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

RE: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Maybe if there were building departments are doing adequate inspections then
the "builders" would have to build in accordance with plans or the
"builders" could not get a "certificate of occupancy".  

You have all convinced me not to go back to law school and get rich by going
after disreputable residential contractors.


Scott M Haan  P.E.
Plan Review Engineer
Building Safety Division http://www.muni.org/building, 
Development Services Department,
Municipality of Anchorage
phone: 907-343-8183   fax: 907-249-7399
mailto:haansm(--nospam--at)ci.anchorage.ak.us

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bill Polhemus [SMTP:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
> Sent:	Wednesday, April 04, 2001 10:30 AM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	RE: Aase ruling
> 
> I should think this has more to do with the permissible standards codified
> in the building codes.
> 
> While you might be able to argue whether those standards are adequate for
> a
> given application, the fact remains that people with a stake in the design
> and construction of buildings have put much time and effort into framing
> these codes, making them acceptable for adoption as legally binding
> documents, and improving them over time.
> 
> You can just as well argue that you are not working in your clients' best
> interest if you unilaterally exceed the buidling code design standards,
> than
> if you adhere to them where they might be "less stringent" than you would
> like.
> 
> I think you as the structural engineer of record have that option, but
> your
> clients have options too.
> 
> Remember the article that made the rounds awhile back from some local L.A.
> newsmagazine, that talked about how the REAL opponents to a comprehensive
> program of inspection of structural beam-to-column welds in existing
> buildings were the OWNERS of the buildings themselves. You'd think they
> wouldn't want to take the risk of future damage or loss from these
> problems,
> but the fact is they WERE willing to take the risk far more than they were
> willing to pay money out of pocket to have the inspections and possible
> repairs done.
> 
> It really is all about dollars and cents. You can purse your lips all you
> want, but that's ALWAYS the bottom line.
> 
> William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
> Polhemus Engineering Company
> Katy, Texas
> Phone 281-492-2251
> Fax 281-492-8203
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Goodrich [mailto:dang(--nospam--at)karren.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:19 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: Aase ruling
> 
> 
> This brings up an interesting point.  There is a perception
> out there that commercial projects should be built to a
> higher standard than residential.  Shouldn't they be the
> same?  I've designed homes that are significantly larger
> than some of the commercial projects I've worked on.
> I realize that there will be differences based on
> occupancy and other related matters.
> 
> Are we as an engineering community holding commercial
> jobs to a higher standard than homes?  One example I
> can think of would be the amount of reinforcing required
> in foundation walls.
> 
> Dan Goodrich, P.E.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neil Moore" <nmoore(--nospam--at)innercite.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 8:33 PM
> Subject: RE: Aase ruling
> 
> 
> > Jason and Dennis:
> >
> > On the other hand,  I had a take-over project with 46 townhouses.  23
> > uphill and 23 downhill, basically two plans, each alike.  The
> foundation,
> > framing and exterior stucco completed.  Although every one of the  plans
> > were the same, it appeared to be a different crew on each one.
> >
> > Took us three years to complete the project, including putting a
> structural
> > designer on the site to straightened out all of the glitches.  The
> > superintendent,  who was from a central California mountain area,
> accussed
> > us of "commercially" engineering the buildings.  Of course the project
> was
> > a 1000 feet from the San Andreas fault and was on a high bluff facing
> the
> > ocean.
> >
> > The sherriff came in one day and took him off the project.  This was
> > sometime after he had threatened one of my engineers.
> >
> > Neil Moore,  S.E.
> > neil moore and associates
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>