|
Home > Archive > Building and Construction > November 2006 > Public Service Announcement re: Holmes on Homes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Public Service Announcement re: Holmes on Homes
|
|
| RicodJour 2006-11-04, 5:25 pm |
| You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.
"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.
If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.
R
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
> enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
> of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
> plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
> someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
> that are inane.
>
> "We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
> medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
> It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
> is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
> inexcusable.
>
> If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
> improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
> they're talking about.
Sometimes, but even that is slipping it seems.
Caught a few mins of TOH late last night with that new guy and I had to turn
the channel.
It was embarrassing and this comes from a person that has watched that show
since the beginning.
Yes, he was a dick, but I'll take Vila over the noobs 8 days out of 7.
Ya know, with all the inherent *problems* that occur in construction, and
even more so with remodeling, it takes a special kind of idiot to do a TV
show about such things. Frankly, most people (homeowners) don't want to know
about such things and would be completely mortified to know the real story
behing their own remodeling projects. I couldn't imagine putting myself in
the position of explaining unforeseeable negative circumstances on TV in
front of gazillions of people.
Those that can, do. And those that can't, well if there are no teaching
positions available, they start a new TV show.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2006-11-05, 3:25 am |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
> "We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
> medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
> It is the minimum acceptable construction.
Is he running for the Senate? Sounds like a bonehead political speech.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 3:25 am |
| Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
> Is he running for the Senate? Sounds like a bonehead political speech.
When he said it, I shook my head and couldn't believe I heard it.
Later in the show he repeated it. There are so many other stupid
things he says that it's hard to believe he actually ever worked in
construction. If you ever watch the show you'll notice a young guy who
works with him that actually does the work and apparently is the one
with the building smarts. Holmes is simply beefcake. He was hired
because he comes across as being morally outraged by the shoddy
building practices he's correcting and prances around wearing overalls
without a shirt. Give me Tommy Silva any day of the week. He's no
model, but he knows his stuff.
R
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-11-05, 9:25 am |
|
"RicodJour"
> You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
> enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
> of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
> plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
> someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
> that are inane.
>
> "We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
> medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
> It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
> is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
> inexcusable.
Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering a
house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of it,
when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the same
"cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.
> If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
> improvement, stick with This Old
> House. They actually know what they're talking about.
They're still on?
| |
| Matt Whiting 2006-11-05, 9:25 am |
| Warm Worm wrote:
>
> "RicodJour"
>
>
>
> Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering
> a house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
> I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
> it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
> same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.
No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.
Matt
| |
| roger61611@yahoo.com 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
| I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:
Smug pretty-boy wanker drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.
Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.
Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.
The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.
Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.
| |
|
|
<roger61611@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162740592.266768.90460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
> block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
> builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
> built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
>
> I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:
>
> Smug pretty-boy wanker drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
> Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
> surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
> room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
> to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
> the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
> manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
> And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
> sponsor's product.
>
> Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
> back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
> the Space Station.
>
> Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.
>
> The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
> a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
> hard stuff in the US.
>
> Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
> better.
>
When Bob Vila was on TOH he built a penthouse on his town house in the Back
Bay of Boston even though it was not zoned for penthouses and was an
historic district. I also heard that he did not pull a permit. When his
neighbors brought him to court he told the judge "But I'm Bob Vila". The
judge replied that he was the judge and made him remove it. He's no better
than any other TV face, mostly bullshit.
EDS
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
|
<roger61611@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162740592.266768.90460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
> block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
> builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
> built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
|
Matt Whiting wrote:
> No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
> needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.
Depends on what you mean by over-engineering.
As an example, (from experience), the electronics
systems in homes can become increasingly
integrated, with one sub-system passing info to
another etc. and a temperature sensor at some
point activates a fan somewhere else, fine in
theory, but is it necessary for such fine control.
Here's the problem, something like lightning hits
the system and the house goes chaotic.
OTOH, isolated robust systems are simpler.
Ken
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
| roger61611@yahoo.com wrote:
> I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
> block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
> builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
> built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
There's no doubt the original contractor messed up. He undersized the
block, didn't waterproof adequately, and didn't install a suitable
drainage system. Of course it failed.
Holmes, building to "maximum code", used 12" block and dur-o-wal wire
reinforcement on every other course. Definitely an improvement, but is
that "maximum code"? Is it even the preferred construction? I don't
think so. He could have gone with a reinforced concrete wall that
wouldn't have required the parging on both sides and would have been
far stronger. But that wouldn't have fit in with the TV filming
schedule. If he was set on using concrete block, he should have used
bond beam block and used some rebar - that would have been far stronger
as well and essentially the same price.
Did you notice his little kids' grin about the way the block
interlocked in the corner? He'd never seen it before. WTF? This guy
is supposed to be Joe Construction. There are many concrete block
shapes other than 8x8x16, but this seems to be news to him.
> I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:
>
> Smug pretty-boy wanker drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
> Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
> surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
> room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
> to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
> the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
> manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
> And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
> sponsor's product.
Sponsored television and product placement...in America?! There oughta
be a law. ;)
> Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
> back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
> the Space Station.
There are some areas of construction where I certainly look to the past
for direction. HVAC isn't one of them.
> Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.
Would it be preferable if he earned less or came from another state?
How does either one of those affect the content of the show?
> The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
> a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
> hard stuff in the US.
Don't look to television to correct immigration problems. Roger Cook
is enthusiastic about what he does. He obviously loves his work.
That's exactly the type of person you should be looking to hire.
> Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
> better.
Bob Vila didn't know how to replace a faucet. He now knows as much
about replacing a faucet as someone watching the show. He's not
exactly a hands-on guy. He was trained as an architectural historian.
In the early shows he was always pointing out the architectural details
and using the correct names. That's admirable and nearly unheard of
even in architectural circles. But he's a TV host and not a
construction expert. If you like the guy better, that's
understandable, I prefer him over Holmes, too.
R
| |
| Karyudo 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
| On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:23:59 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net>
wrote:
>
><roger61611@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1162740592.266768.90460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.
Mike Holmes is on TV. He is on TV in part because he knows how to
entertain people. Part of how he entertains people is by taking a
boring topic like the building code, and adding a little hyperbole and
rhetoric.
For Mike Holmes to talk about "maximum code" is pure bombast, and one
of the reasons the show is entertaining. It is a *TV show*, not a
training video. It is *supposed* to be *entertaining*, even at the
expense of pedantic, stultifying accuracy.
I have no doubt that Mike Holmes knows there is only one building
code. I am also quite sure that he knows the code is no guarantee of
quality; it is a bare-minimum standard laid out to avoid disaster.
It's pretty clear from the show that there's nothing bare-minimum
about what Mike Holmes likes to do -- so if the code says 10", Holmes
will go 12" to get the benefit of the extra material, be it a cinder
block, or joist, or whatever.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to use a bigger item
than code. That can still rightly be called "engineering". If you do a
calculation and the minimum thickness of a house-building member is
0.196", no engineer in the world will advocate planing something down
to meet that. You'd use 1/4", minimum. Maybe more, if it matches an
even more common standard, or gives some other benefit, like ease of
handling or installation -- or even so it "looks right".
"Over-engineering" just means choosing a higher factor of safety, or a
lower deflection, or a higher R-value, or what-have-you. The
engineering part comes in being able to figure out what the minimum
is, and what the benefits are in your choices beyond that.
The building code defines what the minimum safe values are; it is up
to an individual's judgement how much better to build something.
Holmes usually goes a little overboard in this department, but it's
pretty clear does good work that he takes pride in, and I'll bet he
has almost zero callbacks.
| |
| Tom The Great 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
| On 4 Nov 2006 13:41:52 -0800, "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com>
wrote:
>You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
>enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
>of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
>plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
>someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
>that are inane.
>
>"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
>medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
>It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
>is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
>inexcusable.
>
>If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
>improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
>they're talking about.
>
>R
Got to admit althought HOH is not educational, it's entertaining. How
many times can he bash everyone for not having common sense, yet stand
there squinting bashing concrete with a maul, cutting wood over his
head, all without any safety glasses. Put on some freeking glasses,
where is your common sense. 
Just an observation....
tom @ www.FindMeShelter.com
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 1:25 pm |
| Tom The Great wrote:
>
> Got to admit althought HOH is not educational, it's entertaining. How
> many times can he bash everyone for not having common sense, yet stand
> there squinting bashing concrete with a maul, cutting wood over his
> head, all without any safety glasses. Put on some freeking glasses,
> where is your common sense.
You mean like cutting a hollow in a tree stump to make a planter,
bare-armed but wearing gauntlet gloves? I'm sure that of all the body
parts that could get damaged, and the clothing to protect them, wrists
are low on the list and gauntlet gloves useless.
There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all pissed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.
At least he's consistent. He picks his target and sticks to it.
R
| |
|
|
"Karyudo" <karyudo_usenet@yahoo.com.remove.me> wrote in
message
>
> I have no doubt that Mike Holmes knows there is only one
> building code.
Only one? No kidding. Every little jerk water suburb around here
has a slightly different code. Makes 'em feel important.
| |
|
| "Matt Whiting"> wrote
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
> needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.
Explain that term *needs to be*.
| |
|
| LOL
<roger61611@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162740592.266768.90460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
> block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
> builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
> built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
>
> I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:
>
> Smug pretty-boy wanker drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
> Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
> surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
> room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
> to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
> the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
> manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
> And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
> sponsor's product.
>
> Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
> back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
> the Space Station.
>
> Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.
>
> The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
> a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
> hard stuff in the US.
>
> Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
> better.
>
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 5:25 pm |
| > "Matt Whiting"> wrote[color=darkred]
If two engineers use their best professional judgement, and one decides
that a higher factor of safety is warranted, does that mean he's not
engineering, not an engineer, not as concerned with the extra money
involved, or simply doesn't fit into your incredibly narrow definition?
R
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-11-05, 5:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162703303.536165.127830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> When he said it, I shook my head and couldn't believe I heard it.
> Later in the show he repeated it. There are so many other stupid
> things he says that it's hard to believe he actually ever worked in
> construction. If you ever watch the show you'll notice a young guy who
> works with him that actually does the work and apparently is the one
> with the building smarts. Holmes is simply beefcake. He was hired
> because he comes across as being morally outraged by the shoddy
> building practices he's correcting and prances around wearing overalls
> without a shirt.
Such is the nature of TV land
> Give me Tommy Silva any day of the week. He's no
> model, but he knows his stuff.
Would he come off as sort of Ben Stein? :~)
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 5:25 pm |
| Matt Barrow wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Would he come off as sort of Ben Stein? :~)
Excellent! I could imagine all of his sarcastic, dry humor applied to
construction. That would be fun viewing.
R
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-11-05, 5:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162676512.793108.203590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
> enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
> of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
> plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
> someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
> that are inane.
>
> "We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
> medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
> It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
> is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
> inexcusable.
I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
couch potato audience grasp the difference?
| |
| Al Bundy 2006-11-05, 5:25 pm |
| roger61611@yahoo.com wrote in news:1162740592.266768.90460
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
> block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
> builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
> built on the show will still be there after the world ends.
>
> I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:
>
> Smug pretty-boy wanker drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
> Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
> surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
> room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
> to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
> the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
> manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
> And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
> sponsor's product.
>
> Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
> back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
> the Space Station.
>
> Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.
>
> The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
> a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
> hard stuff in the US.
>
> Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
> better.
>
Bob Vila was and arrogant, rude, interrupting, self-serving incompetent
Sears Whore.
I hear from this group that he now does HSN. Since all the shopping
channels are deleted on my set, all I can say now is he is a fat-XXX HSN
Whore.
p.s. Bet I'd do it too for the wad he brings in.
p.p.s. My other favorite is that dome head jackass sidekick of
Letterman's.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-05, 8:25 pm |
|
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162676512.793108.203590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
> couch potato audience grasp the difference?
Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?
I'm sure many people simply parrot what they heard on the show when
trying to sound knowledgeable. Which is unfortunate because anyone
saying "I want you to build it to medium or even better maximum code"
is automatically pegged as clueless by a contractor. Kind of
self-defeating.
R
| |
| Tony M 2006-11-05, 8:25 pm |
| On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:28:03 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
wrote:
>Warm Worm wrote:
>
>
>No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
>needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.
>
>
>Matt
What would you thing of an engineer who designs a gas engine in such a
way that the air intake and exhaust flow through the same hose?
Many people seem to find billions of examples of such incompetent
design all around them. THAT is scary.
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?
Excellent point.
Primetime TV is the perfect vehicle for educating the masses on the issues
pertaining to the most expensive thing they'll ever be involved with.
Just about everything I've seen though has been superficial silliness with
almost zero educational value.
One of the most difficult things I've had to deal with for the past 20+
years is the awkwardness of trying to explain to clients the horribly
convoluted nightmare of getting a building permit and how codes play into
the whole thing. Its not a thing that can be easily explained to novices in
a paragraph or two without putting big blackmarks all over your own
credibility.
I need to get my head examined, expecting TV shows to be honest, factual and
educational........I mean, that sounds like work and what couch blob wants
more work after slaving for what, 2 or 3 hours each day? heh.
| |
|
| I have watched every show he has made and have caught him on a number of
items but I don't hold it against him, I am sure he could find fault with
me. He has to do so many TV shows per year and the pressure is to try to say
the same thing in a different way each show. He also seems to enjoy is
little rants against bad contractors.
That particular show where he built a retaining wall was as most of them,
filmed in Toronto. He got caught by a building inspector and hauled into
court because the wall was built on city property without a permit. They
eventually allowed it to stay, because the neighbours had done the same all
down the street and the wall replaced one in the same location. However this
made for news in the press and TV reporters.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote in message
news:zeo3h.5320$B31.3484@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <roger61611@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162740592.266768.90460@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.
>
| |
| Matt Whiting 2006-11-05, 8:25 pm |
| Tony M wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:28:03 GMT, Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What would you thing of an engineer who designs a gas engine in such a
> way that the air intake and exhaust flow through the same hose?
>
> Many people seem to find billions of examples of such incompetent
> design all around them. THAT is scary.
What has that to do with this discussion?
Matt
| |
| Matt Whiting 2006-11-05, 8:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "Matt Whiting"> wrote
>
>
>
> Explain that term *needs to be*.
The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is
making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that
is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are
considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?
Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.
Matt
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-11-05, 8:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> One of the most difficult things I've had to deal with for the past 20+
> years is the awkwardness of trying to explain to clients the horribly
> convoluted nightmare of getting a building permit and how codes play into
> the whole thing. Its not a thing that can be easily explained to novices in
> a paragraph or two without putting big blackmarks all over your own
> credibility.
Speaking of nightmares... Check out this Wired story:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/m...?tw=wn_index_5.
Isn't this from your old stomping grounds? What got me was this:
<quote>
The most prominent example, Carroll said, occurred this summer with The
News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida. In May, readers from the nearby
community of Cape Coral began calling the paper, complaining about the
high prices -- as much as $28,000 in some cases -- being charged to
connect newly constructed homes to water and sewer lines.
....
Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired
engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets,
and an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of
bid-rigging.
"We had people from all over the world helping us," said Marymont. For
six weeks the News-Press generated more traffic to its website than
"ever before, excepting hurricanes." In the end, the city cut the
utility fees by more than 30 percent, one official resigned, and the
fees have become the driving issue in an upcoming city council special
election.
</quote>
Doesn't surprise me one bit...
(and, to add to another thread...those who did the bid-rigging would be
the "evil people")
| |
|
| "Matt Whiting"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
> given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
> bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these conditions,
> but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is making
> something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that is a waste
> of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are considerations in
> addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?
>
> Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
> engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.
Building codes again.
<sigh>
I wonder if someday professionals will no longer be able to function without
gov't guidance?
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> Speaking of nightmares... Check out this Wired story:
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/m...?tw=wn_index_5.
> Isn't this from your old stomping grounds? What got me was this:
>
> <quote>
> The most prominent example, Carroll said, occurred this summer with The
> News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida. In May, readers from the nearby
> community of Cape Coral began calling the paper, complaining about the
> high prices -- as much as $28,000 in some cases -- being charged to
> connect newly constructed homes to water and sewer lines.
> ...
> Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired
> engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets, and
> an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of bid-rigging.
>
> "We had people from all over the world helping us," said Marymont. For six
> weeks the News-Press generated more traffic to its website than "ever
> before, excepting hurricanes." In the end, the city cut the utility fees
> by more than 30 percent, one official resigned, and the fees have become
> the driving issue in an upcoming city council special election.
> </quote>
>
> Doesn't surprise me one bit...
>
> (and, to add to another thread...those who did the bid-rigging would be
> the "evil people")
That just went down a few months ago in the paper and I was raking
politicians over the coals in the online forums to the point that I got
banned.
That sewer and water deal has been in the process for about 8 years now and
though it didn't effect us when we were there it did effect my brother.
His house was built in 2001 and he had a septic and well and was happy with
it.
So the city spent 3 years ripping up his street, driveway and yard and then
forced him to pay $22k to connect to the stuff.
They also forced him to cap his well and remove or crush his septic tank.
He had already paid $6500 for the well and septic in 2001.
There are thousands of vacant lots all over Cape Coral that people purchased
long ago for hundreds or maybe a few thousand dollars and the city is
considering putting in the water-sewer lines and then assessing the owners
for the full $22k. What this will do is force many people to surrender their
lots. Those lots are currently selling for $120k and the market is
completely saturated there right now, hardly anything is selling. The city
wants the land for schools.
Last, guess who the contractor has been on this fiasco?
A subsidiary of Haliburton.......MW something or other.
| |
| Matt Barrow 2006-11-05, 9:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1162770679.620378.219250@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?
Yes...unless ignorance is truly "bliss".
> I'm sure many people simply parrot what they heard on the show when
> trying to sound knowledgeable. Which is unfortunate because anyone
> saying "I want you to build it to medium or even better maximum code"
> is automatically pegged as clueless by a contractor. Kind of
> self-defeating.
So it goes with our public schools that pretend knowledge about history,
science, economics...
For example, I've seen teenagers get hysterical with Thomas Sowell, Walter
XXXXXXXX, etc.
| |
|
| "Matt Barrow"> wrote
> For example, I've seen teenagers get hysterical with Thomas Sowell, Walter
> XXXXXXXX, etc.
Read both those guys for years over at the Townhall Meetings but for the
past coupla years I just wanna strangle both of them.
| |
| Matt Whiting 2006-11-06, 9:25 am |
| Don wrote:
> "Matt Whiting"> wrote
>
>
>
> Building codes again.
> <sigh>
> I wonder if someday professionals will no longer be able to function without
> gov't guidance?
>
>
Most building codes aren't developed by the government. They are
adopted as law by the government and enforced by the government, but
they are not usually developed by the government.
Matt
| |
|
| "Matt Whiting"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> Most building codes aren't developed by the government. They are adopted
> as law by the government and enforced by the government, but they are not
> usually developed by the government.
Well maybe thats the case in PA where you're at but in SW FL where they have
the toughest codes in the country, and the most convoluted and
contradictory, they are most definately created by the gov't. Codes simply
define a threshold that allow the cheapest builders to bring their products
to market. I have no use for them.
| |
| Tom The Great 2006-11-06, 1:25 pm |
| On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:25:36 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:
>"Matt Whiting"> wrote
>
>Well maybe thats the case in PA where you're at but in SW FL where they have
>the toughest codes in the country, and the most convoluted and
>contradictory, they are most definately created by the gov't. Codes simply
>define a threshold that allow the cheapest builders to bring their products
>to market. I have no use for them.
>
Well speaking from being a PA'er, I'm curious. Our codes come from
sources like the IBC [for the IRC] and NEC. In FL are there actual
code writers on the payroll of the taxpayers?
later,
tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com
| |
|
|
"Tom The Great" <Post@here.com> wrote in message
news:1ppuk25mekgg27d9ledhu0c71qph0igv83@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:25:36 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well speaking from being a PA'er, I'm curious. Our codes come from
> sources like the IBC [for the IRC] and NEC. In FL are there actual
> code writers on the payroll of the taxpayers?
>
> later,
>
> tom @ www.IRantAndRave.com
The SW FL code is a mixture of various things and it changes (upgrades)
itself about every 2 years, depending on the hurricane activity.
The homes I design have to withstand a minimal 130 mph wind velocity. We're
talking 4 story stick homes around 4,000 sf or more, on barrier islands.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-06, 5:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
>
> The SW FL code is a mixture of various things and it changes (upgrades)
> itself about every 2 years, depending on the hurricane activity.
> The homes I design have to withstand a minimal 130 mph wind velocity. We're
> talking 4 story stick homes around 4,000 sf or more, on barrier islands.
AKA deathtrap dwelling, suicide shanty, now you see it now you don't
domicile, roofless residence, hangman's hangout, home is where the reef
is, etc. ;)
R
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:ein9ka0286k@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Matt Whiting"> wrote
>
> Well maybe thats the case in PA where you're at but in SW FL where they
> have the toughest codes in the country, and the most convoluted and
> contradictory, they are most definately created by the gov't. Codes simply
> define a threshold that allow the cheapest builders to bring their
> products to market. I have no use for them.
I have observed over a number of years that the building code, while it is
to set structurally good minimum standards, is often a compromise between
the standards committee and large mass builders. If you want to beef up an
area of the code for whatever reason, the builders will demand a reduction
is another area to keep costs down. I have seen areas in our local code
where the standards have been reduced to cut costs. The most prevalent area
is fire walls between adjoining houses. Years ago the standard was a
concrete block wall between units with framing and drywall on both sides.
Now they build houses with two wooden stick walls with one of the walls
covered with firecode drywall between the houses and regular drywall on the
house side. To slap (and the way I have seen it installed, it was slapped up
with gaps and spaces that would let any fire through) a layer of drywall
with open seams is no way to protect the neighbor's house from fire.
| |
|
| "EXT"> wrote
> I have observed over a number of years that the building code, while it is
> to set structurally good minimum standards, is often a compromise between
> the standards committee and large mass builders. If you want to beef up an
> area of the code for whatever reason, the builders will demand a reduction
> is another area to keep costs down. I have seen areas in our local code
> where the standards have been reduced to cut costs.
Thats not the case in SW FL where the costs of code compliance are
continuously rising, in some cases dramatically.
Probably the most expensive one in recent years was the requirement for
*200mph* windows, or shutters on all exterior openings.
No builder, regardless of size, can escape that requirement.
The cheap builders (tract homes) opt for the removeable shutters but many of
their homeowners are lazy and install the shutters at the beginning of
hurricane season and leave them on for the next 5 months. This has caused
issues with the fire depts and is dangerous as they block *code required*
egress windows on sleeping rooms.
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> AKA deathtrap dwelling, suicide shanty, now you see it now you don't
> domicile, roofless residence, hangman's hangout, home is where the reef
> is, etc. ;)
At $2mil + they can hardly be called shanty's and I always tend to *over
engineer* everything.
Kinda funny, these nawthuners come down with bulging pockets of coins and
media fear looms over them that the next great hurricane will kill them and
ruin their priceless photo album, so they are willing to pay a little more
for a sense of security and I am always more than anxious to oblige them.
heh
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-07, 5:25 pm |
|
RicodJour wrote:
> Bob, do me a favor and take a look at this product.
> http://tinyurl.com/yjfp4g
>
> Read the FAQ and note what they mention about the loads. Note the
> legal-babble at the bottom of the pages.
>
> What's your take on it? Am I right to be bothered that they are
> offering this for sale?
Oops. Sorry that was supposed to be a new thread. I'll repost as a
separate thread.
R
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| According to RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com>:
> "We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
> medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
> It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
> is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
> inexcusable.
And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?
Geeze.
Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.
For example, many custom home builders prefer to exceed code on certain
things. Eg: go up a joist size or down a notch in joist spacing, because
some people find the springiness of "minimal code compliance" floors to
be objectionable and sometimes cracks ceramic floors. But it won't fall
down...
Some years ago, I remember reading a letter to the editor in FHB from
a contractor referring to the "plus two steps club" (or something like
that), of contractors who prefer to go up one or two increments from
code.
Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.
If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.
> If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
> improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
> they're talking about.
Yeah, on how to spend $500K to turn a $100K house into a $200K one.
On bathrooms that cost more to build than most people earn in their
lifetime. On materials that are ridiculously expensive, highly
impractical, or simply aren't obtainable where you live.
Heck, I _like_ Norm. But TOH has become so far out of "normal
experience", it's ridiculous.
Most of Holmes' shows are about where the previous contractors _don't_
meet code, or where they did, it didn't do the job. In _both_ cases the
work he does usually exceeds code - in the latter, code didn't work, so
he has to, don't he? In the former, it failed, and to-code might still
not work, and it gives an opportunity to expound on the elements of
doing it right.
Indeed, given many of the things he does, the "normal" thing would be to
bandaid - with a bandaid that doesn't necessarily work. Many episodes
show where builders/contractors have repeatedly come back and tried
cheap fixes, because the "right" one was too expensive. That didn't
work. In circumstances like that, doing it "minimally right" (eg:
excavating around the foundation, coating the foundation and replacing
the weeping tile) and doing it "possibly overkill, but _guaranteed_ to
work" (eg: same as "minimally", but add fancy drainage membranes) has so
little cost difference, you might as well do the overkill, and sleep
better at night.
If you've seen more recent episodes, you'll have seen more places where they
clearly say "this is way more than necessary". Perhaps one of the best
examples is where the plumber installed a plastic water supply system
with a single large manifold, and a valve + homerun for _each_ fixture.
It's explained that it's overkill. It's also explained why it works
better than "minimum acceptable". Someone watching it will wonder
"should I do that in X?", and ask the plumber. _That_ negotiation leads
to the homeowner being able to better understand and compromise on
quality versus cost.
I've built/done a lot of stuff around the house for decades. Decks,
sheds, plumbing, electrical, trim, insulation, walls etc. I was
pretty good at it (for an amateur ;-) even before I started watching
HOH. But I've learned a _lot_ on doing things right (or at least better)
on a couple of episodes of HOH. TOH is more of a "how _not_ to renovate".
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| According to RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com>:
> There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
> previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
> municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all pissed
> off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
> involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
> doing their homework, etc.
On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
and failed to inform the buyer.
Can you say breach of trust?
The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.
You weren't paying attention, were you?
If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2006-11-09, 1:25 pm |
|
"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:12l6mau5vmph9ff@corp.supernews.com...
>
> And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
> code?
>
Sounds like it to me. Medium Code? Maximum Code? What else would a layman
interpret that to be?
>
> Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
> perhaps even with those words.
I've never hear the term used. Have you? Often?
>
> Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
> you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.
Exactly. And there is only one Code that states what that minimum is.
>
> If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
> X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
> meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
> worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
> negotiate on how far you want to go.
Sure, while he tries to keep a straight face he'll open his wallet and allow
you to fill it up. I worked with my step-father, a contractor and
architect, for many years and he never used the term "medium code". Nor
have any of the building inspectors or subcontractors. Maybe this is
something new?
| |
| bambam@nospam.tnx 2006-11-09, 1:25 pm |
| On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:43:49 -0000, clewis@nortelnetworks.com (Chris
Lewis) wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.
I think the point the OP tried to make and certainly the point Rico
made is that Mike Holmes masquerading as a contractor is not a good
thing.
I've seen three shows -- and, in all three, it was clear he didn't
know what he's talking about ... and in all three, he corrected
relatively minor problems with enormous and expensive overkill.
One couple had a contractor walk out with their 19 thousand dollar
basement development unfinished ... Holmes finished it ...and (I do
this for a living) I would guess spent 80 thousand completing that 19
thousand dollar basement.
The same point has been made about the other so-called reality shows
-- Flip this house, or whatever..and the like. They bear little
relationship to the real world... MISINFORM THE VIEWERS and may invite
the unwary to disaster.
Mike Holmes is an actor, not a contractor. He is saying lines
scripted by writers and producers. Look at the things he does:
he tiles, he runs the backhoe, he frames, he insulates, he paints; if
a real contractor acted like that, the trades would walk out and the
homeowner would (or at least should) shoot him.
The point is this crap raises expectations and arms people with little
knowledge (and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).
The only relationship to real life is the fact that he is topless
under his overalls ... I always dress that way on the job .. and he is
given many hugs by grateful clients, an occupational hazard. <grin>
Ken.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| According to <bambam@nospam.tnx>:
> Mike Holmes is an actor, not a contractor.
Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
actor.
That's, er, an odd claim to make.
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Rick F. 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| In article <12l71nvk2ijiqd2@corp.supernews.com>, Chris Lewis wrote:
> According to <bambam@nospam.tnx>:
>
>
> Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
> in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
> actor.
>
> That's, er, an odd claim to make.
If Mike is an actor, then I'm a nobel prize winning turkey farmer!
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eijg4b01v8o@news1.newsguy.com:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Sometimes, but even that is slipping it seems.
> Caught a few mins of TOH late last night with that new guy and I had
> to turn the channel.
> It was embarrassing and this comes from a person that has watched that
> show since the beginning.
> Yes, he was a dick, but I'll take Vila over the noobs 8 days out of 7.
>
> Ya know, with all the inherent *problems* that occur in construction,
> and even more so with remodeling, it takes a special kind of idiot to
> do a TV show about such things. Frankly, most people (homeowners)
> don't want to know about such things and would be completely mortified
> to know the real story behing their own remodeling projects. I
> couldn't imagine putting myself in the position of explaining
> unforeseeable negative circumstances on TV in front of gazillions of
> people. Those that can, do. And those that can't, well if there are no
> teaching positions available, they start a new TV show.
>
Well, I wouldn't mind doing a show, but OTOH, it's always been my
tendency to try to find out who knows what, and then tap into the
knowledge of whomever knows the most. A lot of poeple seem to have no
idea about the concept of "finding, evaluating, and using experts"...
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| According to Edwin Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>:
>
> "Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
> news:12l6mau5vmph9ff@corp.supernews.com...
[color=darkred]
> Sounds like it to me. Medium Code? Maximum Code? What else would a layman
> interpret that to be?
If the layman was actually _listening_ to what Holmes was saying,
they'd know that it is _not_ what was being meant.
This reminds me of the periodic flamewars we have here about the
term "neutral".
Casual DIYers who know how to change an outlet know what it means.
Electricians know what it means.
It's the code-lawyers in the middle who yowl that the white wire
in a house is _not_ a neutral, it's a "grounded conductor".
Well, yeah, true. But find a residential electrician that
actually _uses_ that term in practise.
Shows to go you that a little information can be dangerous.
And if you want to criticize, it's easy to find something to
get picky over.
[color=darkred]
> I've never hear the term used. Have you? Often?
Occasionally. It trips off the tongue more easily than "up a line
in the span tables".
More often I hear "above [or better than] code".
Surely you've heard _that_ from your step father.
[color=darkred]
> Exactly. And there is only one Code that states what that minimum is.
Actually there's several. I won't even mention that ours (the same
one that Holmes is required to follow, modulo minor municipal
differences between Ottawa and Toronto - eg: the snow load
calculations are different) is different than yours ;-)
[color=darkred]
> Sure, while he tries to keep a straight face he'll open his wallet and allow
> you to fill it up.
Then (a) you shouldn't be consulting a contractor, because you don't
know enough to protect yourself and (b) you should be avoiding that
contractor. A contractor like that doesn't need "medium code" jargon
to take advantage of you.
Throw in a clanger like asking for #1 structural DougFir 4x12s 12"
OC for a 8 foot span, and see if he cracks up or not ;-)
> I worked with my step-father, a contractor and
> architect, for many years and he never used the term "medium code". Nor
> have any of the building inspectors or subcontractors. Maybe this is
> something new?
As I said, there are tradesmen that prefer to work that way. ISTR
a newsletter going around about it. Many custom builders work that
way. "Medium code" expresses the idea in terms that the layman can
understand - especially since Holmes does take pains to explain
what it means.
[In actual fact, as far as I can tell, he usually uses the phrase
"better than code". ISTR Medium/Maximum as being hyperbole from
one particularly spectacular example of stupid previous contractor.]
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:MZv3h.511$Oc.72118@news1.epix.net:
> Don wrote:
>
>
> The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of
> a given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need
> to bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
> conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering
> is making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond
> that is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability
> are considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the
> picture, right?
>
> Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
> engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.
>
I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course) where
every house had been flattened and the population was decimated - except
for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter installed in
the center of the house, and that shelter was the only thing left
standing, and he and his family were the only people left without some
sort of injury.
So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at least
with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm hits, is
it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?
It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did pay
extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.
Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today, not
about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be safer if
a severe storm hits.
What it all comes down to is how much someone wants to pay up-front
versus what they might save over the long term. Most poeple can't see
past next week, when it comes to money. So, most houses (since most are
development houses) are intended to give people "what they want".
Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to have
occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On average, those
non-average conditions are called "statistically insignificant", and
engineers are called upon to do their calcualtions and plans accordingly
- they're given a certain set of parameters and a certain budget, and
told to stay within those, regardless of whether or not they might think
it unwise to stay only withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what
gets called "overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a
wider range of conditions than those which occur on average".
| |
|
| On 09 Nov 2006, Chris Lewis wrote
> According to <bambam@nospam.tnx>:
>
>
> Interesting - running his own contracting firm and apprenticing
> in various trades didn't make him a contractor, it made him an
> actor.
>
> That's, er, an odd claim to make.
It would be if that's what bambam said -- but it wasn't.
He didn't say that Holmes was never a contractor, or never trained as
one; he said that Holmes *is* an actor -- that is, in his present
job/incarncation/what-he's-doing/presentation.
(FWIW, I don't have a dog in this race -- AFAIK we don't get the
programme here in the UK -- but having read the thread, that looked
like an unfair hit....)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:eioh2901srp@news1.newsguy.com:
> "EXT"> wrote
>
> Thats not the case in SW FL where the costs of code compliance are
> continuously rising, in some cases dramatically.
> Probably the most expensive one in recent years was the requirement
> for *200mph* windows, or shutters on all exterior openings.
THis is off onto a tangent, but, can shutters or some other sort of
hurricane shield be installed onto a brick exterior? I saw saomething
in Lowes that uses permanent bolts put into the brick as anchors for a
new sort of "fabric", or at least, pliable material. No pricing psoted
of course. But I don;t know how actual "shutters" could be installed
over/in brick...
> No builder, regardless of size, can escape that requirement.
> The cheap builders (tract homes) opt for the removeable shutters but
> many of their homeowners are lazy and install the shutters at the
> beginning of hurricane season and leave them on for the next 5 months.
> This has caused issues with the fire depts and is dangerous as they
> block *code required* egress windows on sleeping rooms.
I thought those things were motorized, or at least, functioned sort-of
like roll-up blinds... Wouldn't leaving them closed keep all the light
out of a house <shudder>...?
| |
| Matt Whiting 2006-11-09, 5:25 pm |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
> news:MZv3h.511$Oc.72118@news1.epix.net:
>
>
>
>
> I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
> tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course) where
> every house had been flattened and the population was decimated - except
> for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter installed in
> the center of the house, and that shelter was the only thing left
> standing, and he and his family were the only people left without some
> sort of injury.
>
> So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at least
> with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm hits, is
> it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?
It depends on the owner's requirements. If the owner asked for a house
that could withstand an F5 tornado, and the house was just strong enough
to do that, then it was correctly engineered.
However, engineering requires balancing capability vs. cost. I can
design a house that will withstand pretty much any storm or hurricane
imaginable, but it would cost a fortune. Engineering is the art and
science of designing something that meets the stated requirements with
the minimum consumption of material and money.
> It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
> Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
> storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
> prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did pay
> extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.
You are confusing over-built with over-engineered. They are different
concepts. It actually takes a lot more engineering to make a structure
as I described above - one that balances optimally performance vs. cost.
Designing something that far exceeds the required performance with
little regard to cost is actually much easier from an engineering
perspective.
> Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today, not
> about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be safer if
> a severe storm hits.
That isn't an engineering decision, however. That is a requirements
setting decision made by the person footing the bill.
> Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
> engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to have
> occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On average, those
> non-average conditions are called "statistically insignificant", and
> engineers are called upon to do their calcualtions and plans accordingly
> - they're given a certain set of parameters and a certain budget, and
> told to stay within those, regardless of whether or not they might think
> it unwise to stay only withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what
> gets called "overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a
> wider range of conditions than those which occur on average".
Engineering isn't the art and science of making indestructible
structures. That is my point.
Matt
| |
|
| "Chris Lewis"> wrote
> If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
> X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
> meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
> worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost.
Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"
If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
over his XXX and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
door fixed.
But then again, maybe those are the type of people you attract.
To each his own.
*medium code* LOL
| |
|
|
"Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:12l6mm515vms6e5@corp.supernews.com...
> According to RicodJour <ricodjour@worldemail.com>:
>
>
> On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
> lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
> and failed to inform the buyer.
>
> Can you say breach of trust?
>
> The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.
>
> You weren't paying attention, were you?
>
> If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.
Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?
| |
|
| Matt Whiting wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
>
>
> The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
> given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
> bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
> conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is
> making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that
> is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are
> considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?
>
> Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
> engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.
>
> Matt
One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):
"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".
It couldnt be summed up any better.
Mark
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:ixN4h.4855$ig4.4005@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:eioh2901srp@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>
> THis is off onto a tangent, but, can shutters or some other sort of
> hurricane shield be installed onto a brick exterior? I saw saomething
> in Lowes that uses permanent bolts put into the brick as anchors for a
> new sort of "fabric", or at least, pliable material. No pricing psoted
> of course. But I don;t know how actual "shutters" could be installed
> over/in brick...
>
>
>
> I thought those things were motorized, or at least, functioned sort-of
> like roll-up blinds... Wouldn't leaving them closed keep all the light
> out of a house <shudder>...?
The very expensive homes have the remote controlled versions like you've
seen.
Homes under, say, $200k usually have the *portable* shutters that are
installed when necessary and stored in the garage when not in use.
They take up alot of space and are a royal pain to deal with. They are heavy
gauge corrugated steel panels that interlock with each other and are
anchored to any substrate with embedded steel pins.
Yes, keeping the shutters installed prohibit light from entering the rooms
but then, that makes for better TV watchin', doncha know?
As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid regarding
the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.
| |
| Goedjn 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
|
>One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
>building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):
>
>"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
>able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".
>
>It couldnt be summed up any better.
>
Sure it can.. The real trick is building a bridge that
will carry the the design load, and cost as little as possible.
Making it just barely adequate isn't an objective, it's
a frequent side effect of trying to keep costs down.
That's why you frequently use parts that are a bit heavier
than you actually need, rather than having the ones you
actually need custom made.
And a really *GOOD* engineer knows when and how to
say... I know the specs call for X, but we can
dramatically improve the performance for only
about 4% more, are you sure you don't want to
do that? (and an employed engineer knows how
and when to take "no" for an answer...)
--Goedjn
| |
| Goedjn 2006-11-10, 1:25 pm |
| On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:33:55 -0500, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:
>"Chris Lewis"> wrote
>
>
>Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"
>
>If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
>over his XXX and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
>door fixed.
>
>But then again, maybe those are the type of people you attract.
>
>To each his own.
>
>*medium code* LOL
Strange phrasing, but remember that there are floor-stiffness
tables for L/360, L/480, and L/960...
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
| Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote in
news:emO4h.592$Oc.74269@news1.epix.net:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>
> It depends on the owner's requirements. If the owner asked for a
> house that could withstand an F5 tornado, and the house was just
> strong enough to do that, then it was correctly engineered.
>
> However, engineering requires balancing capability vs. cost. I can
> design a house that will withstand pretty much any storm or hurricane
> imaginable, but it would cost a fortune. Engineering is the art and
> science of designing something that meets the stated requirements with
> the minimum consumption of material and money.
Yup, that's why I thing the term "overengineered" is largely a matter of
perspective. In addition to, as you'd noted, capability and cost,
another consideration is how the person lives. If someone only needs,
say, a 700 sq ft space from their living needs, he can put more money
into making a strong structure.
I think the problems arise when the appearance of luxury takes precedence
over the capability of the structure to withstand fully-predictable, if
relatively uncommon, circumstances.
For example, it's fully predictable that, eventually, a hurricane of
another tropical storm along the lines of Allison will strike the Texas
coast, yet development after development has been built on land that is
barely a foot above sea level, and the places are not built all that
sturdily.
If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).
>
>
>
> You are confusing over-built with over-engineered. They are different
> concepts. It actually takes a lot more engineering to make a
> structure as I described above - one that balances optimally
> performance vs. cost.
Maybe, but I didn't see the phrase 'over-built' previously in the thread,
and to be honest, I always thought the phrase meant more along the liines
of having lots of accoutrements and flourishes and so on. IOW, things
that don't add to the strength of the actual structure.
My example was only to illustrate that I personally would happliy willing
to buy a smaller place with more storm-resistance and more energy-
efficiency. I know that most peole want size because most value flash
more than substance (such as the place one real estate agent showed us -
the master closet alone was *literally* very near to the size of the
townhouse we'd rented in California).
> Designing something that far exceeds the required performance with
> little regard to cost is actually much easier from an engineering
> perspective.
I'd guess so! ;)
>
> That isn't an engineering decision, however. That is a requirements
> setting decision made by the person footing the bill.
>
>
>
> Engineering isn't the art and science of making indestructible
> structures. That is my point.
I understand, it's just that it seems to me that too many places are
built jsut well enough to stand for 10 years, and only if statistics hold
and no severe storm hits.
I'm admittedly not separating what the engineers do, from what the
designers do and what (with development corporations) the marketing
people do. Mostly, I guess I'm saying that the engineers probably should
have a larger say in the matter, because marketers will always go for
"pizzaz" and designers, like the engineers, are at the mercy of the
financiers and marketers. OTOH, a good designer will look more at
whether a design is not merely huge, but actually liveable, and a good
engineer will look more at the strength, integrity, efficiency of HVAC
systems, insulation, and weather-resistance of the structure.
So, to use an analogy, if you have 2 houses on same size lots, next door
to each other, and both costing $250K, IOW built using the same bottom-
line budget maximum. The "normal" one will have more square footage,
might have more expensive lighting fixtures, fancier cabinets, granite
countertops, and so on - whereas the one that might be called "over-
engineered" would have less square footage, Corian or Silestone
countertops, plainer cabinets, basic lighting, and the like, but might
have, for example, doubled brick facing or might be of puured concrete,
or so on, that would be able to block most debris that would be whipped
around by hurricane-force winds.
If that's not what is meant by the term, sorry and please informe me of
the correct useage, so that I know for future reference - I mean that
honestly .
- K.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:ej0jk001lej@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:ixN4h.4855$ig4.4005@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The very expensive homes have the remote controlled versions like
> you've seen.
> Homes under, say, $200k usually have the *portable* shutters that are
> installed when necessary and stored in the garage when not in use.
> They take up alot of space and are a royal pain to deal with. They are
> heavy gauge corrugated steel panels that interlock with each other and
> are anchored to any substrate with embedded steel pins.
Ah, I see now. The latter are still alot better than this business of
putting new nail-holes on one's house-frame every year or every couple
years; seems to me like taht is beggin for rot and other additional
damage to gain a foothold.
> Yes, keeping the shutters installed prohibit light from entering the
> rooms but then, that makes for better TV watchin', doncha know?
Er, ah, being a "light addict", well, actually, no =:-o I guess that
the cave-like blackness is supposed to be similar to a movie theater.....
>
> As far as I know that structural fabric you mentioned is not valid
> regarding the hurricane code, it won't stop the wind.
>
I certainly didn't see how it would stop anything significant. It wasn't
Kevlar or anything like that.
I was curious because we're still debating what, if anything, to do
with/to this place in terms of wind-protection. The motorized things
would be best, of course, but then one gets into the problem of "would I
ever be able to sell the place if need be, since it'd end up being
'overvalued' in comparison with the rest of the neighborhood".
At least the windows, being new, are tempered glass ;)
| |
| Goedjn 2006-11-10, 5:25 pm |
|
>
>If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
>required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
>residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
>and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
>comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).
>
>
If I lived in a tornado/hurricane area, I think I'd have a
blockhouse attached to an insulated tent.
| |
| Bob Morrison 2006-11-10, 8:25 pm |
| In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
> If I lived in a tornado-prone area, well, I don't know what would be
> required to give a house a reasonable chance of at least protecting the
> residents, but I'd certainly *like* to know, would like to see diagrams
> and a cost-comparison between it, and a "regular" house, plus a
> comparison of long-term costs (for insurance and so on).
>
That's why many people in those areas have a tornado shelter (often
underground).
It is not economically impossible to design a house for missile impacts
from 300 mph winds. The best you can hope for is to have a storm shelter
that can protect the occupants for a short period of time. Fallout
shelters from the 50's and 60's make a good choice.
--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com
| |
|
|
"Goedjn"> wrote
>
> If I lived in a tornado/hurricane area, I think I'd have a
> blockhouse attached to an insulated tent.
If your money was right. :-)
| |
|
| "Bob Morrison"> wrote
> In a previous post Kris Krieger wrote...
>
> That's why many people in those areas have a tornado shelter (often
> underground).
>
> It is not economically impossible to design a house for missile impacts
> from 300 mph winds. The best you can hope for is to have a storm shelter
> that can protect the occupants for a short period of time. Fallout
> shelters from the 50's and 60's make a good choice.
Thats the key, *short period of time*.
Simply, wind gets bored and goes elsewhere after a spell.
| |
|
| Goedjn wrote:
>
>
> Sure it can.. The real trick is building a bridge that
> will carry the the design load, and cost as little as possible.
> Making it just barely adequate isn't an objective, it's
> a frequent side effect of trying to keep costs down.
>
> That's why you frequently use parts that are a bit heavier
> than you actually need, rather than having the ones you
> actually need custom made.
>
> And a really *GOOD* engineer knows when and how to
> say... I know the specs call for X, but we can
> dramatically improve the performance for only
> about 4% more, are you sure you don't want to
> do that? (and an employed engineer knows how
> and when to take "no" for an answer...)
>
> --Goedjn
Like I said, it was paraphrased. The intent of the statement is clear.
Anyone can cross a span by simply filling the void with concrete and
rubble leaving a small hole at the base. The art is in building a
structure that will carry, as you say, the design load. No more, no
less. The engineer, speaking on a national television documentary, was
surely not committing professional suicide by saying "what we practice
in our company is to cut every corner you can to reduce costs and just
make sure the bridge stands for a while".
Its as clear as kids in middle school building bridges with popsicle
sticks. Sure you can take a wheelbarrow full of popsicle sticks, dump it
in a hole and walk across. But the kid who gets you across the same span
with a gross of them is onto something.
Mark
Mark
Mark
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-11-12, 8:25 pm |
|
M&S wrote:
> Goedjn wrote:
>
>
>
> Like I said, it was paraphrased. The intent of the statement is clear.
> Anyone can cross a span by simply filling the void with concrete and
> rubble leaving a small hole at the base. The art is in building a
> structure that will carry, as you say, the design load. No more, no
> less. The engineer, speaking on a national television documentary, was
> surely not committing professional suicide by saying "what we practice
> in our company is to cut every corner you can to reduce costs and just
> make sure the bridge stands for a while".
A number of years back I read a great article
in Scientific American about aquaducts, talk
about well built! IIRC it was designed to last
1000 years, that's engineering based on Roman
Numerals, the warranty expired 1000 years
ago, it's still there.
> Its as clear as kids in middle school building bridges with popsicle
> sticks. Sure you can take a wheelbarrow full of popsicle sticks, dump it
> in a hole and walk across. But the kid who gets you across the same span
> with a gross of them is onto something.
If you eat that many popsicles, you might need
to eat more to make the bridge stronger :-).
Ken
| |
|
| "M&S"> wrote
> The art is in building a structure that will carry, as you say, the design
> load. No more, no less.
Something about that claim is bothersome.
Especially the *no more* part.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| According to Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com>:
> "Chris Lewis"> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Gotta ask, 'Do you have any experience at all with human interaction?"
Every day.
> If a client said to me what you described above my bootprints would be all
> over his XXX and I'd be on the phone to the glass company to get my front
> door fixed.
Uh, you talk about booting a client through a glass door, and ask _me_
about human interaction skills?
That's hilarious!
I should point out that Holmes is actually _quite clear_ on the show
that there is only one code, and it's _minimum_ acceptable standards -
"medium" code is just a conversational device.
Anybody going to a contractor and saying "medium code" obviously hasn't
been following nor understanding what was actually being said.
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| According to HVS <harvey.news@ntlworld.com>:
> (FWIW, I don't have a dog in this race -- AFAIK we don't get the
> programme here in the UK -- but having read the thread, that looked
> like an unfair hit....)
Ironically enough, the "station" most often airing Holmes on
Homes here is "BBC Canada" ;-)
[That's likely due in some part to CanCon rules and Canadian-specific
programming, but I'd be surprised if HoH didn't make it back to the UK
at all. We certainly get a lot of UK reno/decorating shows.]
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| According to Don <one-if-by-land@concord.com>:
>
> "Chris Lewis" <clewis@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
> news:12l6mm515vms6e5@corp.supernews.com...
[color=darkred]
>
> Lemme get this straight.
> You're aguing the validity of a TV show?
The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| Chris Lewis 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| According to Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:ej0jk001lej@news1.newsguy.com:
[color=darkred]
> I certainly didn't see how it would stop anything significant. It wasn't
> Kevlar or anything like that.
A couple of weeks ago I saw a Discovery channel segment on "hurricane
proofing" houses against projectiles. While it focused primarily
on walls themselves, some of the lessons it gave are useful with
windows. This was a formal study I think done by a department
covering "building science" at a US university IIRC.
Their test environment was a air canon shooting 2x4s lengthwise
at varying speeds at building envelope mockups.
Short of reinforced poured concrete (or presumably steel armor plate
;-), none of the rigid envelopes could stand up to a 125MPH 2x4. Even
(unfilled) cinderblock punctured. As did premanufactured
"hurricane shields" made out of fiberglass, and ordinary "stick
frame" with plywood sheathing and (even) brick veneer.
They quite simply shattered.
The one thing that did pass the test was a wall built up with
relatively ordinary stick construction with a heavy fiber
mesh layer. While the siding and sheathing punctured, the
mesh provided enough "give" to slow the projectile down and
prevent it from drilling all the way through the wall.
Conceptually, then, an appropriately engineered fabric (or mesh) _could_
protect windows, provided that (a) it was installed in such a way to
give the fabric "enough room" to operate (eg: suspended quite a bit out
from the window and firmly anchored so it can't bow in as far
as the window), (b) fine enough mesh to stop dangerously sized
projectiles and (c) it was installed at the time ;-)
Then again, ordinary windows normally won't stand up to the
air pressure differentials, so you have to improve the windows
anyway.
--
Chris Lewis,
Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-11-13, 1:25 pm |
| Chris Lewis wrote:
>
> Anybody going to a contractor and saying "medium code" obviously hasn't
> been following nor understanding what was actually being said.
That's the whole point. It's confusing to the people who don't know
the difference. If it's a "conversational device" it's frontier
gibberish.
Code is binary. Construction either meets it or it doesn't.
That malaprop/evidence-of-cluelessness is only one ding on Holmes'
record. There are a slew of them, almost always a few in each show.
Why does his show, purporting him to be the Ultimate Contractor
Get-You-Out-Of-A-Jam TV host have so many mistakes and the other shows
| | |