Key Points of Introduction:
Residential Building Codes are claimed driven by environmental concerns, rather than being an attempt to provide suitable accommodations for people. Planned upfront costs for future “net zero” energy homes, in these times of already unaffordable housing, is discussed. Next, are some examples of “building codes gone wrong”, along with an explanation of the approach that will be taken to explain and illustrate these problems.
Introduction:
What’s it all about? Well, the website is a commentary with explanations, illustrations and discussion about the problems caused by impractical building codes. Codes that were conceived, not with a primary intent to provide long-lasting healthy affordable housing and schools for children, but always done with some “greater good” in mind. For example, after the energy crises of the early seventies, when it was believed for a time that we were soon to run out of fossil fuel, energy conservation was that greater good. Houses, schools, condominiums and other building were soon sealed up to save energy. The fact that adults and children in schools needed to breath a little bit of fresh air, was not actually identified, when involved in such “greater good”. This was before the need to prevent global warming was first discovered. In fact, in the early seventies, people were encouraged to purchase wood-burning stoves by government grants to save our precious fossil fuels. There was no concern at that time about the release of greenhouse gases. Later, after things were settled to some extent with OPEC member countries, sealing up was then re-branded to prevent climate change, as the greater good. And on we go, with the “greater good” latest effort happening in Ontario, Canada. The plan, according to the announcement of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is the replacement of the Ontario Building Code effective January 1, 2019. These are “Green Changes Announced for the Ontario Building Code”, with similar changes announced in British Columbia.
“The changes are being made to include new requirements supporting the government’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) of June 2016, with a view to reducing GHG emissions and implementing energy-efficient measures in new homes and large buildings”.
The Climate Change Action Plan includes solar ready roof designs for future solar voltaic panels with PV or solar hot water systems along with other requirements to bring all buildings to be “net zero” emissions energy users in the future. In other words, the plan is to design homes to facilitate the elimination of power plants in the future, it would seem. The cost of all of this “greater good” stuff, will further increase the price of houses and condominiums that are no longer affordable anyway, which shows more than a disconnect with reality, it borders on insanity. Detached single family homes for normal working people are now a thing of the past, with price increases beyond a million dollars in most cases. Even basic living accommodation, within or near a city or town of employment has become unaffordable for many working people. Lower paid workers are now living in cars and vans because there is no viable alternative. This latest attempt to achieve “net zero” emissions, as a primary code consideration is ridiculous at this present time because we are in an unaffordable housing crisis. A recent news report (December 26, 2018) from Richmond, a city of about 200,000 adjacent to Vancouver Canada, states that there are 680 households on a wait list for social housing and 5,000 households are at risk of homelessness.
While it is most definitely admitted that climate change is real, let’s look at the “larger picture” involved in all of this, and what Canada is doing globally, to see if penalizing working people by making living accommodation even more unaffordable is justified. In other words, let’s take the time to investigate the possible impact to climate change if homes in developed countries do not become net zero emissions energy users.
Here in Canada, our exports include fossil fuels: coal, crude oil and petroleum coke, along with whole logs, with the latter causing havoc to the usefulness of our forests as a carbon sink in the absorption of greenhouse gases. Canada’s coal production in 2017 was 61 million tonnes with Canada being the third largest exporter of metallurgical coal in the world. In numbers, for those who prefer numbers: Asia is Canada’s biggest market for coal exports. My latest yearly numbers record is, Japan imported C$1.5 billion of Canadian coal, China C$1.4 billion, South Korea C$1.0 billion, and India C$182 million, in total accounting for 76.3% of Canada’s total coal exports. As for 2013 crude-oil exports, China was the second-largest export destination with C$133 million, while India was fifth-largest with C$33 million. Furthermore, Asia was the destination for 97.8% of Canada’s non-U.S. bound exports of petroleum coke, which is often used in cement kilns and power plants.
The question is; what does our government think is happening with our fuel exports, while they are busy finding ways to make the average working person produce “net zero” emissions from their homes? Well of course our fuel exports are used (burned) as fuel in industrial off-shore factories. What we have done, is simply export our heavy industrial pollution elsewhere. We even help the United States to work around local environmental concerns by importing Washington coal into Alberta and then trans-shipping it off-shore through Vancouver.
South Africa gains 85% of energy needs from burning coal, to become the worst per capita producer of green house gases in the world. India is allowed, within the Paris Climate Agreement, to develop all the coal mines required, along with all sorts of concessions to China. India with the fifth highest coal reserves in the world, is opening a coal mine a month and expects to surpass the United States in coal production by 2020.” I could go on and on about the allowed wholesale pollution, with large emerging economies not held accountable for their rapidly growing emissions. In other words, they are being given a chance to develop, which would be fine if done in isolation. This is not the case, for their emerging, or best described as emerged, industries have simply taken over, or displaced if you like, the manufacturing that was done in the past at home in the so-called developed nations. We have no real heavy industry left in these developed nations, it’s all done elsewhere.
All things that were manufactured in post-industrialised countries, with associated pollution, are now manufactured off-shore, with generally far more pollution than ever occurred in the past. We know this, so nothing has really changed, other than feel good attempts to have people believe we are doing our best to prevent climate change. We are not doing our best at all, for we are rather taking advantage of off-shore cheaper manufacturing, with often non-existent environmental laws, all while they are burning our imported fossil fuels to produce massive amounts of green-house gasses.
Contrast the foregoing, with our bit in a bucket pollution from family homes, with the facilitation of the off-shore climate damage done from our sales of fossil fuels. When the larger picture is considered, I for one will argue that all these expensive environmental Building Code requirements should be put on hold until we have solved the accommodation crisis and taken care of wholesale of-shore pollution caused by our fossil fuel exports. Keep in mind, that past energy conservation sealing-up was an underlying cause of wet insulation, which no longer insulates. All to result in homes becoming energy hogs, that wasted massive amounts of fuel, not to mention the rotting away of wooden building components (All discussed in detail within related content). It would seem more appropriate at this time to address our global impact on climate change rather than become involved in reducing the minor impact caused by home owners or tenants, especially in these times of an accommodation crisis.
Yes, the plan is to get back to the nitty-gritty problems caused by “greater-good” building codes, but the foregoing did need to be elaborated.
The claim of “Building Codes Gone Wrong” will be explained and investigated in relationship to easily understood building science concepts. We are after all talking about a major financial disaster, with some accommodation owners losing their entire life savings. This is serious stuff. Wood-frame residential buildings constructed in wet climates, such as Canada’s West Coast and parts of New Zealand where up to 89,000 homes are effected by the leaky homes problem, are examples of the sorts of “coded building failures” that are discussed. Other coded failures include living spaces so tightly sealed that moisture laden, fungus and carbon monoxide contaminated air is unable to escape. However, such obvious examples merely illustrate part of the problem. An important part no doubt, but modern residential buildings, being those constructed after the energy crisis of the early seventies, are most generally an amalgamation of foolishly conceived and confused attempts at energy conservation. If such buildings don’t apparently leak rainwater into the structure, there are usually a couple of possibilities involved working to have owners believe that such buildings are fine. Older buildings always leaked to some extent, so leaking is nothing new, but older buildings had an evolved system of construction with air circulation and drainage. They were “fail-safe” structures, so things could go wrong, without a general failure of the building. This notion of “fail-safe” design is crucially important but was missed entirely by those who should have known better while writing these foolishly conceived energy conservation building codes.
In the case of dryer geographic locations, the climate saves the day for our energy conservation code writers. Overly sealed buildings, with faulty flashing (with flashing being pieces of sheet metal or other material intended to deflect water clear of openings in the building walls or roof) will eventually shed water out of the walls between rainfalls. Extra time for water drainage and drying is the key; it solves the problem. Damage is minimized where there are extended periods of dry weather, simply because there is enough ‘drying time’ for water-soaked insulation and framing members to dry. In other words, an increase to the building lifecycle is most generally to be expected in dryer climates before there is any noticeable deterioration to the framing members from wood rot. This is true, no matter how unsuitable the exterior cladding is, or how foolishly the flashing details and caulking around openings in the building envelope are done. In the second instance, buildings with large roof overhangs protect the upper parts of exterior building walls to decrease the possibility of rainwater incursions most generally.
There is a definite likelihood of rainwater damage to all exterior walls, including those shielded by extended roof overhangs in wet climates, caused by these impractical building codes. A tightly sealed vapour barrier fixed to the underside of ceiling support members will often work to shed water into the supporting walls. (Lots of sketches to follow, so don’t worry if confused for the moment – as all claims will be explained later). Rainwater penetration through faulty roofing that is not absorbed by wet insulation will pool above the ceiling vapour barrier. A barrier intended to prevent moisture saturated heated air inside the building from contaminating the insulation, now works to prevent those residing in the home from noticing rainwater accumulating in the attic. However, if the level of trapped water exceeds the sag of the ceiling members, it will simply drain into the exterior walls. There would generally be no rainwater penetration into the attic space below the roof of new homes, if the roofing has been properly installed. However, it will most definitely occur at some later stage toward the end of the normal roofing material lifecycle. Overflow drainage into walls may not occur from wind damaged roofing material, or lifecycle roofing failure if roof leakage is relatively small. Yet, even a slight roof leak in damp climates may cause a partial accumulation of water to sit above the ceiling vapour barrier for years. Leaving the ceiling joist sitting in perhaps 6mm (1/4 inch) of water between wet insulation, rotting away unnoticed. Unnoticed that is, until the ceiling joist or the bottom members (bottom chords) of the roof trusses begin to fail, or water eventually breaks through the vapour barrier. A periodic inspection of attics, if accessible for investigation is a good idea. Such inspections are extremely important to ensure that wood ceiling support members are not sitting between wet insulation, especially if any roofing damage is noted, such as may have been caused by a windstorm. Remember, because of the present-day vapour barrier, rain-water incursions into the attic will no longer be evident on the room side as wet patches on the ceiling as they were in the past. Yes, it is recognized, that water marks on ceilings and walls compromised the esthetics of the interior decoration, but what they did represent is valid “feed-back” that water is leaking into the building structure and something must be fixed. What this sealing up has actually done, is to save the interior paint job, while allowing the wood-framed building structure to be destroyed.
Only a better level of a general understanding will allow a homeowner, or would be homeowner, to more reasonably determine exactly what is wrong with a building of interest. The plan is to have you “see the reality” for yourself, through the application of basic scientific truths of cause and effect, or simplified building science if you like. It will not be a complicated enterprise, but hopefully will be interesting, and may allow you to gain control over a situation. Meaning, there’s a likelihood that some individuals who are presently involved in attempts to fix leaking buildings and other related problems, may lack the necessary understanding to do the job properly. A little newly found understanding, about the processes at work in causing the building failures in the first place, may be exactly what is needed. Especially so, if considering your next step as to what you should do, while living in a building that appears to be rotting away around you.
To best encourage insightful understanding, of the sort that will allow a reader to appreciate just why so many buildings are failing, because the writer has no idea of each reader’s background, the beginning is a good place to start. Not that distant “big bang” one, if such is your belief, but rather the starting point of a process that has led to the eventual construction of so many residential failures. The Web Site title of “Building Codes Gone Wrong” is intended to capture your interest and hopefully ensure a little motivation to begin your reading along the simplified path of understanding promised. The first task is to set the stage if you like, to describe the ‘scene’ of influence that has caused the present-day badly flawed building codes to be written. Historical background is important, especially to recognize past construction methods that worked well, along with others that were disastrous. In other words, it is important to first be aware of the outcome from some past events, not merely to avoid making similar mistakes, but to better appreciate our present problems.
An overview of the normal sorts of steps that would most generally take place during the design and drafting of the project building plans, will be discussed. Newly coded requirements are usually introduced, especially for multiple residential projects, at the building design level to be incorporated into the plans. An important purpose intended by this overview of the design process, is an introduction into the “language” or “technical jargon’ of construction. We in fact need some special words, at least if others are to be convinced that we have some idea of what we are talking about.
The next step will be to review an obvious (at least after the flaw is recognized) example of a rainwater incursion or penetration point in the exterior building envelope. A point of leakage that is caused in fact a by a misleading general interpretation of a building code requirements. Immediately ‘getting your feet wet’, so to speak, though it is probably not the way to speak, if you happen to be sitting reading in one of these leaking buildings with your feet resting on a wet carpet. However, we tend to use this notion of an “envelope” quite a lot, especially so when talking about the problems of leaking condominiums. The exterior wall covering of the building, including the roofing and flashing material may be referred to as the “exterior weathering envelope” (though such intent has not been readily achieved in many cases). Exterior wall coverings can be wood siding, or vinyl with a profile to simulate wooden boards (being a sort of plastic material we shall say for now), a stucco concrete type material, or even masonry (brick veneer) to mention only the most well-known possibilities. All introduced at this point in passing, to let you know that later sketches will more fully explain wall covering materials, so don’t be overly concerned if you have little or no idea of what these products are.
A common rainwater incursion point is selected as a first example to begin the journey toward the eventual understanding of the many presently misunderstood problems. A window or door opening through an exterior wall not otherwise protected by a roof overhang will be reviewed. Real purpose, because no related construction or design background is assumed of the reader, is the introduction of some basic “blue-print” reading terms. A few sketches up-front to illustrate such things as building elevations, sections and details will get things started. All just names of sorts of views, or ways of looking at parts of the building as used in construction drawings (those blueprints). They may sound a little complicated to one unfamiliar with such notions, but, are soon understood, to then add a few words of “technical jargon” to your vocabulary immediately. Building terminology is important, but only useful if meaning is properly understood. Technical terms will be explained when introduced and will not be bantered about merely to confuse or impress, for such would never work toward ensuring understanding anyway. The term “blueprint” is simply a name that admits historical recognition, with modern plans usually being printed on white paper. The blueprint description is the name of a much older copy process that produced a negative copy of white lines on blue paper. If you can imagine some dark blue sheets of paper, with building plan drawings and notes done in white ink, then these were the sorts of drawing prints used by the workers when building the Titanic. There is no comparison intended between that project and our present topic, other than the unwanted water entry problems perhaps. However, blueprints were the sort of drawing used for about two hundred years before the advent of the plain paper copier, so the name has stuck.
That adage of “a picture being worth a thousand words” is believed most definitely. Sketches will be used throughout, allowing the reader to visualize the problem and more easily grasp a needed concept. To permit this word-saving method to work ideally, initial sketches used are intentionally overly explained. Then as your anticipated fine “intuitive ability” to understand drawings is rediscovered, (from past ancestral cave paintings and all of that) later in the readings, explanations may not be required at all. However, to ensure the process of understanding a best chance of success, “drawing annotations” will remain. That’s interesting, for in these days of Computer Assisted Drafting (CAD), or Computer Assisted Drafting and Design (CADD), notes and dimensions done on the computer are called drawing annotations. To become familiar with the use of construction sketches, to perhaps make the odd sketch yourself, will be useful to interact with some future “fixer-upper” of your building of interest. If not that, it will certainly have a builder, or real-estate person you may deal with in the future recognize that you have some knowledge of construction. He or she may then think twice before making an unrealistic claim about a building or related problem.
In these present days of so many highly specialized individuals, there are many attempts to compartmentalize the world. For example, at a college or university, mathematics, chemistry, physics, philosophy, psychology and so many others, are each separated into disciplines of specialization. Yet in life, we are seldom able to interpret things in such splendidly arranged disconnection. It’s all mixed up, with our understanding, though we may seldom dwell on such reason, being allowed by a blend of so many bits and pieces of what we know. We understand wholeness of construct or operation because we synthesize meaning by drawing on a mix of past separately learned specialties. It may be a bit of math and chemistry along with a little of phenomenal physics plus some art appreciation, that in one instance allows us to make sense of what we are seeing. It is not necessarily complex stuff that allows us to do this. In fact, what is often required has simply been ‘absorbed’ from experience, or through a sort of experiential osmosis, some may prefer to believe. Meaning, those things that are learned by merely taking an interest, at some level, in the things that are happening around you. With the point to be noted, occurrences within our world can not be understood by looking at each bit in specialized isolation. Wholeness of meaning can only be derived from the collective. I have probably gone overboard on this one, but the concept of wholeness is crucial, for it’s the “bits and pieces” approach that is at the heart of our building code problems. Parts, building components or processes, it would seem from results, have been most generally investigated in specialized isolation.
Highly trained specialists, involved to design some aspect of a residential building, may not be particularly concerned with notions of wholeness. This is not what they are about; being far more comfortable if only involved in her/his specialty. Once politically motivated consensus decided airtight buildings were necessary in order to save heating fuel, the specialist had no real choice but create “airtight-ness”. The decision-making process by consensus is seen as immediately problematic within these coded failures. Another unfortunate reality is that fail-safe possibilities that could have been designed into these coded failures were ignored entirely. The plan is to investigate this “bits and pieces” approach gone wrong, along with fail-safe possibilities that were missed entirely.