As much as I agree with the statements below, I have to ask myself if
we would be building safer structures without a code? My own home is
currently under construction. Because I am an engineer (sorta) my home
is smaller than any home I have design and therefor in a different
market. Minimal rebar in foundation, all but non-existent hold downs,
and builder who is bragging that he actually uses stud grade for walls
are not impressing me. I am powerless to do much about because another
engineer has already sealed the plans. This is a track home in case you
haven't figured this out. My point is this - there are engineers who
will satisfy the lowest common denominator possible. If there is no
code - there won't even be any calcs. So just like the current
presidential race would you Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee? The current
code is not the answer, no code is not the answer. Maybe reverting back
to the days of a master builder is the answer.
Jake Watson, E.I.T.
Salt Lake City, UT
Keith Fix wrote:
> If we could decide these issues on our own, involvement of the
> remainder of society would be unnecessary. We could, in concert with
> our clients/owners decide the best solution for the particular project,
> and with regard to public (and private) safety, set ethical standards
> that placed us above any other profession with regards to honor and,
> dare I say, compensation. Instead, we submit ourselves to licensure by
> the numerous states in our union, a process which is even now
> serruptitiously questioned by the ASCE as less than adequate for
> providing competent engineers.
> A building code does not guarantee the public safety any more than an
> engineering license guarantees a competent engineer. Band-aid (tm)
> solutions such as continuing education only muddy the issue of what is
> or is not a reasonable level of cutting-edge knowledge.