
'All I wanted to do is build a house' (2010) - wallflower
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/all-i-wanted-to-do-is-build-a-house/article4346687/
======
Mathnerd314
Needs a [2010].

Updates:

there's a movie:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Mine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_Mine)

and he died: [http://www.inmemoriam.ca/view-announcement-348916-craig-
morr...](http://www.inmemoriam.ca/view-announcement-348916-craig-
morrison.html)

and his wife died: [http://www.inmemoriam.ca/view-announcement-380737-irene-
morr...](http://www.inmemoriam.ca/view-announcement-380737-irene-
morrison.html)

the house was still standing (empty) as of 2014:
[http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/news/landowners-
association-...](http://www.ontariolandowners.ca/news/landowners-association-
new-brunswick-shirley-dolan/)

sold in 2015:
[http://crowtherrealestate.ca/properties/2020realestate/f-pri...](http://crowtherrealestate.ca/properties/2020realestate/f-print_page.asp?action=brochure1&ID=49)

~~~
Freak_NL
The last link makes you wonder about the digital literacy of the intended
audience of that web page:

    
    
        We can send this page to your printer automatically!
        Click "OK" to print now...
        Or if want to preview this page first click "Cancel".
        Remember, you can send this page to your printer using your "Right-Click" menu anywhere on the page.

------
peller
I'm torn on building codes.

They increase the cost and duration of building a new dwelling by exorbitant
amounts and limit the creative freedoms of the builder into practically
following cookie-cutter templates (esp in terms of materials).

On the other hand, they theoretically provide some semblance of assurance that
when you buy a new property that it was built to a certain standard. Unless it
was grandfathered in, or the builder "knew somebody," or work was done without
a permit after the dwelling was built, or ...

As somebody fully capable of building my own house though, damn do I wish they
didn't exist. It means putting off that dream for an untold number of years of
further saving and wasting money on rent instead of being able to buy a piece
of land, and slowly progressing from a shack to a beautiful home worthy of a
family. That ship sailed long before I was born, and instead of providing
their purported benefits, building codes just feel like another tool to
oppress the not-wealthy.

~~~
employee8000
This isn't about building codes. It's about stickers and permits. An
independent inspector said that it was built twice as strong as a regular
house. The inspector was just throwing the book at the person because it
didn't follow his bureaucracy.

It's the same thing that Uber was doing with the self-driving car permit, if
you actually pay attention to the details. Neither are less safe, it's just
that both didn't kiss the ring of the bureaucracy and the civil servants
didn't like it.

~~~
spitfire
No Über/lyft (and airbnb, et al) are doing something different. Regulatory
arbitrage - Purposely breaking the law in order to have a structural advantage
over competitors.

This guy didn't want others to play by one set of rules while he played by
another (advantageous) set.

~~~
Hondor
Doesn't regulatory arbitrage mean following the regulations but taking
advantage of loopholes in them? So it's not illegal. That seems a bit
different from breaking them, possibly paying a fine, and still profiting
anyway. The latter is what I've heard of Uber doing in some cases. It's also
what shops do by trading on holidays where they're supposed to be closed.

~~~
15thandwhatever
Correct. Regulatory arbitrage is about finding and taking advantage of
loopholes, and shifting business activities to other business units (or even
locations) where while those actions are technically legal, they're very, very
borderline.

Then you generally couple regulatory arbitrage with money spent on lawyers and
lobbying to monitor the existing loopholes, in order to make sure they don't
disappear.

What Uber/Lyft are doing is more equivalent to poker: a combination of betting
(a large enough war chest to pay lawyers and fines) and bluffing (using
marketing campaigns to garner public interest and shame/scare the
establishment).

When the stakes get too high (e.g. ride sharing laws in Austin, TX), they
fold.

------
dmd
On the other hand, following building codes is one of the major reasons why
when natural disasters strike, people don't die by the thousands or millions
any more.

~~~
mstodd
It's not because they were constructed to survive a natural disaster?

~~~
therealdrag0
His point is the codes require a certain stabilities so that they are
"constructed to survive a natural disaster". Without the codes, people cut
corners, and then later disaster strikes.

------
oldmancoyote
I have built three houses (designed and served as my own contractor). My homes
were stylish, innovative, and a delight to live in. I'm a scientist not a
builder, yet I did not find the building codes to be a burden. Indeed they
kept me from making dangerous mistakes. It's a complicated world and the
building codes made designing and building a home practical.

~~~
malydok
Can you recommend any ways to get into house building? Books, articles,
general information. The codes probably vastly vary between countries, but I
assume the fundamentals remain the same. Thanks.

------
Cacti
I'm not a big fan of this style of online journalism. Do we have anything on
this other than an opinion piece heavily lacking in detail? Could anyone even
explain what the opinion is exactly?

~~~
mcpherrinm
Well, this was in The Globe's opinion section.

------
innocentoldguy
I wouldn't mind building codes and inspections so much if they actually
protected consumers from corner-cutting builders, and if the cities that
charge exorbitant fees for permits and inspections didn't automatically sign
off on commercial builders' dismally flawed products over coffee and a pastry
at the nearest Starbucks.

I've owned three homes so far and everyone of them has violated code in myriad
ways, such as not having a speck of insulation in the roof, putting in little
to no rebar in the foundation, not securing weight-bearing walls to the joists
they're supporting, or finishing the shower surrounds with paint-on tar that
breaks down and starts leaking in a couple of years; after the warranty on the
home has expired, of course.

My dad was a builder when I was growing up, and the truth of the matter is
that city inspectors become friends with builders, and they often times don't
bother to actually inspect the homes they're signing off on, or don't inspect
them frequently enough to catch when a builder is skimping on insulation,
rebar, or nails.

Try to do something on your own though, and the city is there harassing you
every step of the way. At least that has been my experience.

~~~
mahyarm
Can you sue the city & the builder then for not actually inspecting properly
and not building a house that was supposed to be built to code?

~~~
innocentoldguy
I looked into it and I couldn't sue the city, but I could sue the builder. The
only problem was that all of the builders who worked on the houses I've owned
went bankrupt back when the housing market crashed, so there wasn't really
anything I could do.

------
hiddencost
The fact that a basically empty "forwards from grandma" anecdote like this is
what rises to the level of notable should hopefully cause you to question the
community here?

[hint: ask the question "what do we see when we look at rigorous studies of
the effects of building codes", not "what can I conclude from one story with a
very heavy slant, about one person in Canada", when you're trying to
understand the effects of policy.]

------
kctess5
Reminds me of when a family friend of mine (a professor of civil engineering)
built his own barn on his property. He got permits and did everything the
ordained way, but still got hassled over tons of details. The inspector almost
couldn't grasp the idea that the tens of thousands of stainless steel screws
he had bought and used significantly exceeded the specs of the nails required
by code. He did manage to persevere eventually.

~~~
cma
Not sure if this was the issue, but some grades of stainless steel screws
can't be used with treated lumber because of an increased corrosion risk. The
rule might have been in to simplify inspections.

~~~
rsync
"Not sure if this was the issue, but some grades of stainless steel screws
can't be used with treated lumber because of an increased corrosion risk."

If it's actually stainless, that is an approved connector for treated lumber.
It's more expensive than galvanized, but much more resistant.[1]

It's plain old steel - untreated - that has very bad galvanic corrosion
properties inside of treated lumber.

[1] [http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2012/09/06/whats-the-
differe...](http://www.finehomebuilding.com/2012/09/06/whats-the-difference-
fasteners-for-pressure-treated-lumber)

~~~
cma
"All stainless steels may not be acceptable for use with preservative treated
wood. Testing has shown that Types 304, 305 and 316 stainless steels perform
very well with woods that may have excess surface chemicals. Type 316
stainless steel contains slightly more nickel than other grades, plus 2-3%
molybdenum, giving it better corrosion resistance in high chloride
environments prone to cause pitting such as environments exposed to sea
water."

[https://www.strongtie.com/products/product-use-
information/c...](https://www.strongtie.com/products/product-use-
information/corrosion-information/pressure-treated-wood-faq)

------
legulere
This article by far doesn't give enough information to judge the situation. We
don't know which regulations he broke. The issue isn't really the amount of
regulation but if certain regulation makes sense or not. The whole
deregulation crowd never actually talks about which regulations should be
abolished.

------
vivekd
Building a home with my own two hands has been a bit of a dream of mine. The
government, governments in general but particularly the government in my own
country, have become so overbearing, with a desire to micromanage and control
and monitor every little aspect our existence. They want us to get their okay
and stamp of approval before going about the ordinary course of our lives.
There's something beautiful in ordinary men like Morrison who choose to stand
against that.

~~~
codeddesign
I completely understand your point of government intrusion, but there are
actually building codes in place for a reason. An example is the San Francisco
fire of 1906. Building codes set safety requirements for construction for the
general safety of everyone living in or around a building. Whether it's fire
codes, plumbing codes, earthquake codes...etc. If there were no building
codes, we would he of housing fatalities daily on the news, and LA would look
like favela. You can't just construct a building however you wish, no
different than you can travel down an expressway as you wish (i.e. walking in
the middle of the lane).

~~~
ars
There is a difference between safety and blind obedience to building codes.

Building codes are about standardizing things so builder and inspectors barely
have to communicate - at a glance they can see they followed x, y, z.

But the law should have a place for homeowners who do things safely, just not
exactly how a builder would do it. That's why many places require permits for
various work (for example electrical work) - unless you do it yourself, in
which case you are exempt. And that's the right way to do things.

Just like you don't need the health department in your kitchen, but you do in
a restaurant.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
But it isn't like the health department in restaurants. Commercial kitchens
could harm someone with bad food practices.

The same goes for your house. After all, you simply won't life there forever:
Either you'll sell the house or die eventually. Anything you do to that house
that doesn't meet codes can seriously affect the folks that live there after
you.

This is why the codes are important.

~~~
scaryspooky
Where did your responsibility to have a home you want to buy inspected and
certified become the governments job of forcing people to build the same
cookie cutter structures over and over?

Significant portions of England were built well before modern codes. Why can
those be legal residences and something built in the same style and method be
illegal?

Edit: So if you can downvote you've been here long enough to know you should
tell me why. Shame.

~~~
Tempest1981
A fair point. But many things get hidden behind drywall, making them very
expensive for a new home buyer to get certified. Sure seems more efficient to
inspect once during construction.

~~~
scaryspooky
People do interior remodels all the time without getting a permit so you still
have the same problem.

------
euske
Just food for thoughts: Software is like buildings. So, an analogy that I drew
from this story is that in future it might be illegal to make your own
software and let some others use it. I can imagine that you'd have to pass
some sort of certification tests when rolling out your crypto code or
operating system. Whether or not such tests can really work, is this the
future that we really want? I have mixed feelings on this.

~~~
malydok
Most software doesn't have a potential to kill people. And if it does it sure
is certified.

------
foota
It seems to me like there should be exceptions in building codes if a building
will never be sold and does not put others in danger (e.g., a shack in the
forest)

~~~
maxxxxx
How do you enforce this? Are there people who blow up the house immediately
after the builder dies or moves out?

~~~
alexandercrohde
Selling houses is a very formalized process, this should be easy to enforce.
First of all, there is a deed of sale that gets signed over, the unsuitability
for resale could be listed on the deed. Remember selling a house usually is a
super involved process that costs 10s of thousands of dollars.

It almost sounds to me like you don't WANT to find a better solution.

~~~
maxxxxx
It's true. I don't think it's a good idea to have a class of houses that
conforms with code and another that doesn't.

------
perseusprime11
"a cautionary tale of the tremendous power of the state over the individual in
an age of pervasive bureaucracy. It is, indeed, a profound parable of
irretrievably lost independence and casually forgotten freedoms."

Isn't this every aspect of government?

------
jimnotgym
I worked in construction in the UK for a good few years and hold some
qualifications in this area so maybe I can add some meat to this.

1) Timber just missing a stamp...So timber used for structural work is stress
graded. That is it is either bent by a machine which checked how far it
deflected or it is visually graded by a qualified grader. Someone who mills
their own timber could have employed a grader to do this, and it is not really
a barrier. However construction timber must also be seasoned which adds
strength and removes moisture which if trapped in can cause fungal rot. In the
UK and for the timber we import from Canada (CLS Canadian Lumber Standard)
this is normally achieved with a kiln drying process, which conveniently kills
insects living in it too. It is hard to see how he achieved that. Timber in
the UK used for roof members has to also be treated with wood preserver. It is
rather more than just a stamp! I will add that a home mill comes with a lot of
overhead and it is not clear that it wouldn't be cheaper to buy the timber,
especially when you consider the better dimensional tolerance of machine
regularized timber.

2) The building code is relatively strict in the UK but poorly enforced. This
in the main is due to their not being enough inspections of the finished
structure behind the drywall (plasterboard as we call it), especially when it
comes to insulation/vapour barriers/noggins/metal straps etc. Some of the
private building inspector schemes seem to be far to chummy with the builders.

3) When building something like a roof truss 'the way they used to in the
1960's' ie, not from approved plans, in general running the designs past a
structural engineer will get you approval. This will cost you, but that is the
cost of varying from the tried and tested. Same as if Geohot wants to build a
self driving car he is going to have to demonstrate the safety himself.

4) There should be no exception for self build unless there is a covenant that
the building is pulled down upon you leaving it. I would also suggest that you
should have to post a bond to pay for the cleanup work. Otherwise the naive
builder could be passing on a death trap. Likewise, the buildings around you
rely on you doing your bit for fire prevention. The Fire-fighters who may have
to go in and save people from your house should be able to rely that the fire
barriers are properly in place etc...

5) Buildings are much more complex in the way they live and breath and the
ergonomics they offer than what a lot of people give them credit for. You may
curse that there is a regulation for the height of a light switch...until you
are in a wheelchair. Keeping an insulated house dry, especially at the
interface of cold warm air, is much more complex than grandpa's old log cabin.

6) The house I rent was 'done up' by DIY buy-to-let guy. He didn't see fit to
run his electrical cables straight up or down from sockets so I can't even
hang a picture for fear of nailing a cable. The drains block from the shower
and sink as their is insufficient fall. The stair spindles are over 100mm
apart and shouldn't be (this rule stops children from being strangled because
they can't fit their heads in the gap). All of the doors have been hung
without leading edges, so they catch when you shut them...All this stuff is
stuff DIYers are not going to pick up from youtube. Personally I think the
rules should be tougher and DIYers shoudl stick to painting and building sheds

~~~
webmaven
_> Buildings are much more complex in the way they live and breath and the
ergonomics they offer than what a lot of people give them credit for. _

Too true. Anyone interested in this topic should check out _" How Buildings
Learn"_. Well worth reading: [https://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn-
Happens-Theyre/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Buildings-Learn-Happens-
Theyre/dp/0140139966)

Also made into a 6-part TV series by the BBC:
[http://www.openculture.com/2015/07/watch-stewart-
brands-6-pa...](http://www.openculture.com/2015/07/watch-stewart-
brands-6-part-series-how-buildings-learn-with-music-by-brian-eno.html)

------
elbii
This is one of the reasons the tinyhouse movement has become so popular. In
Texas (and many other states), you can build your own house on a trailer and
register it as a homemade travel trailer. RVs, being vehicles, are usually
exempt from building codes. The main hurdle becomes finding a municipality
that allows fulltime RV living which, depending on where you live, may be
easier than jumping through regulation hoops building on a foundation.

------
timwaagh
the thing when you build an illegal building to live in, is that it should not
be obvious that: 1\. a structure is here. plants should be used to hide it.
2\. it should be not obvious someone lives there. so no windows or fancy shit.
it should not look like a house from the outside. nobody is going to look
twice at a storage shed.

~~~
DanBC
> nobody is going to look twice at a storage shed.

I'm reminded of Honeycrock farm, where he built a mock-tudor mansion and hid
it behind a haystack for six years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrock_Farm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrock_Farm)

There have been a few similar cases in England of people converting farm
buildings to homes but without getting planning permissions.

------
fizixer
Need minor clarification, is it really that an inspector typically wants such
a house torn down or is there some paperwork that needs inspector's signature
and the inspector refuses to sign it?

If it's the latter then it should be straightforward. Home-owner lives in the
house without a certain certificate of approval and when it's time to sell,
they can't produce one, hence no one buys that house.

Isn't it more about incomplete paperwork making it difficult to sell, and if
the home-owner doesn't plan to sell it, they can get on with their life
without worrying about it?

(In this specific case, I'm guessing some personal issues may have occurred
between the inspector and the home-owner that led to the inspector getting
seriously pissed off and making it their mission to tear down the house?)

~~~
scaryspooky
Typically what happens is you get sued in civil court by the government. If
you lose you will be required to tear down the structure. If you don't comply
it will then become a case where the government tears it down and files a lein
on the property to recoup the costs. Failure to pay this lein will result in
foreclosure and seizure by the government.

Obviously defying a court order can wind up with contempt of court where you
then can serve jail time, but the general process is civil.

------
tomohawk
Building codes specify minimal acceptable standards. If you want quality,
you're not going to get it through building codes adopted by government.

What I've typically seen with inspectors is that if it looks cookie cutter and
they know the outfit that did the work, they rarely inspect for realsies.

I've seen 2x3 walls holding up a second story. By a known builder, in a very
affluent county with a notoriously rigorous enforcement regime.

Another issue: Building codes are also put together by private groups, then
adopted into model laws by various jurisdictions. Even though it is not
supposed to be possible to copyright law, this practice dodges those
restrictions. You end up having to pay quite a bit of money for these codes.

~~~
solidsnack9000
> Building codes are also put together by private groups, then adopted into
> model laws by various jurisdictions. Even though it is not supposed to be
> possible to copyright law, this practice dodges those restrictions. You end
> up having to pay quite a bit of money for these codes.

How does this work in detail? Once the law is adopted would it not be
uncopyrightable?

~~~
sfont
An example would be water heater must be installed with clearance meeting
standards as specified in NFPA 3.1.6 (made up number). You still have to get
the documentation from the private group.

It is much easier to get access to those now, I did have to register an
account and I believe I was limited on the number of codes I could view, but I
only needed to view one so it was a non-issue.

------
guard-of-terra
There should definitely be an exception in every code for the case when you're
doing it on your own land, with your own materials, for your own consumption.

I think code writers understand that, nevertheless it is too often
'conveniently' left out.

------
cm2187
This is the future of software development. We are reaching the limits where
any DIY amateur can build their own website and collect sensitive data, for
them to be leaked within months because they have never heard of SQL injection
vulnerabilities.

That will be a pain to software developers, but will give some comfort to the
business that the developers they hire will not fuck it up completely.

Exactly like today these bureaucratic building regulations are the only things
protecting unsuspecting buyers from unscrupulous or incompetent house
builders.

------
Gravityloss
With aircraft, there's various certifications within weight and/or speed
categories, but also experimentals, where usually some calculations and an
inspector are needed. The inspector is not a bureaucrat, but someone with
substance expertise, usually someone who has built aircraft themselves. That
said, there are a lot of odd regulations in aircraft in aöl countries...

------
silentrob
This was made into a movie "Still mine"
[http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2073086/](http://m.imdb.com/title/tt2073086/)

------
_asummers
Related question: does anyone have any experience becoming a building
inspector and what all goes into that?

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Haven't done it myself, but in general you need training and to pass an exam.

Training can come from 1 to 4 years of schooling, apprenticeship, or I believe
job experience (e.g. general contractor for many years). Once that has been
satisfied, you take the certification exam and pass to get certified.

~~~
_asummers
Ah, I wish you could just show knowledge without the formality of schooling or
an apprenticeship. Way too much effort for something I only have a passive
interest in. Appreciate the response!

------
dragthor
I think we need more regulations, laws, and building codes. Not!

Over here in the states, the Amish fight regulations all the time. The only
way they win is religious freedom. And the fact that they have been building
houses a certain way for 100 years.

------
internaut
If you would like to have a positive story this Christmas, then for Tiny
Housers we had some Building Codes people formally include us into their
thing. In the future it will be legal to live in Tiny Houses.

[http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-
buildin...](http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/green-building-
news/tiny-houses-join-building-code)

------
johnchristopher
Tldr: senior citizen (88-92) builds himself a house but government inspectors
find it unlawful. The citizen resists and after many court appointments he is
finally given the permission to live in his house until he dies. And it
happened in Canada. And the author laments the loss of freedom from "before".

~~~
PretzelFisch
If I understand this, he built it to the building codes he knew in the 60s and
couldn't understand why the building inspectors kept finding violations in
what he built.

~~~
dvtv75
There's a bit in there (paragraph 8) about how he met or exceeded modern
building codes, as determined by an independent third party, yet was getting
hit for not meeting modern building code.

Whether that's the whole story or not seems to be left to the imagination.

~~~
verbify
It seems odd that the 'independent third party' volunteered to do it:

> ...At one point, a professional home builder, Raymond Debly, volunteered to
> do an independent inspection...

This guy is a 'professional home builder' which I believe is not a licensed
professional, and 'volunteers' (read: do it for free) to do an inspection. In
fact, when you read further:

> And the trusses were fine. ("They were built the old-fashioned way," said
> Mr. Debly, himself 80, "the way we did it in the '60s.")

This hardly inspires me with confidence. Someone who has been retired for 15
years volunteered to do an 'inspection' for what I presume is his friend. This
is not an independent firm doing a paid-for inspection on behalf of both
parties.

The building may have been fine, but the independent inspection does not sound
like a verification that the building is up to modern verification codes.

~~~
scaryspooky
Professional home builders are typically required to be tested before being
licensed. A license is typically required in order to build homes for other
people.

~~~
verbify
This guy hasn't built a home for about 20 years. Regulations change.

~~~
scaryspooky
Which is the part I disagree with. Existing homes built under those outdated
regulations are somehow magically safe but building the same home 20 years
later makes it a death trap?

~~~
verbify
Existing homes aren't magically safe. Safe isn't a binary, it's a continuum,
and we're constantly improving our building techniques. We don't have the
resources to knock down all the older houses and rebuild them.

The least we can do is when building new houses is to make sure that they are
safer so that over time buildings get safer and safer.

------
notliketherest
Sadly this has also happened in America. With every regulation passed that
takes more money from the citizens and goes to the government, we lose our
liberties one at a time.

