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

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?

0 reposts1 like

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 ...

David Bonowitz
@dbonowitz.bsky.social

Plus, an (obsolete) assumption of the IRC is that dwellings & THs are largely owner-ocupied, while 3-4 are rentals, so the tenant has much less control over deficiencies, less equity, and higher risk, in an existing 3-4 unit apartment building.