site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   2212 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 20, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ICC (the International Code Council), in collaboration with THIA (the Tiny Home Industry Association), is in the process of developing a new standard for "small residential units and tiny houses", ICC/THIA 1215.

  • The IRC (International Residential Code) already defines "tiny house" as 400 ft2 (37 m2) or smaller.

  • The latest draft of this new standard (available through the "documents" link on this page) additionally defines "small residential unit" as 1200 ft2 (111 m2) or smaller.

The name of the committee is "Standard for Off-Site Construction Tiny Houses", and this collaboration with THIA is building on a previous collaboration with MBI (the Modular Building Institute). However, this new standard will apply, not just to newfangled off-site (wheeled, modular, and panelized) construction, but also to traditional on-site (stick-built) construction.

For ease of visualization, here are examples of "tiny" and "small" floor plans. (I still am waiting for you to post the plan of your dream house (1 2)—or your dream neighborhood.)

(Can we extend this progression? "Normal" ≤ 3600 ft2 (334 m2), "large" ≤ 10800 ft2 (1003 m2), and "mansion" > 10,800 ft2 (1003 m2)? ;-) Generally, for apartment buildings (occupancy R-2) made of wood with no special fire rating (construction type V), the IBC prescribes limits of 7000 ft2 without sprinklers (no longer allowed in new buildings), 21,000 ft2 with spinklers and multiple stories, and 28,000 ft2 with sprinklers and one story. But no such restrictions apply to houses (occupancy R-3).)

This interesting article covers how ICC was caught flat-footed by data centers' sudden rise in popularity. In what occupancy do they belong?

  • Business, like electronic data entry?

  • Moderate-hazard factory/industrial, like lithium-ion-battery assembly and usage?

  • Moderate-hazard storage, like lithium-ion-battery storage?

This has important ramifications for code requirements.

In the end (technically not finalized at the time of this article's publication), the responsible committee decided to put it in moderate-hazard factory/industrial. (See the committee's response to proposal G38-25, contained in the "report of committee action to CAH 1" document on this page.)

ICC is in the very early stages of developing a guideline on data centers. Nothing but a tentative outline has been published so far (in the "documents" on the linked page).

The latest draft of this new standard (available through the "documents" link on this page) additionally defines "small residential unit" as 1200 ft2 (111 m2) or smaller.

9 residents in 1198 sq ft seems bonkers to me. That's about 133 sq ft per person. The average male takes up 8.625 sq ft laying down.

When I was young we lived in a 700sq ft rental as a family of five, and it was not a good time, despite being more square footage per person than the example dwelling above.

Is there an assumption that people are sleeping in shifts, or something?

The building code is meant as a strict minimum to protect health and safety. OP is an engineer whose idea of efficiency is that the ideal dwelling adheres as close to these minimums as possible. Comfort and aesthetics are of no concern here, only that the occupants aren't put at any physical risk. He's currently building a house with a living room the size of a small apartment, with a living room about the size of my office at work, and he thinks that he'll be able to rent out the second bedroom to two people because the square footage is within ICC guidelines for four adults.

Comfort and aesthetics are of no concern here

I have put significant thought into my comfort and aesthetics. If I have no concern, it's for other people's comfort and aesthetics, since they will not be living there.

Whenever I take walks in my city, I literally think to myself: "Why were these houses built so ugly? What was the point of building a steep roof enclosing a useless attic? What was the point of putting the edge of the second floor on a useless cantilever, or installing a wacky bow window, instead of just building a straight wall?"

a house with a living room the size of a small apartment, with a living room about the size of my office at work

Confusing typo

he thinks that he'll be able to rent out the second bedroom to two people

That's just a failsafe for after my mother dies, 30 years in the future. I don't really expect to need to rent that bedroom out to anyone but her.

What was the point of building a steep roof enclosing a useless attic?

Do you live somewhere that doesn't snow? Around here those roofs are 100% necessary, and the Californian transplants who think they aren't usually end up with an expensive wake up call after a few years.

You seem to be implying that there are only two options:

  • Steep roofs made from non-leaky materials, such as asphalt shingles or metal panels

  • Flat roofs made from leaky materials, such as mineral rolls or built-up asphalt

This is a false dichotomy. According to the IRC:

  • Asphalt shingles can be used on roofs as flat as 2/12 (with double underlayment).

  • Metal panels can be used on roofs as flat as 0.25/12 (depending on the specific type of panel).

My personal experience with the (IIRC) 4/12 asphalt-shingle roof of my (mother's) current house is that the attic, filled with blown insulation and big ducts that make maintenance difficult, is nothing but an annoyance. I look forward to experiencing my custom house's 1/12 (flat enough to walk on casually) metal-panel roof, with batt insulation, ductless heating/cooling, and a drop ceiling making maintenance easy.

I'm less worried about leaks than full blown collapse. I had my elementary school cafeteria roof collapse when I was a child due to four feet of snow piled up on it. It was not an experience I'd ever care to repeat.

Wait, were you…in it?

I was. It was not a good time

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats