Design vs. engineering question

[RMorrison]

Gerry,
These are good points. I think in Michael's case, though, sitting down with the plans examiner, may be fruitless, because it appears that like many jurisdictions in the country, they may have very little to no oversight of the construction and have widely ranging engineering requirements. There are parts of the country, of course, where little more than a "napkin sketch" will get you a building permit.

However, just because you don't need the plans and engineering to get a permit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be done. I have had a number of occasions where the examiner caught something I missed, and I'm happy to have a trained pair of eyes looking over my plans. It reduces my liability. The scariest thing I can imagine, both for myself and my clients, would be to have no oversight, and just trust myself and the contractors to "do it right." Yes, it would be enjoyable for the first couple of years, but then as problems started showing up, along with the lawyers, it would get less fun.

[marty]

The subject of examiners and building standards is an interesting one. Down here in NZ which is smaller than a lot of the states in the US we have a single National Building Code but it is interpreted differently all over the country. Its also interpreted differently within parts of the same city. THis problem seems to exist world over and the chances of reaching agreement must be nil, zip zero.

Our houses are generally smaller than the US - average around 2,400ft2 - and for that it takes around 34 A3 size drawings to get a permit. About half of that information is standard manufacturers installation information which should not be required but if its not supplied the application gets rejected.

THe general attitude is that the more drawings that are supplied the higher the chance of the building being built properly but the reality is if a builder doesnt know what he is doing you could give him 1000 drawings and he wouldnt be any better off.