Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Reroofing and shear wall programs

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Friday, Apr 16, 1999   08:24 PM
-------------------------------------------------

                                   \\\\|////
	                             ( o  o )
	                 --oO0o------U------oO0o---
                      How Ya Doin'  Ralph

My gosh! You are starting to sound like me:>)  I also read Michael Cochran's 
discription of the ideal way to design shearwalls. What a wonderful idea - 
now if only we could get the framers to put back in the 40% of shear elements 
they omit on 60% of the homes they build:>) (FEMA Results of Northridge 
earthquake). I know Mike is discussing the theory of how a well designed 
shearwall should behave, but it all seems moot to me since I became so 
cynical over the prospects of overdesigning to compensate for poor quality 
construction. 

There is a rush out here - where the building industry is booming - to get 
designs permited before the more restrictive codes are adopted in July. I am 
suddenly being deluged by clients that want to avoid the additional cost of 
harware and labor to comply to a more rigid code. I don't think they should 
worry since their framers will probably leave out 40% of the items anyway. 
Whoa, I just realized that they still have have to put in more than they have 
historically but will only be leaving out the new code requirment. 

I guess I offended the NAHB-RC in my last response to Don Carr. I'm sorry 
that NAHB-RC has to consider me an advesary rather than one who appauds their 
ideology but not their administration of the idea. Don has not seen fit to 
respond to my post (which I copied as an email to him directly). 

I don't think that those who are offended by the many of us who would rather 
deal with the real problem than make the public suffer because we let 
politics defend those fragle egos from comming to terms with the actual 
problems that plauge our industry construction defects. 

I know I've said it before, but why the heck are we demanding more rigid 
design methodologies and greater loads to resist when we have not completed 
those studies (CUREe-CalTech) that preliminarily point to construction defect 
rather than inadequate design?

Sorry, but I've been raised an activist and I have a difficult time with the 
frustration of ineptness and apathy. I can't blame my clients from rushing 
out to beat the new code cycle. However, as Ralph has eluded to in his 
comments, the developer who is profit conscience won't have to rush out - he 
only needs to keep following the prescriptive measure and continue to build 
the same sub-standard stuff that he has been building for years. Then when 
the next earthquake occurs the insurance industry can invest another 
20Billion in repairs and SEA can further increase the restrictions on 
non-compliant (to conventional framing prescriptive) measures and force an 
even greater discontinuity between the trades. Pretty soon only the rich will 
be able to buy well built homes. Hey that's an idea - a code just for the 
rich:>)

Ralph aptly wrote:

"Is anyone else bothered by the attitude that "anything in the code is okay 
with me"?  In other words, if an existing building has a sheet of plywood in 
each corner and 1/2" anchor bolts @ 6' oc it's code-compliant and therefore I 
shouldn't even mention to an owner or potential owner that maybe it's just a 
teeny bit less than we would like to see in a building?  Ignorance is bliss? 

Just a thought. "

Later è¿~ 

Dennis  Wish PE  
                               
This letter composed with PowerMail?