Post

David Bonowitz
@dbonowitz.bsky.social

Two structural points (which we also raised on RB1): 1. IRC assumptions are based on old house configs. FEMA-ATC is currently studying extrapolation to larger spans, etc. 2. Proposal needs to be clear that it does NOT apply to EXISTING 3-4 unit buildings, which might be highly deficient. (Also ...

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

This feels like it should be up to staff to at least propose fixes to (kind of like this all-consuming reconciliation of definitions), and I resent that the so underinvests in code development and leaves it up to us to police

David Bonowitz
@dbonowitz.bsky.social

100% agree. I'm seeing it in spades in the ICC standards process (Guidelines have even fewer guardrails), and BCAC has become a joke. But Jeff knows what plays at the hearings ...

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

Re: 1, what ramification would this have for this proposal? Would it just mean that what’s in the IRC might be overly conservative/inflexible? Or not conservative enough/too flexible for so many units?

David Bonowitz
@dbonowitz.bsky.social

It just means that like every other interest group (fire, accessibility, energy, etc.), the structural engineers need to review the assumptions behind the current IRC before expanding its scope. My hope is that they will say Yeah, it still works, so we can support it.

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

Re: 2, why should it not apply (insofar as anything else in the IRC would…unless I’ve misunderstood) to existing structures? If you can meet the code for new construction for an old building, why not let you use it?

David Bonowitz
@dbonowitz.bsky.social

Because while the IRC claims to cover existing dwellings, it's incomplete and extremely weak. It has none of the review triggers (let alone upgrade) that the IEBC has for major repairs, additions, etc. Plus ...

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

Note that the proposal does not allow more than two units to be stacked on top of each other, so a traditional New England/Midwestern/Northeastern triple-decker/three-flat/three-fam would not be allowed to go through the IRC:

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

I don’t know if they’ll allow multiple of these to be attached to each other. But it allows four units, as long they’re 1L/1R/2L/2R. It doesn’t require separate egress to the L and R units. So I don’t think it’s that similar.

Rory Stolzenberg
@rorystolzenberg.bsky.social

Ah, yeah allowing a shared central stair is a meaningful improvement on Oregon. Also maybe unsubdivided townhouses, to the extent that's a thing that zoning sometimes might allow but still prohibits on separate lots (though that doesn't seem like an intended consequence based on the commentary).

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

If by 4ish-flats you mean a building with four units, this proposal will allow that, with two units on the ground floor and two on the second floor (with the option to be bilevel with the third floor).

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

It’s for the 2030 I-Codes. Although Jeff is accutely aware that some impatient activists are pushing for this asap and he has said that he would like consensus on it sooner than the cycle’s various votes require, so that lawmakers who want to do something will view it as legitimate and…

Stephen Jacob Smith
@stephenjacobsmith.com

…adopt it early. Otherwise, the critical votes I believe start this year (CACs) and go through 2028 (Group B CAH#1-2), with some less likely but still able to change the text in 2029 (PCH and OGCV).