Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: RE: duplication of plans[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "Rhkratzse" <Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com>
- Subject: RE: RE: duplication of plans
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 20:47:29 -0800
- Cc: "Roger Sharpe" <sharpe(--nospam--at)ci.walnut-creek.ca.us>, "Seaoc@Seaoc. Org" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Thank you Ralph, As Rick Raneous pointed out in his post, the individual home owner who wishes to construct a residence should have the right to construct his home based upon a minimum standard which the Conventional Framing section represents. However, what about those that purchase a home from a builder who designs and builds based upon conventional framing standards. Does the purchaser know s/he is buying a home whose strength requiments is less than that of an engineered product? In the first case, the owner will live in it and has made the choice to be responible for his choice. The later provides the homeowner with a product that s/he perceives to be as well designed and construted as any custom home - which is obviously not the case. So how do we protect the public. Can we stipulate that conventional framing provisions be used only by the owner of the home who intends to live in the building? What the UBC and even the improved rhetoric of the IBC fail to address is the misreprentation of a product - inferior to it's competition that, because of a simple irregularity must conform to stricter standards. I believe that the majority of homes constructed under the provisions of conventional framing are built by small developers who take advantage of the code to build a product with knowingly less resistive value and market it as a comparable product to engineered homes. The code should require the disclosure to the potential purchaser that the home was not designed by a professional and that it was designed to the minimum standards allowed by code. The only thing gained is the developers profit. Most importantly, as you suggest, is the buyers perception of what they are purchasing. The home is sold for comparable market value based upon size and finish (ignoring structural integrety)and is not equal to homes built upon stricter code requirements. I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the SEAOC List as well as to a member of the IBC Code committee who is responsible for the conventional framing section. I would request that, in light of this information, the Code committee stipulate provisions to disclose to the public when a home is constructed of a lesser standard and to require the explanation of the difference between engineered and conventionally framed structures. The developer should not be allowed to profit unfairly from a slight irregularity and misrepresent his product. Respectfully, Dennis Wish PE P.S. Ralph, from all of the complaints I had against conventional framing provisions, not until your letter did it occur to me that the real problem is profiteering and misrepresentation of product to unsuspecting buyers. |-----Original Message----- |From: Rhkratzse [mailto:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)aol.com] |Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 6:55 PM |To: wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com |Subject: Re: RE: duplication of plans | | |Dennis, thanks for your comments about my note. I appreciate your effort to |keep the costs down for the buyer, and we certainly agree in our concern for |the innocent buyer who thinks s/he is getting something "safe" because it's |new. If I remember right you're pushing to have the Conventional Construction |provisions be more stringent than the engineered requirements, rather than |only a fraction of them as now. More power to you! I do almost entirely |residential wood-frame and this is an important issue. | |Ralph Hueston Kratz, S.E. |Richmond CA |
- Prev by Subject: RE: duplication of plans
- Next by Subject: Dynamic base shears, is it considered?
- Previous by thread: RE: duplication of plans
- Next by thread: ICBO Near Source Fault Maps