Although I do believe in strong building codes, is has to be a location specific issue- as the National Building codes set general standards- there are too many variables throughout the country to apply every safety code to every building. I also believe this should be true for new construction, but should be limited to renovations. When it comes to either a business or a home, some times it is the first major purchase, and getting the building to min requirements is first and foremost. In many areas the rule is if you change anything- all codes must be brought up to current standards, and not only is that not cost effective for many purchasers, it allows more and more vacant buildings to clutter up the landscape and create additional hazards and burdens for local communities.
Now- as I live in the Midwest US- Around Chicago we have VERY good building practices, as many trades are Union trained, and most codes around large cities are stringent. When a person or company chooses to place a structure in an environment where floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes and any other natural disaster area- the rest of the country should not have to take an insurance hit every time there is a disaster. the forces of the earth are going to be stronger than the forces of construction- so there has to be a risk/reward assumption if you choose to live, work, or play in this type of area. My general opinion is like this- Most of New Orleans should never be rebuilt- it WILL flood out again- if you live by the ocean below sea level-you cannot build for that, and why should it continue? Complete was of money and manpower- for the cost of the additional levees- all of the displaced residences could be living in luxury condos 100 miles from the beach.
I feel that as a US citizen I should have the right to choose my risk factor, and even as a builder, im tired of the over govt regulation of everything we do.
The International Codes – that are likely what you mean when you say “National Building codes” are not just general standards. They are avery specific set of requirements, and they have a number of provisions very specific to different risks and hazards. There ARE different provisions, based on climate, wind speed, proximity to water, etc.
They also apply ONLY to new construction and major renovations, not when you “change anything.”
The fact is, Ms. Rochman is correct– current building codes should be regularly adopted, for the safety of the citizens. And in many cases that is not happening. This article is spot on, and public officials should pay attention.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Although I do believe in strong building codes, is has to be a location specific issue- as the National Building codes set general standards- there are too many variables throughout the country to apply every safety code to every building. I also believe this should be true for new construction, but should be limited to renovations. When it comes to either a business or a home, some times it is the first major purchase, and getting the building to min requirements is first and foremost. In many areas the rule is if you change anything- all codes must be brought up to current standards, and not only is that not cost effective for many purchasers, it allows more and more vacant buildings to clutter up the landscape and create additional hazards and burdens for local communities.
Now- as I live in the Midwest US- Around Chicago we have VERY good building practices, as many trades are Union trained, and most codes around large cities are stringent. When a person or company chooses to place a structure in an environment where floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes and any other natural disaster area- the rest of the country should not have to take an insurance hit every time there is a disaster. the forces of the earth are going to be stronger than the forces of construction- so there has to be a risk/reward assumption if you choose to live, work, or play in this type of area. My general opinion is like this- Most of New Orleans should never be rebuilt- it WILL flood out again- if you live by the ocean below sea level-you cannot build for that, and why should it continue? Complete was of money and manpower- for the cost of the additional levees- all of the displaced residences could be living in luxury condos 100 miles from the beach.
I feel that as a US citizen I should have the right to choose my risk factor, and even as a builder, im tired of the over govt regulation of everything we do.
The International Codes – that are likely what you mean when you say “National Building codes” are not just general standards. They are avery specific set of requirements, and they have a number of provisions very specific to different risks and hazards. There ARE different provisions, based on climate, wind speed, proximity to water, etc.
They also apply ONLY to new construction and major renovations, not when you “change anything.”
The fact is, Ms. Rochman is correct– current building codes should be regularly adopted, for the safety of the citizens. And in many cases that is not happening. This article is spot on, and public officials should pay attention.