In part one of this series we covered the main components of the International Building Code as laid out by the International Code Council. Now we will move on to take a quick look at how the construction industry has evolved around the code and why we complain about it so much.

The building code is focused upon protecting those who use the structure, those who use the area around it and the life of the structure itself. It's purpose is to guide builders, engineers and architects in the construction of a safe structure. The code is not meant to find the most economical way to build, that is left up to the contractor and thus the battle begins. When there are violations they occur for one of three reasons: lack of understanding behind the specific code, to save money or to save time. Not understanding the reason behind the code is a flimsy excuse, especially if it is on the part of a seasoned contractor or trades-person. It comes back to the original statement, the code was created for a purpose. Proper training and education will prove the need for the code, but if the ego of the builder interferes then there is a larger problem only remedied through termination from the job.

When the code is violated as a means of reducing costs, it is slightly more understanding but just as serious. Not applying a vapor barrier over batt insulation before installing drywall is a classic example of saving time and money. As is building on concrete before it has cured - causing cracks and compromising the stability of the structure. Very often these measures only save money in the short term, and end up costing the end user in the long term. The only exception of course, is if the builder's mistakes are found by a building inspector and changes are ordered.

The Code of Hammurabi is a Babylonian building code dating back to 1700 BCE. It was a fairly sophisticated set of laws covering the methods of building residential structures. The stipulations it made in cases of violations of the code were severe. For example, if a builder built a house, did not use proper methods of construction which subsequently caused it to collapse, killing the owner, then the builder was put to death. If the house fell and a member of the family was killed, a corresponding member of the builder's family would be put to death. Similar variations continue on with similar consequences. While these measures may seem harsh, they certainly ensured the strict adherence to the code. In the US today, building code violations are a crime punishable by law. A violation may carry nothing more than a fine, depending on the severity of the infraction. For an infraction more serious the punishment may be incarceration in addition to a monetary fine.

So, why do we complain about building codes so much? Well, largely because codes are lacking, only changing on a reactive basis. Fire prevention and protection are usually the most carefully laid out areas - and for good reason. Other areas of code are not current and prove to be completely inadequate in protecting the end user's investment. If the building codes are not proactive, they do not keep current with new technologies in methods and materials. For example, electrical wiring in an older home is designed for a lower amperage. There is no definitive rule stipulating an electrical upgrade is required when using modern appliances on a knob-and-tube electrical system. But the outcome would be, at a minimum, a blown circuit and at a maximum, an electrical fire. What does the infamous Mike Holmes always say? Minimum code is not enough.

Building codes are law. They were created for a reason and should be followed to the letter. However, doesn't it behoove every professional in the construction business to go above and beyond minimum code? Will that not make the world a better place? Won't our homes, offices, hospitals and recreational facilities be better built, safer and longer lasting? Won't that mean lower costs of repairs in the future? Yes, building codes are a necessary evil but we can work towards making them more useful.