Jump to content

Talk:Building code: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Toby Douglass (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
question on the term bloodguilt as used here
Line 20: Line 20:


: This is a more general problem. City centers experience very little rebuilding into higher density accomodation because of building codes and restrictions on building in built up areas. This naturally encourages urban sprawl. What I also note is that it is in the original case the professions who benefited from the code (builders, architects) who promulagated these codes. However, in the fullness of time they have become a bureaucratic bug-bear, with massive State regulation (for example, from the EU) which leads to a great deal of stupidity in building - leading to higher costs, more risk, less construction. My flat for example by law must have all windows with automatic locking, so they cannot, once open partially, be opened further from outside; however, there must also be ONE window in each room which can be opened without hinderance from outside to permit escape from fire. This means my flat, which has two windows per room, must, BY LAW, have one window with a locking type mechanism and the other with a non-locking type mechanism. This is insane. Good principles, utter idiocy when applied universally. [[User:Toby Douglass|Toby Douglass]] 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
: This is a more general problem. City centers experience very little rebuilding into higher density accomodation because of building codes and restrictions on building in built up areas. This naturally encourages urban sprawl. What I also note is that it is in the original case the professions who benefited from the code (builders, architects) who promulagated these codes. However, in the fullness of time they have become a bureaucratic bug-bear, with massive State regulation (for example, from the EU) which leads to a great deal of stupidity in building - leading to higher costs, more risk, less construction. My flat for example by law must have all windows with automatic locking, so they cannot, once open partially, be opened further from outside; however, there must also be ONE window in each room which can be opened without hinderance from outside to permit escape from fire. This means my flat, which has two windows per room, must, BY LAW, have one window with a locking type mechanism and the other with a non-locking type mechanism. This is insane. Good principles, utter idiocy when applied universally. [[User:Toby Douglass|Toby Douglass]] 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


== History ==
A quick Google seems to indicate that "bloodguilt " is more of a curse on your family (or "house" as used here) not a construction hazard. Any biblical scholars out there able to check on this?

Revision as of 17:34, 25 May 2008

I am not sure that a building code is a lawful document, as the opening sentence suggests. I think the code represents 'best practice'. Does anyone have a better understanding? --Commander Keane 13:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In most jurisdictions the building code is given the force of law. A "Code" by definition is a set of laws. The enforcement is usually done by not granting occupancy to a building that doesn't meet the building code. -- Webgeer 23:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Building codes become law when they are adopted by a jurisdiction. For example, the International Building Code is a model code written by the International Code Council (ICC), a private organization. The ICC cannot make laws and cannot enforce its code. However, a city, state or other jurisdiction may adopt the code and thereby make it law within that jurisdiction. In general, building codes are considered minimum legal standards, and not necessarily best practices. -- Jiano 20:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add aspects of building codes concerning roads, towers, radio masts, electricity pylons and other structures!

Most Building Codes do not address roads, towers, etc. As these are not occupied premises they usually are not regulated by a "code" (or set of laws), but instead by design standards . -- Webgeer 23:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
"Roads and unoccupied premises are not regulated by building codes." Not true! Unoccupied and occasionally occupied facilities are identified in building codes as "nonbuilding structures" and are subject to the same structural safety regulations that are used for buildings. Surprisingly, roads are also subject to regulation by building codes. The properties of the road such as width, turning radius, and rigidity of pavement are regulated to accomodate and support weight of fire trucks and garbage trucks. Asknine 15:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

local requirements

Should there be some discussion regarding the adaption of building codes to local conditions. For example, earthquake resistance in Japan and California, and hurricane resistance in Florida. Also, what abou interesting cases of specific building code requirements, such as the fact that Los Angeles, California requires a heliport on all of their skyscrapers, so you could never have a Transamerica Building-style design in LA. BlankVerse 10:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on society

I don't know what to add, but just a note, that maybe this article should have some detail about the effects of building codes - like how strict building codes in recent decades have been a major cause of the homelessness and lack of affordable housing in urban areas of the United States. Peoplesunionpro 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more general problem. City centers experience very little rebuilding into higher density accomodation because of building codes and restrictions on building in built up areas. This naturally encourages urban sprawl. What I also note is that it is in the original case the professions who benefited from the code (builders, architects) who promulagated these codes. However, in the fullness of time they have become a bureaucratic bug-bear, with massive State regulation (for example, from the EU) which leads to a great deal of stupidity in building - leading to higher costs, more risk, less construction. My flat for example by law must have all windows with automatic locking, so they cannot, once open partially, be opened further from outside; however, there must also be ONE window in each room which can be opened without hinderance from outside to permit escape from fire. This means my flat, which has two windows per room, must, BY LAW, have one window with a locking type mechanism and the other with a non-locking type mechanism. This is insane. Good principles, utter idiocy when applied universally. Toby Douglass 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


History

A quick Google seems to indicate that "bloodguilt " is more of a curse on your family (or "house" as used here) not a construction hazard. Any biblical scholars out there able to check on this?