New constructions (for cold zone), need to be air tight and that certainly comes at a cost in time as it is work to apply all the layers, run the conduits and whatnot.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/16/marc-benioff-says-newer-sale...
Assessing "worker productivity" is hard for all but the most simple jobs, but the desire to do so, I reckon, is buried deep within each mind of the pointy-haired.
The unfortunate reality of the situation is that so-called "bullshit jobs" form the basis for the only system approximating UBI in the US, so movement in this space will further erode what remains of the American middle class…
… and AI will grind it down to the nub.
I don't need bar graphs or anything, but can you provide some recent examples you saw? I certainly don't remember seeing articles to that effect recently.
It would also triple the construction cost of the house. Reasons. But hey, $0 energy bill.
Most builders don't do any of that stuff, like at all. Just the bare minimum required. They aren't incentivized. Most consumers would - and do - opt for single pane windows over dual, and dual over triple, 'etc. Even when the windows would "pay for themselves" over their lifetime.
It's also difficult to know what's on the inside of built houses (which is why inspection is supposed to happy during construction, not after). Commercial buildings often have both plans and as-built drawings; but residential buildings don't, and when you get on-site and the plan doesn't match the house, you really don't know what's in the walls. Some sort of government driven new code compliance inspection for existing housing stock seems really expensive. Even public use buildings take a long time to get code compliance updates, such as retrofits on unreinforced masonry buildings in many places, and there's both more risk and more enforcement power for public use buildings.
The old house was up-to-code, and considered safe for habitation, when it was built. Your new house was not.
Very importantly, if you renovate an old house, regulations may require you to update the house to modern building code standards for plumbing, electricity, etc.
Old houses are held up to the new code when they are renovated, because updating old houses to the new code frequently requires rebuilding substantial portions of the house to comply with new requirements. It's not about "fuck everyone else." It's about recognizing that the extensive work that would be required to comply with substantially safer modern codes is best done when substantial construction work is already planned to be performed.
Commercial buildings are held to up to new codes whenever ownership, or tenancy, changes hands.
OK but if I build a new house to the old code then I also will need substantial work to rebuild it to bring it into compliance. So I could use the same logic I shouldn't have to. Safe enough for them, safe enough for me.
>No, houses are held up to the code that applied when they were built,
Again, that's the scam. I'll build my house to one code and then vote to make the code harsher for the next guy to up my property value. If it's impossible to build a new house as economically as mine, mine's now worth more than it would have been.
It's not reasonable to build with GFCI outlets in the bathrooms in 1956. It's not reasonable to build without them in 2023.
Most places have a very limited enforcement appetite for existing construction. If it was safe and current when built, it's fine enough. Exceptions include adding smoke and carbon monoxide detectors --- but they're not that expensive to buy or install; and sometimes you can't get a home insured if it had certain electrical panels with poor safety records, and knob and tube wiring is sometimes frowned upon (but really, it's not that bad if it hasn't been altered; just a lot of houses where they added too much load on the existing knob and tube and overloaded wiring is never good). That doesn't mean you should build that way today. Somethings that were standard aren't even available anymore; nobody makes orangeburg pipe since the 1970s, so you've got to use something better.
And that's part of the trickery involved here. People say "look that one guy died in that house so we need to require stricter code here." They're not noticing the freezing homeless people that died because housing become $X dollars more expensive and they lost the musical chairs game. Sure the homeless guy wasn't going to buy a brand new house, but through the substitution effect across a wide swath of society eventually down the chain it does filter down to everyone ultimately affecting their access to housing.
The ability for voters, already homed, to just change up the codes on everyone while not having their own homes subjected creates a cruel moral hazard and socially bifurcating effect. The guy that gets in early comes in and gets his, then says fuck you, you have to play by different rules.
I'm not saying the houses should be torn down. I'm saying any updates should put situation where homeowner voters are subject to their own medicine. I don't think they'll choose to tear down the houses. No they might decide after all "hey good enough for me, good enough for you."
As for "can't build with X thing they did/didn't have before." Well you can update the codes to allow both the old and new method for something. That would satisfy conditions for both standing and new construction without uniform enforcement causing old houses to be demolished.
They're not about protecting property values for existing homeowners, and that's a truly bizarre, nonsensical interpretation.
Building codes are about making new construction safer, because the cheapest time to make new buildings safer is when they are built. And we built them to the latest safety standards because the modern code reflects new dangers which may not have been relevant when older buildings were built.
If you really can't get that, then it's clear that your issues with building codes are more about ideology than anything to do with reasoned thought.
We as a society have strong reasons to provide a glide path towards reducing that moral hazard created by old entrants.
Forcing them to eat their own medicine would allow the youth to also have the chance to build a house, even if it's not perfectly safe, closer to the cost their parents had to spend. Rather than changing the game and screwing over new entrants while old entrants enjoy immunity to the same rules.
I've noticed that there has been mass hysteria in some California-centric websites that flood insurance must be provided by the Federal government in Florida, but not that earthquake insurance must be provided by the Federal government in California.
Botton line, the private sector doesn't handle this type of correlated risk well, and somehow picking on Florida when California does the same thing is pretty weird. We know there will be a big earthquake that will level a lot of property in California just we know there will be a big flood in Florida. Yet "entitled fucks" keep choosing to live in these states. Life goes on.
Earthquake insurance availability is mandated within the state. Why would we need a Federal mandate when we have an effective state mandate. It's not attractively priced, but Federal flood insurance often isn't attractively priced when they've updated maps recently either.
Anyways, you are confusing the issue of whether insurance is mandated with the fact that no private insurer will cover it, and so the risk is socialized and the only providers are government.
That's what people are complaining about -- that private insurers walked away from covering flood/earthquakes in regions prone to the same, and so the government has to step in to insure the correlated risk. This causes no end of outrage for Florida but is somehow just fine in California. And my only point was to point out this hypocrisy and argue that there are good reasons for government to cover correlated risks and that there is nothing wrong with either state or those who choose to build in either state. They can accept risk or they can purchase government insurance.
AFAIK, your residential insurance carrier is mandated to offer you Earthquake insurance. If there's some exception I'm not aware of, let me know.
Soft-story retrofits are a thing and should be expanded with long-term State loans
There are fewer places where it is more reckless to build housing than coastal California.
What happens when insurers won’t insure older properties? Those without insurance will make due until a catastrophic event or sell to someone for cash, and those with a mortgage will suffer exceedingly high premiums until the mortgage is paid off and they can go without insurance (or they’re of sufficient means they can afford the premiums, currently running roughly $4k-$12k/annually).
I'd be surprised if Maine, Vermont, New York and the other North-Eastern states don't have something similar.
This winter has been the exception.
It'd be interesting to see these stats broken out by trade, with an appropriate x axis.
I'd think a chunk of this is due to safety expectations as well. It's a lot easier to walk around a roof if you aren't concerned with fall protection.
They do make the house look bigger (on the outside) than a same-square-footage house with a more traditional floor plan, though, so... I guess that makes it worth it, to someone?
What does cost time and money is getting permits, planning approval, inspection, etc. Not that those are unimportant, but any delays are certainly not on the construction crew's behalf.
For example, cars today are orders of magnitude more complicated than 50 years ago, but due to more efficient manufacturing technology, the auto industry has far higher productivity per employee than it did 50 years ago.
The weak link in creating ever more complex homes, with ever more stringent building codes, at faster rates, is to remove the "humans with nail guns and drills" from the construction process.
At some point, us meat sacks are the weak link in optimizing an industry. Humans can only go so fast. That's why (as you've said) we've seen massive gains in productivity for other manufacturing industries.
Since the parent company dissolved them in '08, I haven't seen any of the other subsidiaries using the same techniques or scheduling, and it's always rather surprised me. They invested literally 10s of millions of dollars into us figuring out how to make it all work, then trashed the knowledge.
There was a recent HN post on a shortage of electricians that got me to thinking why studs, which already come pre-cut to exactly 92 5/8", don't also come pre-drilled for wiring at outlet and switch height (at least I've never seen that in wood studs).
For American-style suburban homes, it's most efficient to build most of the home on site, and only manufacture off-site a handful items like roof trusses. People might not realize this, but a small crew can frame several houses in a single (very, very long) day.
Are they doing anything different than what was available in a Sears catalog 50 years ago?
That said, the products being used have improved a lot. Things like PEX tubing for plumbing (instead of copper) and glue on walls for showers (over doing tile work), make some aspects go a lot faster.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnorhjQR4zJkT7AVNhu395Q/vid...
Friendly, super knowledgable, takes the fear out of the DIY.
For electrical, I do a lot myself, but when it came to running a 50amp line + breaker panel inside my place (which also required outdoor ladder work) to replace the steel conduit indoors, I just hired a professional even though it was very expensive.
^ I'm knowledgeable enough to do my own wiring and plumbing, but pay for licensed/bonded contractors instead. I sleep better at night and my insurance company probably does as well.
As far as insurance companies... I bought an old place... I'm finding all sorts of stuff that isn't up to code (hidden electrical boxes, in the floor!, with wire nuts and not even twisted together wire and not even grounded properly)... I'm bringing it up to code, with modern products... in a court of law, it is going to be hard for them to argue against me.
I've gone with ss crimps instead of copper rings too. Mostly cause I live near the ocean and the ss crimps just seem easier to use.
200' of blue/red sharkbite brand pex b tubing is only about $70 on amazon right now, amazing.
But yes, in general I'm always for people becoming familiar with tools and DIY.
[EDIT] Actually, my parents' very-new house has that... but because it's all-PEX, so it's super-easy to install it that way, with a central panel full of shut-offs for various parts.
FWIW a SharkBite valve or NPT adapter would seem to be a handier thing to have around than a pure cap. For one, you can attach a valve without shutting the water off.
Also I don't know what you mean about sewage contamination? Sewage contamination of potable water lines would indicate a hugely weird problem.
AFAIK backflow preventers (fancy check valves), which prevent water in the house from going back into the municipal distribution, are standard on new installs. But I think that requirement is recent as of the past few decades, so most houses aren't going to have them.
Yes, I agree isolation valves are good. But as far as what code requires? It seems that if isolation valves aren't required on branches, then the only isolation valve that is required is the main house valve that can isolate it from the street water main.
So I can't figure out what else you think would have been required to pass inspection in the comment you originally responded to.
Haha...should is doing a lot of work here. Shut off valves like you mention are great, but even newer houses often don't have them.
PEX is very very not-great. It's constantly leeching carcinogens and endocrine disruptors into your sitting water. Your modern home's recirculation system is making that even worse, cycling hot water and concentrating leeched petrochemical products in your hot water line. Some of them even boil before water which means they'll make it through a distiller.
Plumbers like it because it's easy/saves them time, and they'll love charging you big $$$ to rip it out in 20 years when it's banned.
We don't drink or cook with the hot water, but in theory if the plumbing was PEX we could.
Post-Flint, lead is the new asbestos. Because the standard is zero tolerance, there’s alot of noise on the topic.
PEX is great, but I’d personally always go for cooper if I could afford it. We tend to learn new things about plastic and risks over time.
In 1996, they banned plumbing that is not "lead free" from being sold.
In 2011, the "lead free" definition was strengthened to a weighted average of 0.25%.
Another factor, in concrete slab construction, is that we want drain lines to be as short as possible, because even though it's possible to get those correct before the pour it doesn't always happen. Concentrating fixtures in one corner of the house tends to force supply lines into exterior walls.
Maybe I should hire better plumbers, and maybe I should live where it doesn't get cold, but until then maybe I should just use PEX.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/The-Plumber-s-Choice-8-in-x-3-4-...
Apparently it also depends on the ph of the water...
I would argue that a good plumber would recommend PEX over piping a house in Type M.
>After the tenth pin hole leak and lots of shark bite fixes, I am not fond of copper.
It's my understanding that the vast majority of pinhole copper leaks are caused by poor solder jobs. Solder gets inside the pipe and causes a vortex that can eat through the copper.
The solution to this is to use solderless copper ProPress fittings for everything. Not only is this much more clean and faster to install, but the inside of the pipe is flush/smooth with the fitting.
Almost everything I drink out of is lined with plastic. Milk or juice containers, water bottles, and most reusable on the go cups are made of plastics or have a plastic liner.
[1] https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere...
But long-term plastics in tubing are exposed continuously to heat (hot water) and will start falling apart and leech chemicals, because they are exposed over long-term
~$800usd vs. tile+labor.
Definitely a product that is ripe for disruption.
There aren't even many manufacturers.
These two statements may be related. It’s not worth deploying capital to compete if the additional competition drives profits margins to zero. Better to deploy that capital somewhere it gets better expected returns.
This anti-competitive logic seems very widespread these days with such centralized global supply chains and consolidated retail chains.
Not a lot of room for me to deploy a small amount of capital to create a small-medium sized manufacturing facility of this stuff to chip away at 10-50% of the demand around the edges of the marginal profits. Mainly because it would be difficult to get my products into Home Depot and Lowe’s if I can’t supply their whole national chain.
And that’s assuming Home Depot and Lowe’s haven’t agreed to any exclusivity with the current manufacturers which I’d need private equity money to beat.
$800+ for 3 sheets of plastic, and that is it, is absurd. They don't even interlock or have trim for the corners... example...
https://www.homedepot.com/p/WOODBRIDGE-Haydon-32-in-x-60-in-...
Of course adding those items would cost even more, so it is a bit of a race to zero. That said, if you can get a following by homebuilders and into every single new housing project, it might be worth it. I'm sure having some sort of inside track advantage there would be necessary too. None of which I personally have, but as an end user of this stuff, I'd be more than happy to support and provide feedback on.
I'd love to see something similar done for electric wiring. I'm picturing something like an electrical box that you can directly connect Romex that's been stripped with a special tool, and then a circuit-breaker-style snap-in for the actual receptacle. The parts/tools would cost more but might dramatically speed up the installation.
*relatively expensive, especially in the early days.
I did start using wago's though... those are handy for sure.
PEX is terrible, pretty much every commercial brand has been shown to leech petrochemicals into your water. This varies a lot based on your municipal water supply's characteristics. Unfortunately cleaner water leeches more.
PEX saves megabuilders $$$ and plumbers time, but it's not good for you.
Yeah pretty much this I suspect. The paper doesn't propose that more regulations and complex code is why it's harder to build things today. And that's not a bad thing - code is a great thing since it sets a standard.
Houses from 100 years ago, a carpenter could just make game time decisions regarding things that are highly scrutinized today like staircase run/rise, doorway height, etc. If you gut an old house it's amazing how simple they are.
The old saying "they don't build them like they used to" applies here. We don't because we can't and when they did they overbuilt them because they were simple and it wasn't documented what the build had to be.
When the frame is put up it is typically inspected to ensure it meets code and that correct fasteners and brackets are used. Until the inspection is done you don't see roofing and electrical finished up. Then you have the electrical and plumbing on top the foundation. And when that is in its inspected again. Also heating cooling piping. Then fiber insulation is put in walls, then you have your drywall installed. Then you have the different finish teams come in. Finish plumbing, cabinetry, tiling, floors. And then another round of builder inspection. Then you get to the city and bank inspections.
Any one of the inspections or the specilaty teams running slow can push the whole project back. If your AC ducts aren't in you can't drywall for example.
And this is a very good thing indeed. One thing I really love about the system here is we have detailed code and objective inspections based on it. Creates safe structures that can be planned and priced and immune to bribery.
[1] https://fee.org/articles/new-homes-today-have-twice-the-squa...
What do you mean by this?
That said, at least you didn't call it sheeting, like many do.
A great example being fire walls and mandatory self-latching doors between garages and living spaces - definitely a logical thing (cars and their gas are flammable, so let's isolate them from the house).
When you look at the data[0], cars don't really catch on fire in garages (fires happen in garages, but usually because of intentionally set fires getting out of control)
So now, in the midst of a housing affordability crisis (or a the end of a great run for real estate, depending on your outlook), we have construction workers using special fire-resistant drywall (that must be cut specially and cannot have holes in it), placing solid steel doors, and generally spending a lot of hours and materials building spaces that people don't even live in.
[0] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v14i12.pd...
Can’t have apartment buildings reading hands for $100mn when a new one costs $20mn (or have the land sell for $80mn when you only allow 2 stories to be built on it).
[0] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v21i2.pdf
[1] https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v21i6.pdf
The root cause is that homes are in part appraised (for mortgage purposes) on hypothetical rebuild costs, so this is a way to make those rebuild costs higher (and justify why you’re paying $500k for something that cost $40k in 1980).
If it weren’t car garages, it would be kitchens.
Cars are a separate problem, as evidenced by the extreme housing prices in some of America’s least car reliant cities (NYC, SF, Boston, DC, etc.).
Average house size has probably doubled in the last 50 years.
Nail guns can't make up for building code and higher finish work demands. It's not uncommon to see 6 or 7 layers in sheathing today.