Talk:Building code

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)

How about the building code of England and Wales which specifically says it is not the law amnd that variation from the code is permitted (nay encouraged) even though the national guidance covering those countries? Glenn UK (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yes, the article should be merged together. 206.170.104.63 (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2009 (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. ^Blank ^Verse 10:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most jurisdictions who adapt standard codes also adopt amendments to those codes. (Tycobb9999 (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Should there be some discussion regarding the adaption of building codes to local conditions" The appendix of the National Building Code of Canada code book contains a list of 600 cities/towns and lists the minimum snow load, seismic event conditions, temperature, and rain loads for each of these cities, and also details methods of extrapolation to determine minimum design requirements for buildings outside of the list of 600 cities. In American code books, there is a very similar system. there are regional maps published in each code that tell you what to design to as far as earthquakes, wind speed, foundational permafrost, soil type and many others. Local ordinances, however, are free to publish additional code on top of preexisting code. Their code modifications do not supersede most other codes, and may not contradict preexisting code. -User:EaglePoint

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]

I think the addition of opinions and conjecture is counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. Further, there is no verification that building codes are a "major cause of homelessness", nor that window locking prescriptives are "insane". The article as written is biased enough without adding this drivel. (Tycobb9999 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.211.240 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible in "Building Code" article:

Does it strike anyone else as absurd that the Bible is quoted in this article? I have nothing against the Bible, but it is an irrelevant source in this discussion. I try to take Wikipedia seriously (and it does have some excellent content) but the inclusion of this reference in this context is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.226.86 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, within the historical section, it is not absurd. This quote is part of the Mosaic Law, binding to the Israelites, therefore it is an early example of building code. -- P199 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]