Building Code Enforcement Socks Owner of Low-Cost Home
Building Code Enforcement Socks Owner of Low-Cost Home
Geodesic Dome Was One of the Structural Advances of the Twentieth Century
BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT SOCKS OWNER OF LOW-COST HOME
Innovative Dweller-built House Is Torn Down by Order of Code Official
By Carol W. LaGrasseMarch 2008
Anyone who still labors under the misconception that building codes help people of modest income to live in safe, affordable homes that they actually own should look at these photographs telling the story of the geodesic dome house that David Greathouse built near Craig, Colorado.
A geodesic dome has inherent strength and structural stability. It is also inexpensive to construct, because it uses a minimum of materials. The structural members, which form a triangular latticework, are light, but comprise a whole that has the combined advantages of the inherent strengths of both the triangle and the dome. The famed innovator Buckminster Fuller introduced a wide range of uses of the geodesic dome during the twentieth century.
One use is to build a single-family house. The dome is stronger against wind or snow load than the ordinary rectangular shape of a house and allows for openings for doors, windows and the chimney in the spaces created by the triangles, and, in fact, larger openings, according to the design. The materials that can be used to close and finish the exterior and interior surfaces, as well as the insulation, where needed, are as flexible as with standard construction. The lattice-like construction lends itself to enclosure materials ranging from pre-finished wood to stucco or ferro-cement, which are the ultimate in low maintenance, fireproof, and inexpensive construction.
David Greathouse built a compact geodesic dome for his one-room single family house in a rural area of Moffat County, which borders Utah and Wyoming in the southwest corner of Colorado. After doing research on geodesic domes, he designed the dome and made the frame from 2 x 6 lumber, connected with 2.5-in. diameter steel pipe brackets. Working from these inexpensive raw materials to build the frame, he kept the cost low. He enclosed and finished the exterior with chip board siding that he coated with a weatherproof elastomeric roof paint. Hand-made windows, which were each divided by a continuous horizontal member of the dome framework, formed a row of sources of light, ventilation and an outside view.
The overall effect of the building was that of a little balloon popping out of the ground in the field. Mr. Greathouse’s new home should have been hailed by local architects and “housing experts” as a solution to the cost of “housing,” a perennial source of politically inspired tear-jerking.
But the innovative low-cost house “violated building codes,” according to the Moffat County building inspector, Pat Mosbey, as Mr. Greathouse wrote to me. It was torn down in July 2007.
Mr. Greathouse moved to a different location, this time in rural New Mexico where it was possible to build “without benefit of codes,” as he wrote. By October 2007, he had used the same structural members to frame up a new geodesic dome of the same overall dimensions. But, because he could not reuse the elastomeric paint-coated chip board from the original house, he used recycled one-inch thick boards to close the spaces between the framing members.
Mr. Greathouse commented, “And where are the benefits of code? Houses still burn down, pipes freeze. What codes do is reduce the supply of houses, and set it up so would-be homeowners must hire a contractor to get their home built.”
“There are a lot of hoops to jump through if one decides to construct their own dwelling. So the regulations make it harder to build,” he pointed out.
The selection of materials was dictated by the code officials, he remarked. It is widespread that codes are extremely unfriendly to recycled materials and reused components. Mr. Greathouse built a foundation of 15 rammed earth tires for the house. The floor was dirt, which would have been quite serviceable in the dry climate. He was considering putting in a concrete floor, but that was not necessary, he concluded. However, he learned that the use of tires for construction was prohibited.
What is the solution to this decades-long assault on dweller-builders of low-cost homes? Reduce the residential building codes to the bare bones necessary to protect health and safety in urban and rural environments, with different codes for each. Codes should be refined further for multiple dwellings, which was historically the case in New York State, where I reside. Until 1984, except for multiple dwellings, New York State was a non-code state for areas outside those municipalities that chose to have a building code. Rural New Yorkers were socked with a uniform statewide building code more suitable for urban New York after legislation was passed in reaction to the deadly Stouffer’s Inn fire in 1980 in Harrison in Westchester County, a short distance from New York City.
With the bare bones codes in place, then, when individuals choose to build a higher quality dwelling, the government could certify professionals who would grant and file “Quality Built” code certifications that the building meets high quality code requirements, just as today it is possible to obtain “Green” certifications or “Energy Efficient” certifications from private organizations. However, the “Quality Built” certifications would go one step further, being filed with the building code office. But the person of modest means, or anyone living in a private home, for that matter, would have the free assistance and the “benefit” of enforcement by the code officials only for a short list of health and safety requirements, such as those that FEMA should have enforced before doling out trailers it purchased for Hurricane Katrina victims, where poisonous off-gassing of volatiles from chemical-containing interior components made the trailers uninhabitable.
Until the states that have adopted statewide building codes rethink their defacto assault on homeowners who cannot afford to meet quality codes or who chose other building methods and standards, the code enforcement attack on low-income, independent-living people, women, and the elderly will not abate.
low cost housing house construction building system affordable plastic shutter formwork moladi low-income concrete form formwork alternative patented metro modular sabs nhbrc approved earthquake proof modu cast IBS industrialized building system hurricane wall walling reinforced reinforcing mortar mix design raft foundation window frame thermal conductivity properties cement river sand labour cheap prefab units aluminium system formwork brick block plaster mpa multistorey square meter floor area frame technology department sqm design designs plan plans isometric view high rise maslow hierarchy needs resistance mesh rate materials bungalow builder contractor modern cimbras formaletas plastico encofrados construccion coffrage schalungen formas moldes forming ties brazil mexico africa india pakistan innovations patent cyclone high tensile sistemas constructivos bop
Geodesic Dome Was One of the Structural Advances of the Twentieth Century
BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT SOCKS OWNER OF LOW-COST HOME
Innovative Dweller-built House Is Torn Down by Order of Code Official
By Carol W. LaGrasseMarch 2008
Anyone who still labors under the misconception that building codes help people of modest income to live in safe, affordable homes that they actually own should look at these photographs telling the story of the geodesic dome house that David Greathouse built near Craig, Colorado.
A geodesic dome has inherent strength and structural stability. It is also inexpensive to construct, because it uses a minimum of materials. The structural members, which form a triangular latticework, are light, but comprise a whole that has the combined advantages of the inherent strengths of both the triangle and the dome. The famed innovator Buckminster Fuller introduced a wide range of uses of the geodesic dome during the twentieth century.
One use is to build a single-family house. The dome is stronger against wind or snow load than the ordinary rectangular shape of a house and allows for openings for doors, windows and the chimney in the spaces created by the triangles, and, in fact, larger openings, according to the design. The materials that can be used to close and finish the exterior and interior surfaces, as well as the insulation, where needed, are as flexible as with standard construction. The lattice-like construction lends itself to enclosure materials ranging from pre-finished wood to stucco or ferro-cement, which are the ultimate in low maintenance, fireproof, and inexpensive construction.
David Greathouse built a compact geodesic dome for his one-room single family house in a rural area of Moffat County, which borders Utah and Wyoming in the southwest corner of Colorado. After doing research on geodesic domes, he designed the dome and made the frame from 2 x 6 lumber, connected with 2.5-in. diameter steel pipe brackets. Working from these inexpensive raw materials to build the frame, he kept the cost low. He enclosed and finished the exterior with chip board siding that he coated with a weatherproof elastomeric roof paint. Hand-made windows, which were each divided by a continuous horizontal member of the dome framework, formed a row of sources of light, ventilation and an outside view.
The overall effect of the building was that of a little balloon popping out of the ground in the field. Mr. Greathouse’s new home should have been hailed by local architects and “housing experts” as a solution to the cost of “housing,” a perennial source of politically inspired tear-jerking.
But the innovative low-cost house “violated building codes,” according to the Moffat County building inspector, Pat Mosbey, as Mr. Greathouse wrote to me. It was torn down in July 2007.
Mr. Greathouse moved to a different location, this time in rural New Mexico where it was possible to build “without benefit of codes,” as he wrote. By October 2007, he had used the same structural members to frame up a new geodesic dome of the same overall dimensions. But, because he could not reuse the elastomeric paint-coated chip board from the original house, he used recycled one-inch thick boards to close the spaces between the framing members.
Mr. Greathouse commented, “And where are the benefits of code? Houses still burn down, pipes freeze. What codes do is reduce the supply of houses, and set it up so would-be homeowners must hire a contractor to get their home built.”
“There are a lot of hoops to jump through if one decides to construct their own dwelling. So the regulations make it harder to build,” he pointed out.
The selection of materials was dictated by the code officials, he remarked. It is widespread that codes are extremely unfriendly to recycled materials and reused components. Mr. Greathouse built a foundation of 15 rammed earth tires for the house. The floor was dirt, which would have been quite serviceable in the dry climate. He was considering putting in a concrete floor, but that was not necessary, he concluded. However, he learned that the use of tires for construction was prohibited.
What is the solution to this decades-long assault on dweller-builders of low-cost homes? Reduce the residential building codes to the bare bones necessary to protect health and safety in urban and rural environments, with different codes for each. Codes should be refined further for multiple dwellings, which was historically the case in New York State, where I reside. Until 1984, except for multiple dwellings, New York State was a non-code state for areas outside those municipalities that chose to have a building code. Rural New Yorkers were socked with a uniform statewide building code more suitable for urban New York after legislation was passed in reaction to the deadly Stouffer’s Inn fire in 1980 in Harrison in Westchester County, a short distance from New York City.
With the bare bones codes in place, then, when individuals choose to build a higher quality dwelling, the government could certify professionals who would grant and file “Quality Built” code certifications that the building meets high quality code requirements, just as today it is possible to obtain “Green” certifications or “Energy Efficient” certifications from private organizations. However, the “Quality Built” certifications would go one step further, being filed with the building code office. But the person of modest means, or anyone living in a private home, for that matter, would have the free assistance and the “benefit” of enforcement by the code officials only for a short list of health and safety requirements, such as those that FEMA should have enforced before doling out trailers it purchased for Hurricane Katrina victims, where poisonous off-gassing of volatiles from chemical-containing interior components made the trailers uninhabitable.
Until the states that have adopted statewide building codes rethink their defacto assault on homeowners who cannot afford to meet quality codes or who chose other building methods and standards, the code enforcement attack on low-income, independent-living people, women, and the elderly will not abate.
low cost housing house construction building system affordable plastic shutter formwork moladi low-income concrete form formwork alternative patented metro modular sabs nhbrc approved earthquake proof modu cast IBS industrialized building system hurricane wall walling reinforced reinforcing mortar mix design raft foundation window frame thermal conductivity properties cement river sand labour cheap prefab units aluminium system formwork brick block plaster mpa multistorey square meter floor area frame technology department sqm design designs plan plans isometric view high rise maslow hierarchy needs resistance mesh rate materials bungalow builder contractor modern cimbras formaletas plastico encofrados construccion coffrage schalungen formas moldes forming ties brazil mexico africa india pakistan innovations patent cyclone high tensile sistemas constructivos bop
