When it comes to surviving a fire, egress is key. The closer you are to a good exit the greater your chance of making it out of a burning building alive will be. In the event of a fire, you’re more likely to make it out of a smoldering cottage, where windows and doors are never far from reach, than out of a smoldering Hearst Castle or high rise. Beyond proximity (and ensuring a door or window will actually open during a fire), an exit’s size is also clearly important. Until new testing proves otherwise, the tried and true rules pertaining to safe emergency egress, as tested and prescribed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), should be adhered to. But our current building codes mandate egress (window, door, hallway and stairway sizes) more than twice ANSI/NFPA minimum recommendations. The variations seem to be as unsubstantiated as they are arbitrary (see ANSI A119.5 and NFPA 1192 minimums vs. the International Code Council’s 310.6.2, 310.6.2&3, 310.6.1, 310.1.1, 310.1.2 &3, 311.4.2).
Shear Audacity
Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures, and large buildings tend to fall more often and harder than small ones. An article on Haiti’s 2010 earthquake published by Incorporated Research Institutions on Seismology and The University of Portland reports that, the death toll in Haiti would have been higher if the structures there hadn’t been so small. ***
Another study by The World Bank and The New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) has shown that larger buildings are more easily toppled by a quake while “Buildings that are not too heavy, modestly proportioned, with good connections and properly attached to their foundations will remain”.
In addition, with the relative capacity to resist the shear forces posed by earthquakes, small buildings are also more resilient to the shear forces of hurricanes and other strong winds… as long as they’re fastened to the ground, of course. Greenwashing
Houses of 15,000 square feet and larger are being built in accordance with the ICC’s new International Green Construction Code. The good news here is that America’s mansions are now likely to be built for more efficiently and with fewer harmful materials. The bad news is that, by lionizing such consumptive projects, these incentives may mitigate the construction of truly sustainable homes. What’s more, by attaching the term “green” to its prohibition on small houses, the ICC may be doing more harm than good. Promoting the use of more of its backer’s ostensibly sustainable products may be what a member focused association should be doing, but presenting undue consumption as safer, more affordable, more efficient and “green” is clearly not.
At 2,300 square feet, the average American home now emits 18 tons worth of greenhouse gasses annually. It increases deforestation and fossil fuel consumption, and it perpetuates our dependence on foreign oil. By lifting the current ban on smaller houses, this degradation could be significantly reduced.
Jay Shafer is Tumbleweed’s founder and designer. Jay’s self published “The Small House Book” has changed the way the world sees small homes. In addition, he has created over 20 small house plans, and teaches people how to build a house at his many workshops.
*** “A simple shack’s collapse is likely to cause less damage to human safety than a multi-floor building that collapses”. -Architect, John McAslan, who has been working on a project linked to the Clinton Global Initiative in Haiti
“To be earthquake proof, buildings, structures and their foundations need to be built to be resistant to sideways loads. The lighter the building is, the less the loads”. - Rollo Reid C Eng FIStrucE, Director, Reid Steel.
It seems the party may be over for proponents of America’s prohibition on small houses. A lot of folks have been enjoying the upside of a ban on diminutive dwellings for decades, but the end is neigh. The short-term prosperity afforded by requiring people to live in more house than they really need was as clear from the beginning as the inevitable consequences should have been. Those who once profited from this country's legislated drive towards ever-bigger houses (banks, municipalities and the housing industry in particular) are now facing its not-so-profitable outcome. New home construction and home financing are showing about as much promise right now as a McMansion for sale.
A Brief History of America’s Mandatory Consumption Laws:
Since its inception in 1994, the International Code Council (ICC) along with its corporate members and underwriters have been developing and maintaining the minimum size standards originated by some in the insurance industry decades earlier.* By dictating how large American houses have to be, these building codes have helped make our homes some of the largest in the world (four times the international average). States and municipalities have eagerly adopted and enforced the codes as law. When you consider the immediate revenue generated by oversized houses thru permits, construction materials, labor, infrastructure development and land costs, as well as the lingering profit to be made thru heating fuel, property taxes, remodels, inordinate maintenance and (perhaps most notably) mortgage interest, it’s no wonder the regulations have been so popular with state and corporate groups alike. By requiring American’s to pay for larger houses than many of us really need, it almost seemed that sponsors of the code would enjoy prosperity without end. And they may have, if the citizens supporting them hadn’t run out of money.
Double Taxation
Like the building department, American banks generally require borrowers to buy houses of a minimum size. The long-term cost of such seemingly unviable policy becomes clear when borrowers are, predictably, unable to make payments on their oversized investments. This little glitch was successfully mitigated in 2008 when it was announced that the same borrowers, along with every other American taxpayer, would bailout the banks in order to sustain the unsustainable system for just a little while longer. For now, at least, it’s back to business as usual.
Zoning
Where our codes and banks fail to generate unwarranted consumption, zoning laws often pick up the slack. Modern zoning was developed back when over-consumption was considered an American virtue. What we now view as wasteful sprawl didn’t happen by accident. It’s the product of a conscious design to drive up consumption and increase revenues. Consider the enthusiastic prediction of pioneering urban planner, Le Corbusier, “The cities will be part of the country; I shall live 30 miles from my office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live 30 miles away from it too, in the opposite direction, under another pine tree. We shall both have our own car. We shall use up trees, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume oil and gasoline. All of which will necessitate a great deal of work… enough for all”.
Zoning has traditionally entailed dividing our built environment into different zones according to their primary intended function (commercial, residential, industrial, etc.), thereby creating more places you’d need a car to get to. Zoning has further limited efficient design by dictating how many people can live on your property, if you can put a granny unit in your backyard and if you can legally turn your garden shed into an extra bedroom. With regard to mandatory consumption, zoning ensures that you can’t simply escape the laws by selling your house and living in a trailer in a friend’s backyard.
There’s Madness Behind This Method
I recently contacted the ICC to ask what purpose limiting minimum house size serves. I also asked what, if any, testing has been done to show that the limits achieve their intended purpose. Steve Daggers of the ICC’s public relations team had this to say, “The specific purpose of the International Residential Code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public’s safety through affordability, structural strength, means of egress (exit) facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment”. “Based on building science, technical knowledge, and lessons learned from experience, the purpose of a building code is to establish minimum requirements necessary to provide safety, guard public health and reduce property losses”. ** (Steve’s full response can be found below).
The regulations governing the size of America’s homes are, reportedly, intended to protect us from the untold dangers of small houses. We’re told they exist to guard public safety and provide affordability and energy efficiency. These longstanding claims are, allegedly, based on building science and lessons learned from experience.
Without more substantive detail, it’s hard to know what this really means. The most independent studies clearly show that smaller houses are actually much safer, more efficient, healthier and more affordable than their larger correlate. And the collective experience of hundreds of folks who design, build and inhabit houses of just 50 to 500 square feet suggests the same.
Jay Shafer is Tumbleweed’s founder and designer. Jay’s self published “The Small House Book” has changed the way the world sees small homes. In addition, he has created over 20 small house plans, and teaches people how to build a house at his many workshops.
* In accordance with the International Residential Code, current laws mandate that all newly constructed residential structures have no less than one habitable room of at least 120 square feet (§303.3); Every kitchen must be no less than 50 square feet (§303.4); Other habitable rooms shall be no less than 70 square feet (§304.2,3); Rooms shall maintain a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet. The required height shall be measured from the finish floor to the lowest projection from the ceiling (§303.6). Habitable space is defined as: Any space intended for living, sleeping, eating or cooking.
Here are our responses, in easy to understand language not technical terms.
Thanks for your inquiry.
What's the stated purpose of these codes?
The International Codes, or I-Codes, published by the International Code Council provide minimum safeguards for people at home, at school and in the workplace. The International Council is a member-focused association dedicated to the development of codes and standards used by the building industry to provide safe, sustainable, and affordable structures. The I-Codes are a complete set of comprehensive, coordinated building safety, fire prevention and energy-efficient codes. Building codes benefit public safety and support the construction industry’s need for one set of codes without regional limitations. The specific purpose of the International Residential Code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public’s safety through affordability, structural strength, means of egress (exit) facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment. The International Residential Code provides safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The International Residential Code is in use or adopted in 49 states at the state or local level, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Legislative bodies are not obligated to adopt model building safety or fire prevention codes, and may write their own code or portions of a code. A model code has no legal standing until it is adopted as law by a legislative body (state legislature, county board, city council, etc.). When adopted as law, all owners of property within the boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction are required to comply with the referred codes. Because codes are updated every three years, existing structures usually are required
What, if any, testing has been done to show that the codes achieve their intended goal?
Based on building science, technical knowledge, and lessons learned from experience, the purpose of a building code is to establish minimum requirements necessary to provide safety, guard public health and reduce property losses. Model building codes provide protection from man-made and natural disasters. Safe buildings are achieved through proper design and construction practices in concert with a code administration program that ensures compliance. Model codes actually keep construction costs down by establishing uniformity in the construction industry. This uniformity allows building and materials manufacturers to do business on a larger scale—statewide, regionally, nationally or internationally. Larger scale allows cost savings to be passed on to the consumer. Codes also help protect real estate investments, commercial and personal, by providing a minimum level of construction quality and safety. Many construction materials are reviewed for code compliance by the ICC-Evaluation Service.
Steve Daggers VP Communications International Code Council
They're hoping to find a client who would like to offer their little house as the subject of the class -- significantly jump-starting the construction process! Essentially, the client would dictate the design and offer the materials, including the trailer, and the folks at Yestermorrow would begin the construction process as part of the class.
If anyone is interested in getting more information about the class or how their project could be used in the class, please contact John Hanke of Yestermorrow. He can provide information about how the class went last year. I've attached a photo of the little house they started last year. The porch and other aspects of the house weren't complete,but the walls and roof were on and the project well underway by the end of the class. John's e-mail is jphanke@gmavt.net.
Lee Pera and a group of tiny house builders attended a Tumbleweed workshop last year. This year, they broke ground on their tiny house community in Washington, D.C. Below is an update from Lee who will be guest blogging her tiny house community adventure with us regularly. If you're interested in starting a group build in your community, drop us an email and we'll work with you to connect with other tiny house enthusiasts, builders, and suppliers in your area.
We’ve been doing preparatory work this week meeting with other tiny house builders, scoping out materials and prices, looking at designs we like, and helping Brian out on the lot and garden beds. Making decisions usually stresses me out, and all the decisions that go into a tiny house have been overwhelming me, so it felt good to already decide on a couple things while looking at materials. For instance, I love the look of the interior of the Protohaus and have decided to go with bead board rather than the knotty pine that the Fencl tiny house plans call for (saving a significant amount of money as well). I have also decided I really like the look of cork flooring and many of its benefits and will most likely go with that for my flooring – whew…two decisions made effortlessly!
The biggest news this week is that I may end up downsizing even more. Originally I planned on building on a 22 ft-long x 8 ft-wide trailer, extending the Fencl out by 4 feet in length and one foot in width. But this week we were out for beers with our new tiny house friends Margaret and Zach – who are building an amazing tiny house in South Carolina – and Zach told us about an ad he had seen for a tiny house shell. It’s a fabulous deal, but the main issue I had with it is that, while built on an 18-ft trailer, the shell is just 16 feet long and 7 feet 10 inches wide. Could I really lose 6 feet of interior space? That’s a lot of room in a tiny house. Still, the price is less than what my trailer itself will cost, and the seller was excited that we even knew about tiny houses. Tony talked with the builder/seller and he seems to have done solid work, and Zach checked it out in person for us. It looks like I’ll be buying the shell all built out! We will finish the roofing, siding and interior starting in June.
Next, Tony and I went to spend some time hanging out in the Fencl (18 ft long x 7 ft wide). After spending about an hour, moving about in the rooms, hanging out in the loft, scoping out storage, I think I can make a smaller unit work. It will require getting creative about storing my stuff (or getting rid of more), but I’m excited about the challenge. I like to think I adapt easily to wherever I live and the size will be fine, but if it’s too small I can design and build a larger one over time. It will be useful to spend some time in one first to get an idea for what I really want and need in size and design. I’ll post more photos of the shell soon.
