The importance of building codes

In discussing the horrendous results of the quakes in Iran, Alan Sullivan affirms (implicitly at the least) the importance of building codes (or their functional free-market equivalent should such a thing ever come into existence.)

Buildings codes provide a uniform minimum standard which offers
1. some consumer-protection assurance ---you needn't bring a structural engineer with you before you go into a building in order to determine whether it is designed safely;
2. a builder can rely on adherence to codes as a reasonable defense in cases where there are indeed structural/fire problems.

Overall, building codes are tremendously efficient means of increasing the velocity of economic transactions by relieving individual buyers and sellers of the burden of negotiating continually on "how sound is sound."

Comments

[Aaron Haspel]

Earthquakes kill thousands in desperately poor countries like Iran and dozens, at most, in California, because structural soundness is a luxury they cannot afford. A building code is like a minimum wage: it merely ratifies improvements made possible by increased productivity of labor. Do you honestly suppose that Iran would be better off with building codes, or that earthquakes would kill thousands in the U.S. if it lacked them?

[David Sucher]

Yup.

(Of course I assume code compliance goes along with the existence of a code.)

It's my understanding that one of the reasons so many people in lesser-developed countries die from earthquakes (of a magnitude which hardly kill any in the USA) is that their buildings literally collapse and the collapses are not due to poverty -- to inability to afford, say, more (or any) steel reinforcing in concrete walls.

[Alan Sullivan]

Aaron's question surprises me. The answer seems almost self-evident; but evidently not to him.

I don't say this without some libertarian qualms. I've seen first-hand some of the perverse side-effects of building codes and zoning laws. They are highly susceptible to political abuse, from wacko environmentalism to kickback-driven development. But David's point about transaction velocity is well-taken. As long as codes remain local and their enforcement is transparent, they are a net plus, as we have seen today.

[Aaron Haspel]

No doubt I'm being thick, but could one of you explain exactly why in Iran -- or Russia, or Guatemala, to cite two other countries that have recently suffered similar disasters -- houses are not built with steel-reinforced concrete? And why steel reinforcement was usual in this country long before it was mandated by building codes?

[David Sucher]

I can't answer Aaron's question about Iran or Russia or Guatemala; it's a good one; and I am always fascinated that knowledge of basic things such as the history of buiding codes or residential real estate markets in far-away places are so hard to track down and hardly the stuff of common intellectual discussion.

My guess would be that in fact the codes -- where they exist -- do indeed mandate structural steel but that there is so much corruption in enforcement that the rules are often simply ignored. But as I say, I am not knowledgeable about building practices overseas.

As to the statement that "steel reinforcement was usual in this country long before it was mandated by building codes" I would like to see some documentation of that before I wouild accept it as fact.

I know from first hand experience that simple, small commercial buildings in Seattle which were built around 1900 often contain NO structural steel in their foundations. And as a matter of fact, on very solid soil and with a light load on top, that's no big deal and no hazard to public safety. I believe that even as late as the 1950s, it was NOT common to see structural steel in concrete block structures.

One can argue that current building codes require vast over-building; but I am not expert there and I do not know exactly how one would judge that i.e. where is "too much." Believe it or not, even now structural engineers still seem to be learning about how even simple buildings behave in quakes and are adjusting the codes to better handle them. The Northridge, California quake (1994) apparently taught us some new lessons about how buildings behave and forced modifications in codes.

[Alan Sullivan]

Codes represent the practical application of accumulated knowledge. Their formulation requires an empirical mind-set. Perhaps this intellectual infrastructure is weak or absent in the places you mention, Aaron. That was the point of my post on Iran vs. California.

[TM Lutas]

Funny, this entire conversation assumes that Iran does not have building codes. As for code compliance, the simple truth is that bribes are cheaper than structural steel and that will often be true in non-capitalist countries with low labor costs.

[Alan Sullivan]

Very true about bribes, however this discussion has gotten bogged down on the subject of steel. There are less expensive ways to enhance safety, for people who take the trouble to learn about their world instead of spending a good part of every day in prayer.

I imagine that Teheran and some other cities have codes, and enforce them after a fashion. Bam is very old, and a real retrofit could not have been managed. But if people understood how to secure the places where they sleep, using local materials more wisely, the death toll would surely have been much smaller. First, though, they must shed their fatalism. That's the fundamental problem, not the presence or absence of a code.

[TM Lutas]

Alan Sullivan - Shedding their fatalism will put them out into the streets trying to overthrow the current government. I don't think you quite understand what role fatalism plays in authoritarian and totalitarian countries. It's a survival mechanism. An earthquake in Bam is a once in a century event. Getting your head beat in, your throat slit, or just disappearing forever is something that is a much greater practical danger.

[Alan Sullivan]

"Out into the streets." Indeed, that's exactly what it means, and what I wish to see. But it appears Iran is not ripe for counter-revolution yet. Michael Ledeen was a bit premature in his optimism.

Maybe we're blind men groping the elephant. I feel that the totalitarian system arises from religion and culture; you feel it shapes them, by deforming the daily lives of the people.

I don't think this is a significant disagreement. Let's forget it, and spend the rest of the day denouncing the idiots who think the U.S. military triggered the quake with ELF weapons.