Sustainable Building Codes

120 Square Feet: Reconsidering the Minimum to Facilitate Tiny Houses.

2011-11-02T12:05:00.000-07:00

2011 Solar Decathlon - Team New Zealand's Bach House
Small Enough to be Impacted by the 120sf Rule.

In my quest to address building code issues that affect sustainability, I have found myself caught up in the minimalist venture know as "Tiny Houses".   These are very small dwellings that provide for all the amenities of home, in a very compact package.   Frequently, they are constructed in the range of 96 to maybe 130sf.   That's tiny!   But for many, very livable.

If you have followed my other postings on Tiny Houses, you will find that the International Residential Code has a lot of influence on the design. In some cases, it can be so influential as to be completely prohibitive of the tiny house in its entirety...thanks to the code's mandatory 120sf minimum area.

The basic tenant of the IRC is to provide minimum standards for life safety, welfare and sanitation. The code's requirement for at least one habitable room to have 120sf must be traceable to one of those characteristics.   However, I can find no archival anecdotal data that supports that. It has been in the code for eons so therefore there must have a legitimate reason for its inclusion.   Or maybe not.

During the past couple of months, I have queried my building inspector and architect students as to their thoughts on how 120sf as a minimum would ensure a safety, welfare, or sanitation benefit.   I usually get a lot of blank stares.   They have no idea either.   This tells me that it is time to re-debate the requirement.

So...I am going to submit a code change to the International Residential Code to delete the 120sf minimum.   This will elicit a lot of discussion, a lot of it will be negative. To be successful in having the requirement deleted, I need to have a valid reason statement with good supporting evidence.   That is where I need your help, especially if you live in a small home or apartment.

The IRC contains provisions that require a minimum 7 foot high ceiling.   I know for fact that it was carried over from earlier building codes because there is a "psychological benefit".   I am not sure what the benefit is, but that will likely be a valid reason for the 120sf area inclusion. This fits under "welfare".  In order to counter this argument, I need some real world facts on how you all feel about your tiny living environment.

For those of you in small spaces, do you yearn for bigger rooms?   Do you find yourself having to spend inordinate times outdoors to keep from going crazy? Has moving into a tiny house caused you some detrimental harm, physical or psychological?   Is there a normal daily activity that you cannot do simply because you lack the space?    If you couldn't do this activity, would you anticipate a decline in your safety, welfare, or sanitation?   Nothing facetious please.   Just some real world examples that support or oppose the 120sf code requirement would help me tremendously.   I need to know both sides of the argument to be prepared for eventual testimony.

If you have an opinion, you can email me at codeconsultant@gmail.com   Please let me know if you are willing to let me quote you in this informal study.   In any case, your contribution will help give me some legitimate background from those that have been there...or those whose dreams have been hampered in trying to get there.

Rural Sensibility

2011-07-08T15:06:00.000-07:00

During the past couple of months, I have been engaged in a program where I have to meet face to face with Colorado town and county governments and discuss whether they have adopted building codes...or not. Among the half dozen members of my firm, we have divided the work within areas of interest or specialty. In my case, I am assigned the rural locales with no adopted building codes. The house libertarian gets the recalcitrant.

I am enjoying the task. It has taken me to places off the interstate within the northeastern portion of the state. Most of the towns are suffering from the economy. Downtown areas are assessed by vacancy rate. I have been in more than one where the ENTIRE downtown area is completely deserted. It can be a little depressing.

Conversely, I have found thriving locations in unexpected places. My favorite so far is Wray. It is green via apparently abundant water, commerce appears to thrive, and its residential neighborhoods are well kept and nicely manicured. Mayberry on the plains.

Regardless of prosperity, each seems to be driven by resolve. They cannot control big agri-business and the consolidation of the small family farm, the vacuum created by big box retail, or the influences of an electronically connected world. What they can control is their own destiny.

When asked about the possibility of adopting a building code, I usually find a concerned and somewhat confused expression followed by the question, "Why?" The discussion usually leads into a "why do I need to have government (the code) to tell me what I really already know?" I am responsible for the safety of my family and I will happily accept that duty.

I call this "rural sensibility". As I interview these folk, I deduce that they are of hardy and intelligent stock. They have chosen to live in remote locations, absent of government services and conveniences. They are tough by attrition. You cannot survive here if you cannot think and do for yourself. The conditions can be harsh and these folk must surmount any obstacle that arises.

This process has affirmed some of my thoughts on the progression of building code regulations in the United States. The codes have increasingly become more restrictive and detailed. I have previously stated that the codes are becoming much more urban centric, catering to a populace that usually isn't required to constantly contemplate daily survival. When one is not thinking, one needs to be directed through comprehensive code requirements. On the other hand, the rural areas either don't adopt codes or essentially ignore them through marginal enforcement. They don't need to be told what they already know.

My wife and I have just returned from a several day camping trip on our land in Hotchkiss. We were schooled by our neighbors on the nuances of taking "free" irrigation water from the large run-off prior to the ditch company switching to allocation only. We observed the meadow turn green as the furrows were flooded one section at a time. We marveled at the land's fragility and fertility simultaneously. Most importantly, we witnessed proper stewardship that isn't directed by a government overseer. You either act and thrive...or perish. That is invigorating.

Tiny House Building Code Compliance Part 2

2010-11-13T05:36:00.000-08:00

This post is intended to explore the requirements for tiny houses that are placed on foundations on the ground (not placed on a trailer with wheels). These are likely to meet the dwelling criteria used by the International Residential Code and subject to permit requirements.

If you haven't already, I suggest reading the first installment of this series before heading into this "advanced" discussion.

As I stated in the first post, the International Residential Code (IRC) requires a number of minimum criteria for "dwelling units". The first is a requirement for at least one minimum habitable room that is 120sf in "gross floor area". Lacking a definition for "gross floor area" in the IRC, the user is directed to "other publications of the International Code Council". Chapter 10 of the International Building Code establishes "gross floor area" as "the floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building...".

If your tiny house house uses thick walls such as the cob house shown in the photo, you will not be given credit toward the 120sf for the wall thickness. Your building footprint will have to be expanded to include the room area in addition to the area comprised of the wall thickness. The 7 foot minimum habitable room dimension required by IRC Section R304.3 will also be measured from interior face of wall to opposite interior face of wall.

Once the code minimum area and dimension requirements for the this room are satisfied, the remainding code hurdles are initiated based upon what is provided within the dwelling.

Additional "habitable rooms" must have a minimum area of 70sf with the 7 foot minimum dimension and provided with a minimum ceiling of 7 feet in height. This can work to your advantage. The typical tiny houses I see on the net use a sleeping loft configuration that is pretty compact.

In order to be a habitable room, one must have the minimum 70sf room area. Frequently these spaces are designed to less than the minimum. As such, they are not "habitable" by the code definition. This allows the use of a ladder or other non-compliant vertical egress method to be employed for access since the IRC's stair and ramp provisions only apply to access to habitable spaces.

If you are ever challenged on the use of a ladder for non-habitable loft, be assured that the code allows it by default. Intentionally, there are no requirements for non-habitable loft access. I know this as I am the one that wrote this code section as it is currently provided for in the 2009 IRC. Fresh from the horse's mouth...not its posterior.

Assuming that the minimum habitable room area is provided within the loft, the next test of habitability is ceiling headroom. The IRC requires 7 feet vertical clearance except when the ceiling is sloped. When the ceiling is sloped, only one half of the required room area must be provided with the 7 foot headroom clearance. If the room is required to be 70sf in area, then 35sf of the room must have 7 feet of clearance. Additionally, all the remaining required area must have a minimum of 5 feet of clearance. If this isn't provided, the room or loft cannot be deemed habitable.

This takes us back to the definition for "dwelling unit". In order to be considered a "dwelling unit", permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation must be provided. If you are asserting that your tiny house is a dwelling, the code official is unlikely to allow you to use your non-habitable loft for compliance with permanent provision for sleeping. Best to figure out a way to put a bed (fold out or otherwise) on the lower level. If you insist upon calling your loft the sleeping area, you are sure to be forced to comply with the minimum habitability requirements...including provision of those large and space consuming code-compliant stairs.

Kitchens are deeded habitable, but are exempt from the minimum room area. Earlier editions of the code required 50sf for this location. The current exception was also one of my code changes. If was quite a battle to get the ICC membership to delete this requirement. However, we prevailed. Based on this experience, it may be quite difficult to delete the 120sf and 70sf minimums in future codes. However, I think that a proposal to do so is certainly worth consideration for the 2015 edition.

Bathrooms are not deemed habitable, but still have some minimum clearances. "Bathrooms" and "toilet rooms" must have the 7 foot minimum ceiling height. Minimum area and dimensions are not stipulated aside from plumbing fixture "usability" clearances.

Toilets must have 15" of side clearance measured from either side to the centerline of the fixture. Toilets, lavatories, bathtubs and showers must have 21" clearance in front for access to the fixture. Showers must be provided with a minimum 30" by 30" shower pan. The room configuration must be such to allow for the fixture clearances. Doors may swing into any of the clearances. This is not clearly stated in the code, but it is the intent.

Hopefully this discussion is beneficial if you are trying to justify your minimum dwelling. This discussion applies only to the building code. Always be aware that zoning regulations or restrictive covenants may preclude the construction of these minimalist structures.

Photos of the cob buildings used by permission by Ziggy Liloia. His "Year of Mud" blog is an interesting and informative read if you are interested in owner built, minimal cob structures. Sustainable construction in its purest form.

Tiny House Code Compliance - 120 square feet exemption?

2010-11-11T11:30:00.000-08:00

Recently I have been researching some alternative temporary housing for our land in Hotchkiss. I have somewhat intrigued by the so-called Tiny House movement. The proponents advocate living in little houses that are frequently less than 120sf in area. These houses provide full accommodation for living, sleeping, eating, and sanitation within a compact package. Many are constructed on dual axle flat bed trailers to permit portability. Don't like your neighbors? Hitch up and leave.

There is lot of information on these buildings on the web. Interspersed is a lot of BAD information about code compliance methodologies. This blog is intended to set the record straight.

The first question is determining if the building code is applicable to the structure or not. It is my opinion that any tiny house built and left on a trailer that is provided with tires and a license plate is not subject to building code oversight. If you are in Colorado, the legal precedent affirming this is Eason v. Town of Erie.

Trailers constitute the building code dead zone that caused HUD to establish requirements for these factory built "mobile homes" years ago. The feds determined that nobody was paying any attention to these type of structures and decided that rules needed to be made. The old "mobile homes" burned hard and fast. Something needed to be done. I am not sure how the HUD regulations affect owner built "tiny houses" and don't proclaim to be an expert. This is one regulatory agency I try to avoid due to their notorious record for convoluted regulations and interpretations. However, I do believe that the "mobile home" must be at least 40' in length and 320sf in area to fall under their jurisdiction.

If the house is sited on the ground (no trailer), then the building code comes into play. The International Residential Code regulates one and two family dwellings and their accessory structures. Many proponents cite the permit exclusion provisions for "sheds" that are less than 200sf (120 sf in the 2006 edition) in area. This is not a valid permit exclusion for the typical tiny house.

The key here is the word "shed". The code states, "One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses...". It is hard to argue that these are mere tool sheds or playhouses when they meet the entire definition of Dwelling and Dwelling Unit contained in the code.

2009 International Residential Code (IRC) Definitions:

DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes.

DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.

One could easily argue that a lack of one of the "permanent provisions" would preclude meeting the definition of "dwelling unit". Substitution of the built-in permanent stove with a plug-in counter top microwave would be one example. Elimination of the bathroom facilities is another.

If it isn't a complete "dwelling unit", then what is it? One could then argue it is a nice playhouse...exempt from building code permit requirements.

Assuming that all permanent provisions are in place and the local code official makes the determination that the building is a "dwelling unit", the fun begins.

The IRC prescribes some minimum areas for the dwelling. At least one room must be 120sf in area. All other habitable rooms except the kitchen must be 70sf in area. Minimum room width must be 7'. Minimum ceiling headroom must be 7'-0". The list goes on...and as you can see, so will your tiny house... going on down the road to some locale with no building code. Traditional tiny houses simply cannot comply with the IRC if they are determined to be dwelling units.

A respondent stated the she thought that it would be possible to make the 120sf minimum area work. That may be possible. I will pick this idea up and explore it in a Part 2 post as a follow up to this discussion.

Some will wonder why the code has so many restrictive requirements. These provisions go back beyond any memory, probably having their roots in the "tenement codes" first promulgated in places like New York City in the mid-nineteenth century. The intent was to provide for minimum habitability standards for conventional houses. Slum lord provisions, if you will.

Truth be known, it is unlikely that any studies or analysis was conducted to ascertain that a building is safer or more habitable simply by having a single room with 120sf in area. Unfortunately, those that came up with these standards are no longer around to justify their existence. Old "tried and proven" code lore becomes absolute when the original basis for its inclusion is lost.

Here is the moral of the story: Always do your homework first. Know the rules before you build or purchase. Understand the loopholes provided by the code and local case law. Query your code official on the requirements prior to bringing your building on the site. Be prepared to surmount some hurdles before enjoying your new-found minimalist venture.

Top 25 Sustainable Building Code Blogs

2010-09-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

If you are interested in Sustainable Building, this Top 25 list of Sustainable Building blogs may be of interest:

http://www.environmentalsciencedegrees.net/blog/2010/25-best-blogs-at-the-forefront-of-sustainable-building/

I am happy to report that this blog is among the 25! With that kind of recognition, I better get to work!

Tom

Hotchkiss, Colorado - Home Free!

2010-09-07T08:23:00.000-07:00

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

We finally did it! My wife and I purchased 20 acres in Hotchkiss, Colorado. That's me in the photo standing next to our stream that supplies irrigation water to our land and our neighbors. Happy landowner...soon (hopefully) to be happy homebuilder.

The land is located in the small, libertarian enclave of Hotchkiss located in the heart of Delta County. Delta county is one of several in Colorado without benefit of an adopted building code. Our land is within the unincorporated county area. We are therefore HOME FREE as far as building code oversight is concerned.

However, the state of Colorado has a statewide adoption of an electrical and plumbing code. We will have to pull permits for those trades when we eventually build. It will be interesting to have inspections only on those items, but not on the rest of the house. At that point, why bother?

We learned a lot in the purchase of the land. The first thing we learned was to buy land without any buildings on it whatsoever. The lack of building codes has resulted in the construction of some very marginal structures. Owners ascribe values that represent quality construction. Unfortunately, they were so bad that demolition was the only viable way to fix them. It is hard to pay money for something that you have no choice but tear down...not to mention that junk construction is NOT sustainable in the first place.

We also learned that restrictive covenants can be a bigger burden than locally adopted and enforced regulations. In an effort to control bad construction, proliferation of junk cars, and operation of smelly cattle feed lots, folks around these parts write very restrictive covenants to provided for local control. Unfortunately, these are usually so poorly crafted that they become very exclusionary as to the type of buildings and uses that are permitted. We rejected many properties simply because we could not build using the alternative construction or because some of the small scale production agriculture and animal husbandry we would like to try was prohibited. Crazy overreaction best describes the circumstances.

Water is extremely important in Colorado. We are have a dry, arid climate. Irrigation water from a quality source is essential to ensure successful cultivation of the land. A lot of the value of our land is in irrigation water rights that came with it. A majority of ours are pre-1922 water pact rights. This will be beneficial when bigger, thirstier states decide their expanding urban populations need more of Colorado's water to keep their bluegrass and petunias healthy. Guess whose water they will be looking to take? Not looking forward to that fight, so have protected ourselves as best we can.

So...being in an area without building codes is not utopia. There are a lot of factors besides regulatory oversight to consider. Be an informed consumer. Don't rush into anything until you do a lot of research.

No Building Codes??

2010-09-07T07:40:00.000-07:00

No building codes?

I have been asked about locations where there are no building codes in the US. If you read my profile, you probably know that I have more than passing knowledge about building codes, particularly the one that regulates residential construction.

The International Residential Code is a good code...if you feel that it is very important that your local government closely regulates building construction. If you are a proponent of natural "alternative" building methods, you may think that the building code does nothing but impede the achievement of your American dream. It would be my preference that regulators make full use of their obligations under the Alternates provisions in IRC Section R104.11. With better training and understanding of alternate construction methods, the code can be used in conjunction with strawbale, cob, container, earthship, cordwood, and a myriad of other unconventional methods. Unfortunately, the informed regulator is a rare commodity.

Still want a location without building codes? Here is your resource:

http://nobuildingcodes.com/

I am not necessarily an advocate of no building code whatsoever. I still believe that a more minimum standard applicable to any residential product can be produced with oversight more appropriate to areas with rural sensibilities. However, that document remains unwritten at this date. Still looking for a sponsor...hint, hint!

I also believe that a lot of the regulatory hurdles come from planning and zoning regulations, not building codes. These are designed to be exclusionary and are often insurmountable. The building code is not intended to be exclusionary (Section R104.11) and has versatility to keep it from being insurmountable (but may cost some money in the surmounting effort).

Finding property in an area without building codes does not give you license to build anything you want. More likely than not, you will find other regulations from other sources that will stop you dead in your tracks. More on that later.

Sustainable Building Code

2009-08-10T13:17:00.000-07:00

I have been negligent in keeping up with the blog due to the proliferation of life's demands. However, there comes a time when one must get back on the mission track. Whats was it, by the way? Oh... sustainable building and those darned building regulations.

My wife and I are back on track looking for retirement land. Our preference is to be in a location where we can build what we want without the encumbrances of excessive building regulation...or the excesses of building regulators. I note that periodical publications of proponents of alternative building construction have real estate ads stating, "no building codes". There is a reason for this endorsement. Most folks looking at "new" construction methods are simply fatigued by regulators who cannot dwell comfortably outside the norm.

Our current "area of preference" lies in the heart of Delta County, Colorado. This is one of 11 or so counties in the state with no adopted building code. It seems rather strange for me, an expert in the field of building regulation, to be seeking land in an area without regulation.

The more skilled I become in my craft, unfortunately the more frustrated I have become with SOME members of my profession. The fact that one can read a building code does not in itself make that person a competent building official. Blindly following the black and white letter of the code denies logic and the original code intent.

Many forget that International Residential Code Section R104.11 addressing alternate methods and materials is there for a very important and legitimate reason. It demands an enforcing official to assess and potentially approve methods of construction that are not prescriptively addressed in the code. It does NOT permit "no" as an answer. It makes the answer "maybe". Maybe the petitioner can provide adequate information to satisfy the burden of proof that the method proposed meets the intent of the code. This is not intended to an impossible task.

Increasingly, today's model building codes are becoming more urban-centric. The fact of the matter is that most of the folks doing code development come from big cities. They do a good job of representing their constituents and their associated expectations. They do NOT however, represent the needs of rural America. As the trend continues, rural communities are less likely to adopt these "restrictive and onerous" building regulations. Therefore, I have been advocating the creation of something entitled along the lines of Minimum Life Safety Standards for Developing Communities to fill the void between excess regulation and nothing at all.

Most rural areas that I am familiar with operate under the rules of self sufficiency. You are can do as you please as long as what you do doesn't adversely impact your neighbors. In rural areas, neighbors are far apart. More distance, less chance of one's action impacting another. Self sufficiency allows for less regulation. If you feel that you should be responsible for your environment and actions, then you don't need laws to tell you what to do.

In the city, it is hard not to be affected by a neighbor's actions due to close proximity. Therefore, more regulation of the neighbor's activities is warranted. If your suburban neighbor ignites his house while cooking 7 greasy T-Bone steaks on the outdoor BBQ, your house will likely have its plastic siding melted off also...if you are too close. Worse yet, your house will catch on fire and then in turn ignite somebody else's house.

The fire spread scenario was the historic basis for most US building codes. Communities would have a singular fire incident get out of hand, overwhelm the capabilities of the local fire authority, and subsequently burn an entire town down. This happened in Chicago in 1871 and Central City, Colorado in 1874. By 1875, both cities enacted new building codes intended to regulate construction such that fire could be confined to the building or building lot of origin. This was intended to protect the community as a whole and was never intended as an individual protective. Over time, that community protection basis of the building code has evolved to address individual protectives. This evolution comes, in my opinion, from the urban-centric mindset of the code development proponents.

And thus we have disparity. The communities of self sufficiency have chosen to have no regulation whatsoever. Meanwhile, the cities and suburbs continue to pile on the regulation. Pity the poor building inspector that thinks the code is gospel when encountering something like strawbale construction that is completely absent from the code. With so many regulations, a specific omission must be deliberate, right? Therefore, communities with strong emphasis of "build whatcha want" are not inclined to adopt a model building code. Therefore, no strawbale in the city, lots of it in the country...

I am told that everything is better in moderation. I believe that a little building regulation is a very good thing. On the other hand, I have seen that excess regulation can inhibit individual liberties, pursuit of happiness, and a better and much more sustainable existance for many Americans. Currently, communities have only one model residential building code to adopt and it leans toward the "heavy on regulation" side. It is time to write some alternate versions.

Most advocates of alternative construction tend to to be liberal (progressive) thinkers. They are the first to complain to me about the regulations that stop their ability to build their version of the "American dream". So why are these same folk promlogating current Federal policies that will interject more regulations in other areas of their lives? Time to step back and rethink the big picture, regardless of your political persuasion. Time to take back some of the responsibility and quit abrogating it to local, state, and federal enforcing officials. It is time to consider some moderation in building code regulations for locations that still value individual responsibility.

Biomass Energy Extraction Device

2008-02-10T08:18:00.001-08:00

What is a biomass energy extraction device?

It is device that extracts energy from dead biological material. In this case, I am talking about burning wood to create heat. It is a nice "green-wash" for a otherwise dirty topic.

Wood stoves have a bad reputation. They are noted for lots of smoke and particulate emissions that can result in a brown pale hanging over a town or city. However, wood is a great carbon sequestration device, is renewable and therefore sustainable, and can be burned very efficiently.

The problem is that most operators of wood stoves do poor job of burning wood. The design of most wood stoves promote poor combustion. Wood burns best when provided with lots of heat and oxygen. The fact is that most stoves are not provided with an outside air source (good oxygen) and need to be "choked" to inhibit excess heat production. All that leads to a dirty burn.

The key to a good stove is to provide for proper combustion and provide a place for excess heat to be stored. Masonry heaters do an excellent job of this. Unfortunately, masonry heaters are hard to manufacture and transport.

Lately I have been interested in Rocket Mass Heaters. Curious? Go here: http://www.rocketstoves.com/

Again, the problem with these is portability. However, if it can be scaled down to decrease the BTU heat release and provided with minimum thermal mass, it might provide an interesting alternative to conventional stoves.

I have been looking for a better heating solution for my passive solar office. There are some days that I need additional heat. Currently it comes from an electric resistance heater. Some say that is a clean source. Maybe locally...but not downwind from that coal fired electrical generation plant. So, I need an alternate and I am thinking wood. Stay tuned... I have an idea.

Economic Success?

2008-02-03T06:58:00.000-08:00

This is a little off-topic, but something that has a big influence in how we live and what makes us happy doing it.

By now I am sure that everyone has read that the economy is slowing and there is a possibility that recession is on the horizon....if it isn't already here now. Fortunately congress has a grand scheme that is billed to save the economy by giving us a tax "refund" to stimulate consumer spending. Terrific. Now each American will have $300-600 to spend at their whim on the consumable of their choice. Sounds like it's time for a trip to Walmart for a shopping spree of quality Chinese-made merchandise.

One might wonder about the sustainability of an economy...or the measurement of an economy...that relies on the increase of consumption. Are we truly better off when we have more stuff? Does stuff make us happy? Or does the stuff do nothing but complicate and eventually run our lives?

My wife and I own some commercial property that has rental storage units. It is amazing how much people are willing to pay to store things that they have no room for at home. Typical rent is $75 a month. That's $900 per year. Frequently the duration of rental runs two to three years. That's more than $2000, well in excess of the used market value of the stored contents. Yet people feel compelled to keep paying to maintain possession of their stuff. In the end, is the person with the most stuff really the winner?

It is not my intention to denigrate a person's need to have the things that they want. The issue is whether we REALLY need those things or are we being influenced to THINK that we need those things? What other reason would motivate people to take on large consumer debt that keeps them awake each night wondering if they will ever be able to pay it off. Having things makes us feel good and ensures that the Jones next door know it.

So what really constitutes economic success? In my opinion, it is knowing when you have enough. It is knowing that having more won't make your life that much better. The mere acquisition of items is not as empowering as knowing you have the capability to acquire them if you really truly absolutely needed them.

And why should we really care what the neighbors think? Does the outward manifestation of wealth really make us more powerful and therefore happier? It certainly isn't working for me any longer. I am beginning to think of the acquisition of things being analogous to the consumption of candy. I seems to satisfy a need at the time and there is that fleeting feeling of quick bliss as that sugar dissolves in my mouth. Unfortunately, it is hard to get rid of the extra weight caused by those hollow carbohydrates. It weighs me down and makes me slow and sluggish. A lot like having too many things. I just can't pack up and move on to that next big adventure with any speed and resolve. I have to drag my burden with me.

Hmmm. Wonder what I am going to do with my $600?? Maybe I need to purchase a health club membership and a couple of "for sale" ads in the local classifieds.

Follow-up: Due to poor performance of our previous investment advisor, my wife and I decided to move our retirements accounts to somebody else. Naturally everything had to be sold and repurchased causing capital gains to be accrued. Guess what? Put us over the combined, married income cap and NO MONEY FOR US! Sorry Wal-mart!

Child Safety in the Home - Who is responsible?

2007-11-26T13:30:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that the building code is intended to protect the homeowner and his/her family...right? Wrong. Building codes are intended to provide a greater measure of safety for the greater good of an entire community. They only protect an individual by default. They are not a quality assurance manual and they do not lessen the responsibility of the individual to ensure his/her own personal safety.

That said, occasionally individual protection for specific classes of individuals sometimes finds its way into a code. Recently the code was amended (2006 International Residential Code) to include provisions to "protect" children from falls from high windows. The change will require guards over the windows if the window sill is not placed at least 24 inches above the floor. This will apply to any window with an opening height more than 72 inches above the ground below. This was approved based on anecdotes of children falling through open windows. Many were seriously injured or even killed by these accidental falls. Now the building code will protect these children...or will it?

What typically happens under high windows? Furniture is placed underneath it. When a window is raised from 18 inches above the floor to 24 inches, the typical response is to place the bed under the window. Do children use their beds for sleeping? Sometimes. The other times it is used as a trampoline.

Did moving the window sill up to 24 inches provide for a safer condition in this home? Hardly. Does the building code REALLY protect your children? Think again.

Parents are still responsible for assessing the safety of their home when they have small children. Once junior is mobile, the first thing you do is plug up those electrical outlets to avoid electrocution. One of my earliest memories as a child was testing an outlet for functionality using a paper clip. I got to experience alternating current first hand and learn a lesson that I have never forgotten.

There are other things to consider. How about the things stored under the kitchen sink? Some cleaning chemicals are given fragrances that smell like peppermint candy and are enticing to children. How about the toilet seat? Many drownings result due to children falling into the open toilet and not having the ability to pull themselves back out. What about mommy's bottle of sleeping pills on the bathroom counter? What about daddy's loaded Beretta in the night stand? All of these constitute items that pose significant hazards to your children, yet will never be regulated by a building code. Each is your responsibility as a parent to identify and address.

So the moral of this story is never be complacent. Do not think for a minute that the building code will take care of your kids' safety. Look around your home and identify anything that could be a threat. Take advantage of the multitude of websites that provide child-safety tips. Take parenting responsibility seriously and don't ever trust a government official who tells you, " Don't worry, the code will protect you".

Straw Buyer

2007-11-16T08:43:00.000-08:00

My wife and I need to do a 1031 exchange. We have a commercial property that is hopefully closing in January. Capital gains taxes are pretty steep, so we plan to take advantage of the like-for-like exchange that the IRS permits. This is one more example of how government regulations can influence your life...but I digress.

A year or so ago we visited the Silver City area of New Mexico. It has a warmer, but temperate climate at 6000 feet above sea level. It is more rural than the Front Range of Colorado and hopefully has a much slower pace. It has a university, a hospital, and enough essential services to satisfy our basic needs. Other than some city crime issues, it looks like a decent place to retire.

It is also a hot zone for alternative construction. A lot of funky "granola vernacular" found in the popular press has it roots in this area. It sounds like a great place to build that strawbale home I have been thinking about for the past decade. I prefer to have precedents in my neighborhood first to help ease the transition.

So onto the internet I go to see what is available. It turns out to be my lucky day. I found a nice 16ac. parcel complete with 2 strawbale structures already in place. Price looks okay. Hmmm.

In reading the fine print, I see that there is power to the site, but I am not seeing power to the buildings. There are 3 wells, but no septic system. I am beginning to sense a pattern here.

It is pretty apparent that these structures were built without building permits. Therefore, no utility release by the building authority was made so the local electrical utility could connect power to the buildings. No septic system provided, so no bathroom sewer discharge. Probably no running water either. Probably no bathroom...or kitchen either. Seems to me that the residential codes have always required that a house have at least one bathroom, a kitchen sink, and hot and cold water at all of the fixtures. Buyer beware. Being a straw buyer isn't necessarily as easy as it appears.

Like it or not, insurance agencies are not completely comfortable insuring structures that are not conventional. Then add the fact that no expert endorsement (i.e. Certificate of Occupancy) is provided, it is VERY unlikely that they will underwrite the structure. I am starting to get cold feet.

It is very important to know what you are buying. It may look good, but there may be some underlying defects. A lot of alternative housing has been built in areas with minimal or no building code enforcement oversight. A lot of "granola architects" choose these areas to avoid regulatory hassles. Unfortunately, a lot of my building official colleagues are not too comfortable issuing permits for homes using construction techniques that are not prescriptively addressed by the adopted building code. They are difficult to convince, so better to build the project someplace where there is nobody that needs convincing...at least until the time one needs utility connections, insurance, or maybe even an appraisal for a new loan.

I always recommend building your alternative abode in a place that already has like construction. That usually means that somebody has already done the work of convincing the local officials to accept nontraditional methods. Once they get comfortable with a concept, they are more inclined to be permissive. But be certain to verify that the previous buildings were built with permits! The best way to that is to call the local city, town, county and determine if they have jurisdiction over the address in question. Then politely inquiry as to the process the applicant went through to obtain the permit. You will probably be able to get some sense of how receptive the department will be to your alternative request and what the process will look like.

If you want to be a trendsetter, you will need to do a little more work. I guarantee that you will not simply get a permit to build without some conversation. And you better have all of arguments prepared in advance. That will be the subject of another blog...or two...or three...or more. Promise.

Tom

Does your smoke alarm work in your house? If so, will you wake up when it goes off?

2007-11-13T14:01:00.000-08:00

Recently 7 university students were killed in a house fire in North Carolina. Media reports indicate that the smoke alarms were operational. Why did so many die in this tragedy when the most important household life-safety feature is working the way it was designed?

I just completed my tour of duty in Washington DC at the 2007 Solar Decathlon. This is a competition comprised of 20 university teams who build 800 square foot fully solar powered houses that are brought to the National Mall to compete against each other. I serve as the building official. During the final days of set-up, I conducted some early morning inspections to ensure, among other things, that the smoke alarms were working. Prior to coming to Washington DC, I had heard anecdotes that younger adults were not responding to the alarm signals made by typical household fire/smoke alarms. I had not seen any formal studies indicating an issue, so chose to conduct a little in situ testing.

University of Maryland - 6:30am

I arrived at the UMD house and found a number of students sleeping on the floor. Seeing my opportunity, I triggered the test button and started the alarm. Despite the screaming siren, nobody stirred! The photo to the left shows the aftermath. This woman didn't even twitch.

I might mention that these students had been working pretty long hours getting their houses assembled in time to meet some deadlines. Many had done one or more "all-nighters". They were all pretty tired. However, you would think that the sound of the alarm would at least cause some movement. It is now beginning to look like the anecdotes might have some validity.

New York Institute of Technology - 9:00am

Why buy Select Comfort when you can get bubble wrap for free? You probably have guessed it by now. This gentleman is sleeping soundly as I take his photo from some scaffolding as the smoke alarm blazes away in the background. He didn't wake up either.

So why aren't we responding to alarms the way we used to? I have a couple of theories. We have become so accustomed to loud noises and multi-tasking, we no longer hear everything we are supposed to hear. Just ask my wife.

If you can text on your cellphone while blasting hip hop on your car stereo in rush hour traffic, you are part of the new generation. Add that to sleep deprivation, prescription sleep aids, alcohol, alternative inebriates, and the like and you have makings for very sound sleep. So sound, you will sleep through any alarm and fire that ensues.

Fortunately residential fire deaths in America are on the decline. The biggest cited reason was the mandatory installation of residential smoke detectors for new construction starting in 1970's. Up until recently, there was no reason to question their efficacy. Now I wonder how many of the residual 2700 deaths per year are caused in households with working alarms and individuals who are not responding to them?

It appears that the North Carolina tragedy may be indicative of a rather disconcerting trend. Hopefully the individuals serving on NFPA 72, the fire alarm standards committee, will come up with some new sounding methods (voice commands) to ensure that people respond. Here is an interesting video showing the phenomenom for younger kids to give you some options.

In the meantime, if an alarms sounds in your house, make sure that everyone is awake and heading out of the door. Don't assume that just because you are awake, everyone else is also.

Extreme Home Makeover

2007-11-13T06:23:00.000-08:00

You may have watched ABC's Extreme Home Makeover. The premise is simple. First you find a deserving family with a beat up old house. Then send them on vacation for a week to some beautiful locale, far away from the old domicile. Then assemble a construction crew that demolishes the old house with great excitement and fanfare. Then the crew hurries to build a new home from foundation to roof with inspired interior appointments in a few short days before the family returns home. The new, large and oftentimes opulent replacement is unveiled for the family as hundreds of members of the community watch and applaud. Sound like a dream-come-true?

The families selected to receive these new homes are required to provide an application video showing their need and reasons they can't make the changes themselves. Their stories are compelling and there is no question that they deserve something much better than their previous surroundings. In most cases, the families have very limited financial resources. So what can be better than demolishing the old and replacing it with something big and new?

Sustainability. I don't necessarily mean that in the sense that demolishing the old home and sending it to the landfill is not sustainable. Nor am I concerned whether the new materials are derived from sustainable resources. Well...actually maybe I am concerned about both, but neither is the point of this discussion. What I am really concerned about is whether the financially limited family will be able to sustain this new monster house for more than one utility billing cycle!

Think about it. Even the most efficient house still has some heating and/or cooling costs. The bigger the house, the more volume that will be mechanically conditioned. Then there is on-going maintenance. The larger the house, the more there is to paint, caulk, fix, clean, etc. Is this really what these families need? Does giving one of these families something they probably can't afford to maintain will really help them in the long run?

It doesn't appear that the recipient is given much input on the overall design of the new house. I have never heard anyone ask if they would like to keep it of reasonable size or make it as efficient as possible. Fortunately I see that ABC is starting to incorporate energy efficient materials into the house construction. In some limited cases, they are using solar and other "site manufactured" energy sources to help with the monthly utility costs. Is this because the feel compelled to be a part of the green building movement from a politically correct standpoint? Regardless, this is certainly a step in the right direction for economic sustainability.

Now maybe they can start working on changing the "bigger is better" mindset and start creating imaginative, but moderately sized spaces designed for the long term. This would certainly provide a better solution for those of limited means trying to use their new home as the center of a newly improved lifestyle. These families typically already have some significant burdens they are forced to carry. It doesn't seem right to increase that load to the point that they are broken by it.

I have no objection to building large homes and to those who can afford buying and maintaining them. That is their business. I only object to those that think that the only good house is a huge house and that it is the only healthy environment for American families. Like it or not, TV is very influential. What is depicted is often considered a "normal" standard for everyone.

I can afford large, but choose to dwell in small. I don't want to spend my hard earned income paying the utility company or spending every weekend trying to maintain the house. There are more important things to do. I would hope that ABC would permit the same freedom to its Extreme Makeover recipients.

Photo: Washington State entry in the 2005 Solar Decathlon. 800sf of totally energy independent living. This could easily be doubled in size without increasing the amount of solar collection devices. Could this be the next model for Extreme Home Makeover? Why not buy one of the houses from the 2007 Decathlon? Why not partner with one of the teams in 2009?

TM