view it like a student who graduated with a C- average?... just enough to pass on a bell-curve, but nothing to brag about?

3.  Do you view it as the football receiver whose foot just barely touches the corner of the end zone before going out of bounds… hey, it’s a solid 6 points on the board, just as if he’d walked down the middle of the end zone?

4.  Do you view it like the guy who confidently arrives at the station and gets on the commuter train just before the door closes - - admiring that he no wasted time or effort waiting at the station?

5.  Do you view it like the Olympic figure skating… you passed the compulsory moves, and everything else is just subjective stylistic razzle-dazzle to earn more points with the judges?

6.  Do you have your own analogy that would fit better here?

And, since we're talking analogies, is there anything you've learned from other walks of life (such as the football example) that colors how you view meeting the "minimum" requirements of the code?


----------



## Jasper (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

Quality is not binary.

Treating the code as the last word on safety is like treating the law as the last word on morality.

People need to take personal responsibility for how safe and comfortable their homes (and other buildings) are.


----------



## Jasper (Mar 23, 2010)

Re: Code minimums


There are several risky ideas prescribed by codes in many places, such as:

Headache-inducing kitchen lighting[/*:m:1rg63zaw]

Fragile faucets on bedroom ceilings[/*:m:1rg63zaw]

Exposed plumbing to serve retrofitted fragile faucets[/*:m:1rg63zaw]

Huge window wells, with no thought for tripping hazards or letting kids run around the house[/*:m:1rg63zaw]

Assuming that flood-risk maps are accurate[/*:m:1rg63zaw]
There are also many provisions in the code that have nothing to do with safety.

For example, most of the "Energy Code", including the headache-inducing lighting provisions.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

They say they comply with a law they have not read, don't have the code book to read it, and wouldn't take the time to read it if they had the time.


----------



## texas transplant (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

The codes are just trying to be like the new health care reform.       :shock:   :x


----------



## Mac (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

My analogy is that of a light switch. Either its on or off, OK or not.

Project doesn't get approved until it meets the minimum requirements of the code. Then its "lights on".


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

No building has ever met code.  You hope to hit enough of it so the multiple layers of safety factors built into the code preserve life and property.  The code may be a minimum, but safety factors are included.


----------



## TJacobs (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums



			
				Yikes said:
			
		

> And, since we're talking analogies, is there anything you've learned from other walks of life (such as the football example) that colors how you view meeting the "minimum" requirements of the code?


1.  It really sucks carrying bodies out of a fire scene.

2.  It really sucks attending the line-of-duty funeral of a firefighter.

3.  It really sucks watching someone lose all they worked for in a fast-moving preventable fire.

4.  It really sucks fighting a 4-story apartment fire in January in a Chicago suburb with a mansard roof around the whole joint with no fireblocking/draftstopping, solid ice on everything, frozen hydrants that haven't been maintained in decades, losing the roof and 4th floor and trashing the rest of the building.

4.  It really sucks pulling floor trusses (and all the other material) out of the mud three lots over that have been there a month, scraping them off and trying to build a house with them, in the rain.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

As I have seen posted in the past.  Building a structure to meet minimum code requirements simply means "building the worst structure the code will allow".


----------



## brudgers (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

When some one says "it meets code," I'm skeptical.

But if it meets code, it meets code.

I treat it as just another fact, and try to forgo the opportunity to create drama, claim that civilization as we know it is ending, or question anyone's character.


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

1: More like a trail or a road, than the edge of a cliff.  The path could be of compacted dirt, gravel, asphalt or concrete, but all would support traffic, though each offers a differing level of service, which may be in part based on how nice the owner wants the road to be, and in part dictated by the traffic to use the road.  Once the path is defined, deviate from the road or trail and the going gets a little tough, driving on the shoulder or heading through the brush.  Too far off course and you may be in the ditch or off the proverbial cliff.  That said, a wider shoulder or a guardrail (provided above-and-beyond what is required for the road) may help compensate for some deficiencies in the design or construction of the road such that the constructed path would still be satisfactory.

2: Maybe if the student were pass-fail, and we didn't know the subjectivity of the teachers or the student's performance.  All we know is they graduated - the building got its C of O.

3: Yes!  Lots of ways to get across the goal line, some strategy, navigating the rules of the game as interpreted by the different stakeholders: officials, coaches, players, fans...they may even pull back and kick 2 field goals.  Either way, they got their 6 points.

4: There is a project element to that, when it comes to financing and the project schedule - have to get on the train before it leaves the station, and we're getting on one way or another - but that's not the code.  The lender's driving the train and the AHJ is at the turnstile.

5: Ummm..no.

6: I would stretch Mac's lighting theory further to say that the code seeks to prescribe a level of illumination, not merely that a light comes on.  How that illumination is achieved is for the design team to demonstrate and the official to evaluate.  If the light's a little dim, there may be some ways to achieve the level of service intended, and thereby satisfy the code via an alternative approach; if the room is especially unique and cannot achieve the prescribed illumination, it may still meet code based on approval of a modification.  If there's greater illumination than required, maybe users will like that space better than the one with the minimum amount of illumination, but they are both satisfactory from the code's perspective.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Code minimums



> 2: Maybe if the student were pass-fail, and we didn't know the subjectivity of the teachers or the student's performance. All we know is they graduated - the building got its C of O.


 just like being certified by ICC or any Legacy code group all we know is we passed  :|


----------



## Yikes (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: Code minimums



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> > 2: Maybe if the student were pass-fail, and we didn't know the subjectivity of the teachers or the student's performance. All we know is they graduated - the building got its C of O.


 just like being certified by ICC or any Legacy code group all we know is we passed  :| I can remember when I passed my architect's license exam at a relatively young age.  It was a 12-part exam, I studied for only 1 part (the 12-hour design exercise), and took the other 11 parts just for the experience, with no expectations as to outcome.  I passed the other 11 without study.

I was both suprised, relieved, and oddly a little distrubed and scared.

Suprised and relieved because I passed, but disurbed because I knew I was not yet really qualified or worthy to provide "professional" expertise in these areas; I just got lucky on taking a test.  I knew that for the next phase of my career, I would rely heavily on the expertise of my (more seasoned) consulting engineers until I gained enough experience and confidence in my own knowledge.

The part that scared me was the thought, "how many other architects and engineers are out there who don't really know what they're doing, but are in charge of putting together the buildings that I walk through every day..."?


----------



## Min&Max (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: Code minimums

The grading system is pass/fail. The project either meets or exceeds the minimum code requirements and therefore passes or it does not meet the minimum requirements and it fails.

Kind of like the certifications we test for.


----------

