Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
Regulation goes both ways and finding a balance is key. Obviously Building Codes are a Good Thing, but having worked on Ontario's code in the past it's also true that it's become quite an unwieldly document. Things get added in all the time that aren't necessarily complimentary to existing provisions. I wouldn't be in favour of simply turning back the clock as this would also lock out certain alternate solutions and permissions that have come into place. However you could possibly allow both versions to operate in tandem for small-scale construction while conducting a comprehensive review to simplify things / reduce costs while maintaining an acceptable level of safety.
|
Good point - forcing everyone to use the 1999 OBC could create some unintended consequences. Temporarily allowing it as an alternative is a better idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell
I wouldn't say that those involved in crafting the Code are blind to costs, but there are also external pressures from lobbyist groups (Fire, for instance) that have a lot of influence. See the watering down of the initial 6 storey wood provisions in Ontario to require non-combustible stairwells (not just 1.5 hr fire resistant) despite reams of evidence we could be more permissive in terms of materials while maintaining very acceptable levels of safety. As noted in the Federal thread industry is involved but large groups don't necessarily care about the costs - particularly when coupled with other economic factors that basically mean there will be demand regardless of end cost. These things work in tandem.
A concrete example of necessary safety through regulation while also suffering unintended consequences would be the introduction of mandatory sprinklers in LTC homes in Quebec in 2014, something that's been required in Ontario since 1998. This previously wasn't a requirement as many smaller ones fell under residential sections of the Code (it's been a while so I don't remember all the specifics). A big fire in Quebec resulted in 32 deaths, and there were a number of other close calls that didn't receive as much press. The Code was changed, however funding for retrofitting buildings hasn't been sufficient in many cases, resulting in closures. We obviously don't want unsafe LTC homes but the process should have been handled much better. Some buildings do require a certain level of safety, while others - particularly smaller-scale construction - do not. And some safety features are more important than others - non-combustible cladding on large residential buildings doesn't add a huge amount of cost but as has been seen from examples elsewhere in the world a very worthwhile investment (we've also required it for a long time).
|
To me the process should be transparent, and empirical and the cost-benefit analysis should be documented in a reference book. Ideally, I could go through the whole OBC, and for every clause I find, I could go to the reference book and it would explain why that parameter was set, with a quantification of the costs & benefits of the parameter in a range of different scenarios.
Requiring this sort of analysis would deal with these sorts of scenarios where lobbyists got extra rules tacked on without clear benefits/necessity.
This is an example of a governance issue where AI of all things could actually really help, because you could use AI modelling to do all these calculations (which would otherwise be very time consuming).
Prev
Hybrid Mode