Cob RE: Codes

[Bob Bolles]

Hi John

You wrote:
> Well, I'm glad to hear that some people have had good experiences with
building 
> officials.  I guess I don't personally know anyone who has had much but 
> grief...even with "conventional" stick 'n rock boxes.  I am aware that
our 
> other methods aren't "prohibited," but as the code excerpt you inserted
above 
> says, it's up to the building officials to "allow" what isn't prohibited,
which 
> means they can very effectively "prohibit" it at will.  As far as
engineer 
> and/or architect stamps, it's an option if one can find a competent
engineer 
> and/or architect who is willing to do so and can afford the additional
cost.


I'm not sure that not having a bad experience is the same as having a good
one.;-)

In the thirty + years that I have been building, which has included a
goodly share of ""conventional" stick 'n rock boxes", I have had my share
of run-ins with Building Officials.  Only one of those was a pig-headed
jerk that loved the position of power he had, and was beyond reason.  Some
were ignorant, but in most issues, we were able to resolve the
disagreements.  In the mid to late 80s, here in Southern California, we
were in a major building boom.  The reputation of the building department
was that they were a collective gaggle of rectal orifices.  ;-)  Truth be
known, there was so much shoddy work going on that "Contractors" tried to
hide, that the assumption of the inspectors was that everyone was hiding
something.  The end result was similar to a hangover - there is a direct
correlation between the number of drinks and the degree of the headache.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly a fan of the building department,
but in this case, I think they are getting a "bum rap".

The code that I quoted (which is just one of several addressing the same
issue) says it is"...not intended to limit the appropriate use of
materials....." as long as they "....are at least equivalent of that
prescribed in this code in suitability, quality, strength, effectiveness,
fire-resistance, dimensional stability, safety and sanitation."

I submit that these are not arbitrary decisions.  It is up to us
(collectively) to establish the structural merits of these various
materials.  In Canada, the CMHC worked with various individuals to test
certain aspects of Straw Bale construction (and I'd guess others).  Two
universities that I am aware of, at which graduate work produced structural
testing, are Cal Poly, San Luis Obisbo, and University of Arizona at
Tucson.  Other tests were sponsored by Straw Bale Associations and BRAN,
the Bale Research Advisory Network.  All of that takes time and money,
as-well-as a commitment by folks, like ourselves, who would like to use
alternative materials.

Like it, or not, before we can legally build with Cob, we have a lot to
demonstrate about it's structural merits.  It's a long road we are on, with
a little bit of historical precedence behind us, and a lot of hard work
ahead.

Even with Straw Bale, there is still a lot of over-building and
Architect/Engineer mandated involvement, even though they are becoming less
of a unique event.  But each one gets easier.

I would highly recommend David Eisenberg's "Straw Bale Construction and the
Building Codes" in which he deals with code issues (and officials) that
would be applicable for Cob as well.

Regards
Bob