Sustainable Building Code

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

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

TM

Extreme Home Makeover

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