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

[no subject]

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Many of us have seen the code grow and have formed our opinions, however
there's a bigger issue on the horizon: The UBC is no longer in production.
ICBO is committed  to the production of the IBC, which is fine except the
NFPA has elbowed their way in with their code.  What I'm thinking about is
the impending showdown.

The City of Pasadena is blazing a trail by recognizing the IBC. That's a
bold move - consider that significant cost savings for developers with the
relaxed allowable areas, etc when compared to the current 1997 UBC

When the showdown occurs, our headache issues like load combinations will
take on as much weight as a cork bobbing in the ocean.

It will be interesting to see what the Ca Building Standards Commission
does.  If anyone on the list attends the meeting, please share!

Tom VanDorpe
VanDorpe Chou Associates, Inc.
(714) 978-9780

From: "George Richards, P.E." <george(--nospam--at)>
To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)'" <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Subject: IBC in California

You guys have got to be kidding.  As it is now the 1997 has three ways to
design a building: Ultimate Strength, Working Stress and Alternate Working
Strength and who knows how many interpretations.  Now we will all have the
IBC.  Hell is not ICBO still issuing errata's to their errata's?  We have
still not settled on what the '97 wants and now we get to start arguing
about what's in the IBC.

Tom, time to raise those plan check fees of yours.

George Richards, PE thinking I am going to have to add an Esq. in there just
to figure out how to be a PE.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:30 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: IBC in California

The California building standards commission is apparently going to discuss
an action item on March 7 in regard to asking for the Attorney General
opinion on the Pasadena ordinance.