Codes Are Not A Low Bar, People Are

What do building standards stand for? If you operate in any overlapping category of real estate and the building trades, then you have heard the phrase – “it meets code” – at least once. Maybe twice? Well, what does that mean?

Code gets a bad rap not because it’s bad, but because it requires humans

In our Middle TN region, it tends to mean one thing the closer you are to Nashville, Knoxville, or Chattanooga, and quite another in lesser populated areas in between. It also depends on which code is being referenced – International Building Code, International Residential Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code, National Electric Code. Each of these tomes is generated by a dizzying array of academic, professional, and trade specialists, combined with governmental, and sometimes lobbying, entities.

Again, the context of where you are entirely dictates the rules of the game. This is, unfortunately, a glib way to summarize the situation. In reality, what tends to happen is because humans create, adopt, and enforce the codes, inconsistencies and errors are very common. This is not to point toward corruption (perhaps another article…?) beyond the corrupt imperfection of humans. And, you know what humans really dislike – chaffing and cold water, yes, but more than that…change.

We tend to shy away from change more than from exercise or house cleaning.

We humans love to stomp our paths into ruts. Ruts are easy to follow. Ruts can guide newbies. Ruts are convenient because they can be followed whilst paying attention to something else. Ruts also tend to be hard to escape after decades of stomping and following. And so, we come to homes built fresh atop newly sectioned-off lots that cost more than four times (yikes!) what our folks paid for and yet perform very similar to those same homes of yesteryear.

When I say perform, I mean: Put together with the same methodologies related to air, water, and pest management. These are the three horsemen of the home apocalypse and are very much understated in their presence until it may be too late for the home. There is no reason for a home built in our modern era to perform the same way a 1950s home does when it comes to a blower door test (feel free to email me if you don’t know what the scientific simplicity of a blower door as a measurement tool is). We don’t accept new cars that perform like cars from the 1960s. Why do we do it for homes?

Seriously, think about it – how much material is spent in making a home? What about the average carbon footprint (folks, it’s pretty bad what one home contributes to our atmospheric pollution, let along our landfills) for making a home? Why are we okay with following standards for building said home that will result in said home making its way to a landfill in 30-50 years? Why wouldn’t we simply adopt a slightly different set of practices and standards that allow said home to last for 100+ years? Change.

I don’t like it, change that is! Keep it away!

Change for humans is like Shere Khan from “The Jungle Book” faced with fire. You wave change in our faces and we hiss and retreat. In our market, this looks like resistance to better building standards by most (not all) general contractors; this looks like local building codes departments slow or unwilling to adopt modern codes that require trades professionals to put the pieces together differently; this looks like homes being built without any verifiable testing for performance (again, would you buy a new car today that didn’t have safety ratings from crash testing?).

Building a new home to “code” should be a badge of honor and pride garnering respect. Unfortunately, it historically has trended toward the other end of the spectrum. In my market, that same phrase usually is used to excuse such errors as water and fungal growth in a crawlspace, or HVAC return duct plenums built by voided framing space. In my market, that same phrase usually is used by trades and real estate professionals (oh, the stories I could tell…) to argue against a home inspector or building performance specialist who has advised clients of information that makes said clients have higher expectations for the home.

I am convinced that “it meets code” is merely a crutch on which to lean against impending change. The dirty little secret is that most current iterations of code – any of the code entities out there – really do afford for well-performing homes that keep occupants safe and healthy, as well as keep the home intact for many more decades, if not generations. Codes and standards have evolved quite well. It’s the people who remain resistant to change. It’s the people who continue, with the help of special interest groups (ever stop to wonder what’s so special about those interests – ahem, money, ahem…) to carve out the sections of code they choose not to adopt or enforce.

Codes have changed for the better (enter “Wicked” song here…)

With a wink to irony, it’s also people who are leading the change. It’s the high-school education programs teaching students building science; it’s the social media presence of trades professionals sharing what they learn from their failures; and its professionals like home inspectors and building performance specialists taking up the mantles of educator and consumer protector. Yes, it’s a tall order. Yes, there are so many forces pushing against change. Yes, making these choices means upsetting some local trades professionals and losing some business. I’m doing it. Others are doing it. We’d love for you to join us in making our homes, our neighborhoods, and our communities better and healthier for family and friends.