Structural Engineers Association of Northern California Newsletter - March 1996

Letters to the Editor

I have been following the letters column discussion of engineering involvement in Building Code development with interest. Pat Buscovich's letter in the February newsletter highlights a noteworthy point: "Engineers are just one of many players in the process of code development.... On numerous occasions building code issues are driven by " socio-economic" concerns.... [or] political considerations.

I would urge that, in the realm of code development, engineers cultivate open-mindedness toward so-called non-engineering issues. We also are consumers, taxpayers, and building owners in a society subject to social, economic, and political concerns. We must recognize that each level of structural safety comes at a cost raised by diverting resources from other areas. Some of these costs may be negligible, achievable simply by re-assembling the same components in more efficient ways. Others, particularly where extensive retrofit is required, may significantly affect the ability of local communities to provide public amenities. Balancing these costs is as much our business as it is the local politician's. Worse, cumbersome codes encourage 'work-around' solutions and non-permit (illegal) renovations. If we are to retain the trust and esteem of non-engineers, we must demonstrate a willingness to address both technical and other needs. We must recognize that 'rationality' is a concept that cannot be limited to any particular discipline.

Hip, hip, hooram for Kenneth R. Hughes letter to the editor (Jan. 96). He hit the nail on the head. Maybe it's time for the code writers to start practicing in the "real world" in lieu of the "theoretical U to PIA world". It's probably time for the code to consider a "simplified" structural code for one and two story commercial buildings. Also, thanks should go to the central section's perseverance against code proliferation & over complication.