This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This comment may be slightly low-effort and/or non-culture-war, but it seems relevant to past discussions of housing affordability from @grendel-khan. See also my past comment on actual culture war in building codes.
The current round of proposed amendments to ICC (International Code Council) codes can be found through this page (both group A and group B). Committee decisions regarding acceptance of the amendments are in the separate "ROCAH" documents.
E24-24 (group A, IBC egress) was submitted by the Center for Building in North America. The current edition of the IBC (International Building Code) permits an apartment building to have a single exit only if the building contains no more than three stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 12 apartments). This amendment would increase the maximum to either six stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 24 apartments) or three stories and six apartments per story (for a total of 18 apartments). The submitter estimates that this amendment would reduce "the cost of constructing multifamily buildings on small lots" by 7 percent. At the first hearing, the committee unanimously rejected the amendment, citing various safety-related reasons. However, at the second hearing, a modified amendment prescribing a maximum of four stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 16 apartments) was approved by the committee in an almost-unanimous vote.
G154-25 (group B, IBC general) was submitted by the same organization. The current edition of the IBC requires elevators to comply with several ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) standards. This amendment would permit elevators to alternatively comply with the equivalent ISO (International Organization of Standardization) and EN (European Norms) standards, and thereby invite competition from European elevator manufacturers that generally don't bother with American standards, possibly reducing the extremely high elevator costs that prevail in the US. The committee rejected it almost unanimously.
G158-25 was submitted by the same organization. The current edition of the IBC requires an elevator in a building with at least four stories to be large enough to accommodate an ambulance stretcher. This amendment would eliminate this requirement in apartment buildings with no more than six stories. The committee rejected it unanimously.
RB121-25 (group B, IRC building) was submitted by the NAHB (National Association of Homebuilders). The current edition of the IRC (International Residential Code) prescribes a maximum stairway slope of 77.5 % (7.75-inch risers and 10-inch treads). This amendment would increase the maximum to 91.7 % (8.25-inch risers and 9-inch treads). The NAHB points out that similar slopes were permitted by predecessors to the IRC and still are permitted by 46 percent of state codes, by the federal manufactured-house code, and by multiple foreign codes (90.0 % in UKGBNI and 90.9 % in Spain). The NAHB estimates 150 dollars of savings per stairway, not including the reduction in floor area of 5.75 ft2. The committee accepted this amendment by a bare vote of six to four.
RB115-25, submitted by the government of New York, would require locks on the exterior doors of a house. The committee unanimously rejected it as out of scope for the IRC.
Disclaimer: I did not look through all the literally thousands of proposed amendments. Rather, I looked through the PCH (public comment hearing) documents for stuff that actually drew public comment. So I probably missed other relevant proposals.
Update: It seems that I misunderstood the code-amendment process (simple explanation, full rules).
A proposed amendment is discussed and voted on at three hearings—first, by the relevant ICC committee; second, by the committee again if it was disapproved in the first vote; and, third, by code officials. But the three hearing votes are just preliminary. If an amendment is disapproved in all three of the hearing votes, then it does not get a fourth vote. But an amendment that is approved in at least one of the three hearing votes goes to a fourth vote of code officials. The ballots of the third vote and the fourth vote are combined to determine whether the amendment is added to the code. In this final combined vote: disapproval always requires a simple majority; approval of an amendment approved by the committee requires a simple majority; and approval of an amendment disapproved by the committee requires a two-thirds majority.
My previous comment addressed only the committee votes. This document contains all four votes for every proposed 2027 amendment.
E24-24 (allowing larger apartment buildings to have only one exit) was approved in a final combined vote of 67 to 33.
RB121-25 (allowing stairways in houses to be steeper) was disapproved in a final combined vote of 88 to 12.
G154-25 (allowing elevators to comply with ISO elevator standards), G158-25 (allowing taller apartment buildings to have elevators too small for stretchers), and RB115-25 (requiring house exterior doors to have locks) apparently were disapproved in all three of the hearing votes and therefore did not qualify for a fourth vote.
The 2027 IBC, incorporating E24-24, has been published. Publication of the 2027 IRC is expected to take place in February. Note that amendments adopted by the ICC are not guaranteed to be adopted by state govts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link