Buyer education versus a good code and intensive enforcement of it
This is kind of a general question. I’m seeing more and more issues coming up on GBA questions and answers regarding shoddy construction that homeowners are having to deal with. I read it recently in Peter L’s description of some builders in the Phoenix area. This is most concerning when one is having a new home built, or purchasing a previously built new home, and it has subpar construction. It does not seem to me to be a good environment when the prospective new homeowner is required to teach the builder how to create a comfortable and energy efficient home, or to have inspected the home oneself in the construction phase to know whether it passes muster.
My question is this: where does one place the line between putting the onus on education of the buyer or having good codes and proper enforcement of them. I seem to be discerning a philosophical divide on this between red states and blue states. Some of the most shoddy new construction (not all) seems to be occurring where there is a strong libertarian streak in the populace. Arizona is a prime example but there are other southern states as well as midwestern states that share that philosophy.
I would be interested to hear from people that live in southern and midwestern states whether I’m getting this right or if I’m wrong (or just framing the question incorrectly). I keep hearing from people that education is the key. I agree that education is important but is it really morally OK to let inferior code, or lax code enforcement of good codes exist in this day and age. Not everyone is as interested in the technical aspects of building construction as those who read articles here are. Is it fair to make those less educated people conform to our mold just so they can live in a nice energy efficient and comfortable house.
Again, I’m interested to hear from people who oppose stricter code or stricter enforcement of that code. How do you justify your thinking? Inquiring minds want to know.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Eric,
I addressed your question in my 2014 article, Do Homeowners Need to Understand Home Performance?
Martin,
I just read that article. Good article. Perhaps the problem of poor house building is not at all a geographical problem. It seems to be everywhere. But I was disturbed by the admonition on the Phoenix builder that education on the part of the homebuyer is what will eliminate the problem. That just isn't true because it is impossible to educate everyone. That was a clear case of it being a free for all situation with the builders. That does seem to be a geographical problem.
What seems to happen in these situations is that the people who don't want oversight, the builders primarily, just muddy the waters. They want laws to go away so they can make more money. Money flows into the system from the top of the pyramid of wealth in this country to lawmakers to eliminate the rules that would help the average person. The really sad thing is that so many people who do not benefit in the slightest from loose enforcement of already poor regulations vote for people who promote that looseness. It's not rational but it is what it is.
I think it's safe to say that code looseness is not the problem. Building codes have been getting stricter and more detailed for 50 years, and what do we have to show for it? Typical new construction is shoddier than ever.
If you ask me, this is all part and parcel of complication that is driven by using flimsier and flimsier component materials, and the inherent solution to excessive complication is decomplication. When you build walls in like 8 or more distinct steps, there are a million ways to get it wrong. A typical modern wall is made out of young softwood dimensional lumber filled with insulation and covered on one side with painted sheets of paper-covered gypsum and the other with sheets of glued-together wood chips, sheets of rigid plastic foam, a plastic water-resistive barrier, and plastic siding. Then we fill these houses with expensive complicated computerized ducted forced air heating and cooling systems, separate ventilation systems, hot and cold plumbing lines running clear across the house to service 3 bathrooms, 2 sinks in the kitchen, a dog washing station... It's a wonder wonder anything works!
Contrast this with ancient building approaches that involved simple methods and durable materials, which are inherently more resistant to poor assembly, and they offer better value for the owner as well. For example, a solid wall of mortared stones. Now obviously an uninsulated stone wall doesn't cut it today in terms of heating performance, but we have a wide variety of modern products that give you virtually the same simplicity and durability with good levels of insulation and vapor retardancy. For example, ICFs, precast concrete sandwich panels, InsulTech blocks, AAC blocks, Durisol blocks, you name it. There is no shortage of innovative materials that are simple to assemble and highly durable. I think adopting the attitude of simple and durable rather than complicated and interdependent is the way out of this pickle, and the way we get there is by making alternatives cheaper and cheaper. In a cost-is-everything construction market, builders will switch once alternatives are faster, simpler, no more expensive, and just as readily available as lumber and sheet goods. I think it's nothing more than boring old market competition that will fix this mess.
I would not necessarily say code enforcement is very good in some areas. My home is a perfect example. I did not build the home, but bought it as a 7 year old house in 2012. I was able to get a hold of the building inspection forms that were done when the house was built, and some of the things that are problems were identified, but they never fixed them, and others were not even identified.
As far as homeowner education, on a resale the only chance you have is a good home inspector, which will miss many issues that are hidden.
Some of the things I've found at my house:
-there is no WRB on my house, but the garage has one
-there are uninsulated water lines in the attic, this was identified in the code inspections, but never addressed. The waterlines freeze every day it gets below ~28 F at my house so I've added piping to allow me to isolate the lines and drain them as needed.
-termite flashing was wrapped from under the sill, up and stapled to the OSB sheathing, this allowed water to pool and rot the OSB when it got behind the siding
-there is no flashing and roof edges that meets siding allowing water to get behind the siding, with no WRB
-the doors and windows were not sealed at all around the rough openings
- the grade was within 3" of the untreated OSB. This was noticed when I saw the house, but I didn't think about how much dirt has to moved to get the entire grade 5" or so lower. I bought a Bobcat...
-the electric boiler was wired incorrectly so every time the boiler cycled on the operating temperature limit, it would alarm on low flow
-I have radiant floor heat, but the slab was never insulated horizontally beneath or vertically at the edges
- they used perforated drainage piping for the downspouts of the gutters... when it rains good, water sprays from the little slits all over, right next to the foundation
These are just a few of the things I've seen since I've been here. Short of removing the siding and attic insulation me and the inspector would really never find these things.
Reply to Nate,
"In a cost-is-everything construction market, builders will switch once alternatives are faster, simpler, no more expensive, and just as readily available as lumber and sheet goods. I think it's nothing more than boring old market competition that will fix this mess."
I don't think that will work. If you use ICFs or whatever and the guy building next door is building with traditional brick who is going to come in cheaper: the builder working with traditional stone. If you say that any customer will chose the ICF because it's insulated then you are depending on the power of education. If the traditional house is cheaper and looks as good or better than the one that's insulated there will still be a problem for the builder. Markets are simply not as rational as you might think they are because there is always incomplete information or actual disinformation involved in any market.
For a market to work and be competitive one has to set up guidelines within which the markets can operate. One must spell out minimum standards for insulation and air and water intrusion and enforce it for markets to be truly competitive. Otherwise the market victors are the ones who are most unethical or just plain dishonest.
Michael, those examples are awful, and my own house has a lot of similar issues. Drywall shower, no window flashing, stucco to below grade level in termite land, the works. However, these stories support my point. Having a lot of rules doesn't matter if enforcement is spotty. But is greater enforcement really what we want? Having every detail of your work micromanaged by someone with absolute power over you is most people's idea of a personal hell on earth. Maybe instead, we should build walls that can't rot, don't need sheets of plastic to protect them from the rain, don't need extremely complicated mechanical systems, etc. Your story is the same old one all over again: complexity done wrong. Maybe with less complexity and more durability, the need to have everything done perfectly and inspected scrupulously will diminish.
Eric, if people built walls with traditional brick, that would be phenomenal. Brick doesn't burn, doesn't grow mold, never needs painting or replacing, in a hot climate you don't even need to insulate it if it's thick enough, window and door flashing is easy, your teenage son can't put his fist through it, standing water won't destroy it... I could go on. It's a disaster from the perspective of heating bills, of course, but there are a lot of advantages to counterbalance that. If people in climate zone 3 and below abandoned wood and build everything out of solid brick that would represent a major improvement over most current practices.
Eric,
I think perhaps you are specifically reacting to my advice. I had no other option than to teach the builder. The builders here in SC do not know what is involved in building an energy efficient home, even a significantly better than average code home. My carpenter is in his 60s and started in the building trades when he was around 15 or 16. He didn't know hardly anything about air sealing when we started on my brother's house. But you should have seen how nervous he was during the blower door test and how proud he was when the man who administered the test was taking a picture of the blower door result because it was so good. Whenever I see him, he thanks me for what I've taught him about building a house and he's been doing it almost 50 years.
My contractor is the same way. He does things differently now.
I had been studying on this site in particular for 3 years before we built my brother's home. I had already done a retrofit on my house (about 5 years ago and would do differently now) and built a shop on my brother's property before we started the house with the same carpenter and contractor. Each time we upped our energy game largely because of what I learned here. Anyone who posts on this forum is already asking the right questions and in process of educating themselves. They are already becoming educated about building a better home. They have to be involved in building process to pass on this knowledge and to guarantee that their home is built to their above code standards.
I agree that code enforcement should be a major part of the process, but those guys are stretched so thin, I think they only look at major stuff. I had to explain about rain screen siding and show the guy from the code department information on Roxul mineral wool insulation - he'd never heard of it and was concerned about fire and insect infestation. He'd never seen a service chase and was a little dismayed that we had insulated the wall with blown-in cellulose behind Intello Plus membrane because he couldn't see the framing. He realized that what we were doing was so far above code, he didn't really make an issue of that.
The postings from the "Wild West" are absolutely horrific. Those homes are so far below code it is criminal. You are correct about that problem being a code enforcement problem. But still if people who are looking to purchase a home in that area did a walk through during the construction phase and they had some knowledge about decent building practices, they would leave immediately and never buy a home from that builder.
There's not a lot of evidence that quality in single family homes has ever been valued more than square footage, price, fancy features, etc. How much responsibility does an individual home buyer bare? Not much. The market, along with other large forces, have screwed things up.
As a builder, I'm not sure what it will take to change things. Educated homeowners will certainly help. The market needs to reward the things we say we value.
Here are my opinions:
We need improvement in four areas: 1. We need stricter codes. 2. We need better code enforcement. 3. We need more stringent requirements for builder training and certification. 4. We need home buyers to be better educated and more demanding.
That said, we can't blame ignorant home buyers for the current state of affairs. Home buyers can't be expected to be educated enough on these issues to solve the problem.
This is a consumer protection issue. Houses like the one shown in the "Wild West" article are no different from contaminated meat or dog food laced with melamine. We should expect there to be regulations established and enforced by our government to protect us from these appalling building practices.
The governments of Germany and Sweden do better at this than we do. It's a solvable problem if we have the political will.
Consumer awareness and demand drives the market. If consumers were better educated and they demanded a better product the market would be driven to change.
Think of how many markets function perfectly well without the level of regulation and bureaucracy that is commonly proposed to solve these sorts of problems. An example many of you may be familiar with is local farmer's markets. The food you buy there hasn't been inspected and certified by the FDA or USDA. Local laws vary widely and few are anywhere near as comprehensive as existing building codes. Some are more or less unregulated. And yet there is no expectation that you risk poisoning by shopping at these places. This is because farmer's markets are marked by a high degree of social trust, plentiful competition among sellers, and informed consumers. So they function perfectly well without costly and heavy-handed layers of government oversight. Furthermore, even some uninformed food shoppers are gravitating towards farmer's markers because of the advantages of better taste and sometimes lower prices (due to diminished transportation, customer acquisition, and regulatory costs). Who doesn't appreciate better quality that costs less?
This is the ideal we should be working towards in the construction and remodeling markets. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that more government intervention is needed amounts to acquiescing to the permanence of ignorant home-buyers and unscrupulous contractors. It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't in many other markets.
Nate,
When I buy a peach, it's pretty easy to assess the quality of the peach. That's not true for a homeowner buying a new house.
Automakers resisted every step of the way when fuel efficiency targets were suggested, or when air bags and seat belts were proposed. Refrigerator manufacturers also squawked when energy efficiency mandates were suggested. Yet once these regulations finally were established -- after the public successfully battled lobbyists who opposed the regulations for years -- the benefits of these measures seem clear.
Lucy,
I think you really stepped up, in your own self interest, to have the home you needed to have. I have to say that you are an exceptional person in that regard. I don't think very many men without training in construction (and many that have) could have supervised nearly as well as you did.
That said, how many other Lucy's or Dave's could have the energy and ability to do what you did? I think you are too close to the project to actually see it clearly. Not many. I just don't think it's feasible to expect that expertise in the general public. Many people mistakenly think of the public like the Garrison Keilor line, "they are all above average."
Nate,
"Buying a house is like buying a peach," you say? I disagree.
When I visit the Jean-Talon market in Montreal, most of the sellers offer free samples of their fruit, already cut up and waiting for customers to taste. And if someone at a farmer's market sells me something bitter or rotten, I'll see the seller next week and have a conversation about the previous week's purchase.
Most buyers of homes in the U.S. never meet the builder, and in fact have no idea who built the house. Those brand-new homes in Maricopa County will be bought by an eager buyer and then resold to the next sucker in just four years. What recourse does Buyer #2 have?
Consumer protection laws benefit everyone. Home buyers in the U.S. have remarkably little protection.
Martin,
Is it actually easy to assess the quality of the peach, though? I would suggest that many of the issues are the same. It may look and feel nice enough, but once you take the peach home and cut it open, you may discover that the interior is rotten. Biting into it, you may find that it tastes acrid and bitter. Even if it tastes fine, it may be infected with microscopic parasites that make you sick. The parallel to homeownership where people are attracted to a pleasing appearance and only later discover infrastructural flaws should be evident.
And U.S. Automakers did more than resist the regulations. They repeatedly went bankrupt because nobody wanted the rehashed clunkers they were selling year after year, preferring Asian imports that had no trouble adapting to changing consumer demands for greater fuel efficiency and safety. The only reason why the U.S. automakers are still around is because they have been repeatedly put on life support by the federal government.
My point is that there's more than one way to skin a cat. Some markets are clearly able to provide high-quality products with a minimum of government intervention, while others are not. I'm suggesting that we should examine the commonalities and differences here rather than jump to the conclusion that the problem is insufficient government regulation.
If I may say, one common thread in most of these "broken markets" is that the sellers suffer from an entrenched conservative attitude that sees them reflexively and irrationally resist change, even positive-sum change. They fear risk, desire to keep doing what they've always done, ignore growing market segments, and never make an effort to use advertising and new forms of media to shape customer demand. In short, they are terrible businesspeople who are ripe for being outcompeted by newcomers. As various articles on this site have shown, home buyers say they care about efficiency and are willing to pay more for it, but they have no idea what form it takes or how to measure it. This is not so much an educational opportunity as an advertising opportunity.
Who wouldn't want a house that is highly comfortable, has great air quality, and is inexpensive to run? Everybody wants that! You just need to highlight it. Businesspeople who enthusiastically embrace change and respond to their customers' unstated desires don't need a lot of government regulation. Old fashioned conservatives who reflexively resist change--to the detriment of their customers and often their own profit--do.
I've banged on about this before. My experience here on lower Vancouver Island is that our code, inspections and enforcement form a workable system that produces well-built, efficient houses across the board. There may be problems, but they aren't systemic the way they appear to be elsewhere. For this to happen has required political will and a certain level of buy-in among the participants in the industry and society as a whole. Whether that is possible in other regions I don't know, but my experience is it can be done.
I agree with Martin 100%. I was lucky enough to be able to contact the original builder of my house to attempt resolve my issues (I'm the second owner). Not surprisingly, he could care less about the issues in the home snd told me to kick sand. He went bankrupt a few years after buikding my hiuse and no longer builds homes. I contacted my lawyer who said it would be nearly impossible to take the case to court and win and would cost me $25K up front in fees. Karma must have caught up to him as he was murdered while out on a float trip for urinating in someone's grass.
Michael wrote:
"he was murdered while out on a float trip for urinating in someone's grass."
What a wonderfully evocative description.
Michael, there's no doubt you've earned some good karma just as that builder earned some bad. Sorry that you had the experience that you did.
Things happen sometimes good, sometimes bad, I'll fix it, and make it better.
I began searching the internet when he wouldn't respond to me our my lawyer. The news story made it seem like he had s9me words with the property owner. The owner claimed self defence but is now serving for manslaughter. Crazy world! Worst part is he was actually going to testify against the person who contracted him to build the house and sold it to me. The builder claimed the guy who sold it to me knew about a lot of the issues because he was too cheap to add the foam under the slab, etc which is what started my problems. The home sale ad was very specific in that the slab was insulated and on some R values of the walls and attic. All of which were blatant lies.
Chris,
I use the largest insulator in my region, who does a lot of work for developers. Their three person crew has one devoted to insulating and sealing around doors, windows and penetrations. In the absence of a strict inspector who will fail them if that work is not done, I wonder if they would structure their crews that way?
Long time lurker, first time poster. I first want to say what a fantastic site this is. Kudos to everyone who keeps it going.
I know this is an older thread but I have very strong feelings about this issue so I wanted to add my 2 cents.
The problems with home construction today are a combination of homeowners who just don't care and the proliferation of large scale production builders.
#1 Developers/large scale production builders. These guys are on a very tight schedule and will not stand for any delays. Back in the building boom (pre'08) they knew code enforcement was lax since county inspectors just could not keep up. Shortcuts were taken and inspections were less intrusive. In my area (Atlanta) there are many problems ranging from issues with regards to the site (buckling retaining walls, improper grading) to structural defects. As a prospective buyer when dealing with these entities it's 'their way or the highway' because the developer had no problems letting you walk because there was a new buyer waiting to take your place.
#2 Homeowners. We live in a transient society and some areas of the country are more transient than others. Consequently the average homeowner isn't thinking of their new home as a 'lifetime investment' but as a temporary domicile. Pre-2008 this was especially true of the homeowner who bought new with the intention of flipping in 2-3 years for something bigger and 'better'. The production builders didn't care because they would be gone and the homeowner didn't care but most issues probably wouldn't appear until well after they were gone. We have almost 10 years of housing stock in the United States that was built with this way of thinking.
Here's my own personal story (Zone3A, Metro Atlanta). Still living in my first home and it was purchased as new construction (Townhome) in 2000 by a now defunct subsidiary of a national builder. Here are some of the construction details.
2 of 3 exterior walls: Cement siding nailed to OSB (corners) or 1" foam, 2x4, fiberglass insulation, drywall. No WRB. I inquired about house wrap and was told that they don't do it, it wasn't required by code, and I could not have it done myself.
1 of 3 exterior walls: 2nd floor- Stucco, tar paper, OSB. 1st floor - Brick, tar paper, OSB,
Exterior wall penetrations (metering lines, gas lines) were never sealed with foam or caulk. HVAC refrigerant lines run up an exterior wall to the third floor.
Slab foundation: Wasn't leveled and engineered hardwoods were glued directly to the slab with no underlayment. Slab has developed some hairline cracks in the rear.
Shower and tub in master bathroom is located on the exterior wall (The builder offered 4 plans and the layout didn't change if a particular plan was place as an end-unit). The drain pipes for the second floor come together under the master bath and the main pipe travels down inside an exterior wall.
Windows: Custom wood framed double-pane windows with poor to no insulation around the framing. (I had wanted to seal the framing around the windows with foam or scrap insulation but the sheetrock guys had sealed everything up the day after the insulation and windows were installed.)
Attic space: Mechanicals (HVAC, Gas furnace). loose fill fiberglass insulation, vented roof. Access to the third floor attic space via stairs and a hollow interior door.
Today Georgia code has been updated and I've seen foil faced foam attached underneath the roof decking, better windows, blown in cellulous insulation, sealing along the sill and joists. Housewrap appears standard but I rarely see the seams taped.
No rainscreens.
Malcolm,
I am a novice when it comes to building but I have a fascination with residential building and have over the last 15 yrs probably walked through 100 mid-level and luxury priced homes in Atlanta.
Basically I know just enough to not know what I don't know if that makes any sense. So based upon my lack of experience I imagine it starts at the top with the GC/Developer. If the GC upholds their standard and the sub meets that standard then then sub continues to get work.
Chris,
I'd imagine the answer to this is heavily dependant on local conditions. Most builders around here don't inspect their insulator's work, or complain about it unless it interferes with subsequent trades - or fails inspection. As you say, if the sub holds up work by having to re-do it, then they probably won't be hired again. So from my persecutive the best guarantee of quality is a robust municipal building inspection regime.
Building codes provide a false sense of security. Homebuyers assume that it passed a government sanctioned inspection, so it must be good. I think a lot of builders see it in a similar light. If the inspector and code allow it, then it must be good. Obviously that's not the case.
I'm sure many would disagree with me, but I would do away with government mandated building codes altogether. It's not that I don't think there should be standards, but I believe absent any government standard, consumers would be forced to take a greater interest in how their houses are being built. They wouldn't need to be experts either. I think you would see a great expansion in third party verification. The standards are out there, consumers just have to be motivated to demand them.
@ Michael I have not read the entire thread, but your saying because building codes are not very stringent (largely because of pressure from builders) they should be eliminated because the wild west is better and everyone who buys a house should become a master carpenter so they can figure out if its built properly, or trust in another industry that is interested in profit over lives.
[insert facepalm here]
I guess if you believe the government is worse then people who would let you die for a dollar then your logic makes sense.
I completely agree, Michael. The same effect is seen in many heavily-regulated industries. Everyone mistakenly assumes that the heavy regulation guarantees safety and quality, when in fact what actually happens is that the existing market actors sort of voluntarily stop paying attention. Consumers assume safety rather than using their brains, and businesspeople figure that the government will make it happen. This is the antithesis of the kind of care and conscientiousness that is desirable and necessary for a healthy market that benefits everyone. Then, when inevitably there are major problems or scandals, people say, "well, this just means the regulations weren't tight enough! If we regulated the industry in order to prevent the kinds of problems that we are still seeing, it couldn't possibly be that more regulation is not the answer! We need more regulation to fix the existing regulation that failed! Do it again, but harder!"
Proponents of regulation like to point to the pharmaceutical and motor vehicle industries as regulatory success stories but frequently forget that they hate the high prices, levels of political cronyism, bureaucratic hassles associated with patronizing these industries, and the fact that these changes have resulted in the dominance of gigantic corporations over small and mid-sized businesses. If building codes get dramatically tighter and better enforced, the most likely result is that building will come to be dominated by an ever smaller number of ever larger firms in the exact same kind of consolidation that we see in every other heavily-regulated industry that people hold negative opinions about, like banking, finance, health insurance, air travel, you name it.
Nate,
Yes, I completely agree. There should also be a complete elimination of stop signs and traffic lights on the public byways. People often get the impression that just because the other vehicle has a stop sign or a red light that that vehicle will stop. Instead, those stop signs and light signals should be taken down. Then people will take it upon themselves to educate themselves about intersections where traffic is likely to be heavy and will stop and take precautions of their own accord. On the whole I think this will make things safer for everybody. (snark alert)
Opposing mandatory government building codes and inspections in no way equates to opposing the concept of standards with verification. We mostly just think the government does a bad job, and cannot in all practicality be made to do much of a better job.
Let me sketch out a hypothetical voluntary building certification program to replace the status quo that we all agree is failing, and argue for how it would benefit everyone.
First, whenever a building is being constructed, a variety of private organizations can be hired to supervise or inspect the construction and basically do the same thing that today's private and government building inspectors do. Heck, they could even be the same people. It could even still be the government. But the important part is that this inspection would result in a specific, concrete certification guaranteeing a lack of defects caused by negligence or accident. A sort of yea/nay stamp of approval. This certification would further rate the building in various categories, and these categories would be a visible thing that the buyer could look at on the paperwork. Categories would be things like energy efficiency, upgradeability, resistance to rain, resistance to flooding, resistance to physical damage, resistance to insect attack, etc. People with no construction or building science knowledge whatsoever would look at these ratings and instantly be able to determine all kinds of things about a building they are contemplating buying. If the ratings turned out to be incorrect (say, a house rated as impervious to insect attack had wood structural members eaten by termites, or a house rated as highly resistant to flood damage had studs and drywall grow mold following a basement flood), the inspector who signed off on these ratings would have direct liability. Insurance companies would have a strong incentive for these ratings to be accurate. Every building would need certification to be deemed insurable. Uninspected buildings would have to be inspected and their defects addressed before insurance could be issued. If you are really a big fan of government you could even predicate legal salability on having the certification.
Buyers would win because every building would come with certification that would be accurate and trustworthy, actually giving them MORE information and confidence in the status of buildings they are interested in purchasing than they have today. Builders would win because consumers would get better buildings and have much more confidence in their product, so their reputations for sometimes being untrustworthy fraudsters would be erased; the prestige of the profession itself would greatly improve. And the capital stock of the nation itself would benefit because tying insurability and insurance rates very directly to the quality of a building would systematically encourage buildings to be built and upgraded in ways that made them safer and more durable, because these things would directly translate to lower insurance premiums for buyers and lower liability insurance rates for builders.
I understand the yearning to blame all the problems in housing on government regulations. But it isn't exactly what you think it is. In fact, housing construction is usually done in a somewhat continuous fashion where inspectors, even in the busiest metropolitan areas, cannot be there for every little thing. Things can literally get covered up almost instantly. That's the way it just is. If one tried to make the inspectors liable for things that are invisible to them THAT would be unreasonable.
It really isn't different that stop signs. 99.999% of the time someone who runs a light or stop sign will get away with it and not be seen by police or highway patrol. Government is often mistakenly seen by the right wing in this country as big brother. Actually it's just us. And just as we all are imperfect, that also shows up often in government. You can't legislate out that human imperfection.
What one CAN do is to try to implement the highest aspirations in human interactions. That is done by implementing good laws and good code. I think you may be mistaking poor laws and code, or poor implementation of good laws and good code, as a valid reason to not have those laws and codes. What I see in that kind of thinking is the attempt to make the "good" the enemy of the "perfect". There is no such thing as perfect in all human endeavors. Transferring that perfect responsibility to inspectors won't accomplish anything except eliminating building inspection as a profession.
Again the solution probably has a lot to do with where you live and the type of society that exists there.
A few of you may remember the North American interest for co-housing that occurred in the a 1980s. I attended seminars where proponents enthused about their visits to projects in Sweden, not realizing how much of the success relied on their Scandinavian cultural underpinnings. They never did translate well to other countries.
If Canada appears to have had greater success with a system of government inspections, it may have something to do with a historically greater belief in the common good - which isn't as strong in the States - so perhaps a private model of certification does make more sense there.
From a personal perspective, I'd much rather have my local government decide how I have to build that a private programme like Leed or Passivehouse.
Nate,
In some ways what you are suggesting mirrors the traditional role an architect played as the owner's advocate during construction.Their job was to ensure that work was being done in conformance with the drawings, and the drawings should include all the provisions you list as being important to the future performance of the building.
I put that in the past tense because for decades now architectural contracts have seen a huge decrease in time allotted for site visits, with some having none at all. This cost cutting has lead to architects switching their emphasis and losing the skills necessary to perform this work. If you can't make the numbers work so that there is even cursory visits by your representative on site, I don't see how you are going to realistically get the industry or owners to include the cost of the variety of private inspectors you suggest would provide guarantees for a wide-ranging series of aims for the building.
@ERIC
Under the system proposed NATE the builder could not proceed and cover things up just as they're not supposed to be able to do that today with Govt inspectors.
Actually we already have a system like this in placed (ex LEED). I would like to say however that on the residential side there would probably need to be some sort of national or state levels of certification in order to help with settled valuations for mortgage finance. Today it's very difficult to assign a value to 'green building' vs normal residential construction. The additional cost of building 'green' doesn't show up in the appraisal as added market value.
@NATE.. Nice to hear people in the trades are thinking this way.
My new house is in Whitefield Maine. No building permit required. No inspection, other than a cursory look at the plumbing drain and vent lines.
In such places, consumers either educate themselves, rely on the GC, or hire someone to keep the GC (and subs) from screwing up. I had a good GC, but was also fairly well informed, at least for a non-professional. I shudder to think what clueless consumers are buying.
@Chris
The problem I have with Nate's idea is making the building inspector legally liable in case of a lawsuit. That simply isn't viable even within a new corporate framework. Can you imagine how much an inspector would have to be paid to be subject to a lawsuit for every construction shortcoming? What would happen is that building inspectors would be reimbursed like medical doctors and corporate lawyers. What would that do to the rate structure for this new corporate framework?
This is the old rabbit hole of corporate efficiencies created by the marketplace creating unimaginable efficiencies. In reality, if there was no broad tax base to support this new framework it would become an expensive boutique entity, much like Passivehaus rating. If you then eliminated the tax base for government inspectors then the vast majority of individuals would not be able to afford to build. Instead there would be two tiers of people in this country: people who could afford a non-public funded entity that would guarantee reimbursement for building errors, and everyone else who had no inspection backup whatsoever. There is already way too much thinking in this country that those with the money should make the rules and everyone else can be left bereft.
Eric ,
Appraisers carry E&O insurance. An association of building inspectors could acquire the same coverage.
Chris,
How much would this E&O insurance for building inspectors cost? Would it be within a price that would not change all the other interdependencies you and Nate are counting on? My late father was a physician and stopped certain procedures he had been doing because of mounting malpractice insurance costs. I think it is incumbent for anti-government types to spell these things out when advocating for alternatives to the present tax based systems.
In fact, the biggest error and myth in conservative thought is that the market has perfect knowledge and that there will always be better alternatives than government. In actuality there are rather narrow areas in which that is true. But in areas in which there is an overall public good and high risk that everyone shares in then often the best alternative is public pooling of money. You can call that government, or you can call it something else. But as long as it pools money from everyone within a region it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
Nate:
referring back to your comment #11, "This is because farmer's markets are marked by a high degree of social trust, plentiful competition among sellers, and informed consumers. ....This is the ideal we should be working towards in the construction and remodeling markets." -
Nate, you're late to the party. This is exactly how it does work and has worked for many years at the custom end of the residential construction market where informed and well-resourced buyers demand better built homes and knowledgable and skilled contractors are happy to supply that demand - at a premium price. But of course not everyone feels they can afford to be a buyer in that market. For those buyers a strong regulatory structure represents a baseline of quality that the higher end is free to exceed, but none are free to fall below. This continuously improving baseline standard expands the market and reduces relative costs of quality work in the production home industry: if a quality insulation job is required in every home, insulation contractors will learn how to provide that quality without 'special' pricing. The free market leads the pack and raises the bar, the regulated baseline steadily improves a step or two behind. As Martin is fond of saying, a code-built house is the worst house that can legally constructed in any given time and place. I am happy to have observed many aspects of that worst house standard improve by leaps and bounds in the last two decades.
@Eric
Kudos to your father. Mine is a retired ophthalmologist.
Appraisers face liability situations all the time and we don't hear them going out of business over higher risk premiums for E&O. Good building inspectors will get the business and bad ones will get weeded out.
The more I think about it I realize and inspector could grade the construction of a home as its build. Appraisers provide a similar grade under their "Quality of construction" rating, but its not as in depth. In fact a "grade of construction" might go a long way towards giving green building its due via higher valuations. The Q-rating by an inspector could be filed away with the local gov't along with the CO.
Chris,
If we were serious about instituting your system I don't think we could rely on the market "weeding out" poor inspectors. You would need a baseline of formal education and an overseeing processional association for their work to be at all meaningful. Because of the extensive range of knowledge necessary, this would have to be more in the nature of an engineering technology or building science degree than say what is required to sell real estate. So now we are really creating another complete profession, which will have to recover both the costs of their education and those associated with administering the programme. What do you think that will add to the costs of the average house?
My second thought is that this new profession represents something that has never been done. Every other trade or profession currently associated with building works on an objective basis: They make sure the building meets code or professional standards. Your system asks them to rate the quality of a wide range of topics. Once you slide into those sort of subjective areas, how do you see resolving differences of opinion? Is my wall resilient? Ask Martin, Joe or Bill Rose and you might get very different answers.
Malcolm,
Agreed. However if they're treated like appraisers then I see a possibility. Appraisers are very much like a trade group. One just can't go to school and become an appraiser. You have to work as an 'apprentice' of sorts before you can go on your own. IMO the same could happen for building inspectors who transition away from govt to the private sector. Granted there would have to be a market for their services. However as I've said the problem is that there is not market since 'Green Building' in terms of better energy efficiency doesn't command higher prices and the subsequent higher home valuations. Currently the initial purchaser must eat the cost difference.
btw.. Appraisers actually only provide an 'Opinion of market value'. It's very much subjective process and the building industry has accepted this aspect of their profession.
Full disclosure I've been employed in the mortgage finance industry for 15 yrs. Over these years I've worked in construction finance and I've spent a good bit of this time looking at appraisals. In fact I'm going to look at one now. ;)
Chris: "The more I think about it I realize and inspector could grade the construction of a home as its build."
You'll be happy to know that a system already exists for this. In fact several systems. If you want to earn certification in any one of the many programs for enhanced environmental performance you'll have to call in a trained and certified inspector at various critical points in construction. I think that given the appallingly inflated real estate values by which the appraisal industry contributed heavily to the real estate crash of 07/08 and the subsequent recession, responsible players in the industry should be very loath to add appraisers to the mix of qualified certifiers.
I still think Chris is heavily, heavily discounting both the risk and education required for a broad scope building inspection program that is foolproof. Chris, I'm afraid it is a situation of you not knowing what you do not know. Things can happen in construction both accidentally and on purpose that are not found out about until a long time after the house is certified and begun to be lived in. If you make that inspection effort full proof to the point of making the building inspectors financially liable for those errors then you have completely redefined the profession of building inspection. Stop and use your imagination about this instead of trying to force an unworkable idea into a cookie mold that is only in your mind.
So there is this thing called "Quality Assurance" that, when applied to the creation and manufacture of most products, leads to an incredibly small error rate. I think it beggars belief that there is something special about construction that renders it near-impossible to assure a high-quality final product at a reasonable price. This attitude seems awfully defeatist to me. Sometimes when you are an expert who is very close to something, it is difficult to imagine it existing in any other configuration. I think it's important to keep an open mind and not assume that the status quo or a more extreme version of it are the only ways that something could possibly exist.
Nate, It's not the goal that is giving me pause, it's your prescription as to how to assure quality that I'm having trouble with. The creation and manufacture of most products takes place in factories or workshops. A direct translation of their quality assurance methods just won't work on site.
Rather than look at the problem areas where there are poor quality housing being built and impose a huge new level of bureaucracy, why not look at how it's done where housing generally well built and learn from them? How do the Scandinavians manage? Or the Germans? What did British Columbia do to transform their industry from one that produced very poor building envelopes into the resilient, well built ones we see today?
It's not a prescription, it's just an idea. One idea out of an infinite number of options. I agree that it makes sense to look at success stories. It also makes sense to look at the cultures of those places. One culture will produce successes that a different culture may not be able to produce. More communitarian cultures that like rules and following them may produce social institutions that are ill-suited for cultures that are more individualistic and have a bit more rebellion in them, for example. So yes, by all means, let's see what the Scandinavians, Germans, and Canadians are doing right, but by the same token, let's not rush to assume that their approaches would be automatically suited to the USA, and let's not also ignore the associated drawbacks. For example, the benefit of higher-quality buildings would hardly be considered an improvement if it resulted in real estate prices, property taxes, and utility costs that were significantly higher than they are today, pricing the poor out of the real estate market. The general template of the way most functional markets work is that over time the price falls as the quality rises. If the only way we can think to increase the quality makes it more expensive, there's something wrong. We probably aren't thinking creatively enough.
Nate,
Very good point.
@Eric
"..Things can happen in construction both accidentally and on purpose that are not found out about until a long time after the house is certified and begun to be lived in..." Of course and I suspect that happens today and happened in the past under the current arrangement of gov't employed inspectors. During the go'go years I heard stories about county inspectors just "poking their head in the door" because they were spread so thin.
As I've said what needs to happen is that the industry must devise a way to have the "value" of green building reflected in higher property valuations and therefore higher sales prices. Once that happens the consumer would have the required pricing information with which to make a decision on what type of house to build/buy.
Maybe it could be similar to how cars are marketed with their mpg's listed and 'annual fuel costs'. Homes could be rated the same way in terms.
In any case today the avg consumer buying a tract built home really isn't all that aware of what's going on with regards to the construction of their home. They assume it's 'built to code' and that's about it.