Proposals for

Streamlining the Building Codes in Houston

  Presented by

Brigid’s Paradigm

A Taskforce for Affordable Housing in Houston

Streamlining the Building Codes in Houston

Executive Summary

Every city in America needs and wants a building code, and indeed hundreds of thousands of hours by experts have been invested in developing the codes available now.  The City of Houston now operates under the International Residential Code (IRC).  Further, every city in America is beleaguered by the need for affordable housing that is hard to fill within the traditional parameters and translation of most codes—not to mention the need for housing after a catastrophic event, such as hurricanes.  Presently, there is no infrastructure in place for such an event.  Following these codes and “the path of least resistance” has led to the creation of 136 million tons of construction and demolition waste being diverted to landfills annually.  That accounts for approximately 2.8 lbs/person/day.  (1)

We are proposing that the corollary ordinances that prevent owner/builders from using salvage material in Houston be adjusted slightly to press the vast quantity of useable construction waste into the service of providing affordable housing.  Building codes are necessary and desirable, and the IRC allows for alternative methods, materials and agencies in fulfilling the intent of the code.  The IRC further insures that its guidelines are in line with the most current of building science. 

These proposals may be summarized with the following:

1.  Allow owner-builders and owner-remodelers to pull all of their own permits, with the proviso that a licensed professional inspector call in for each inspection.

2.  Allow the use of selected materials to be used in the construction process, rather than send them to the landfill.

Affordable Housing in Houston

Traditionally, “affordable” housing for the low-end of the population has consisted of  projects sponsored by HUD, Section 8 vouchers, mobile homes, or Habitat for Humanity housing.  One of the Houston CDC’s has expressed that their cheapest home cost $85,000, which isn’t very affordable to someone working at a minimum wage job. 

Unfortunately homeowners and owner/builders can only work on their own homes marginally because the City of Houston—as a city ordinance—requires them to hire licensed vendors for electrical, plumbing and mechanical work.  The only exception is if the homeowner is currently living in his house—and then he can only get a plumbing permit for plumbing repair.  Further, according to Sheila Blake, Assistant Director of Planning and Development, re-used materials are possibly not code compliant because of degradation and health issues. 

1. U.S. EPA, 1998, “Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States.”

Discussion

While such ordinances serve the middle class and above, the majority of Houstonians cannot afford to hire licensed vendors to do needed work, nor can they afford to buy new materials.  Their choices are either to try to fix their own houses on the sly and risk getting caught, or ignore the repair.  In both cases the result is more dangerous than if the city allowed a homeowner to pull a permit, and thereby monitor quality. 

The argument for requiring licensed vendors to do the work is a reasonable one—the inspection infrastructure is already overworked and is simply not staffed to “hold the homeowner’s hand” in enforcing codes and protecting city liability. 

However, if an ordinance were put into place that required the homeowner or owner/builder to hire a professional inspector for a “pre-inspection”—which indeed is allowed by the IRC—then that inspector could call in for the appropriate inspection by the city staff.  Professional inspectors represent a sizeable industry in the City of Houston, primarily serving the real estate market.  They are licensed by the State of Texas, and must understand multiple codes to stay in business.  The professional inspector would then do any “hand-holding” that might be necessary.  Currently an average visit by a professional inspector costs $200.  There are approximately 6-8 inspections on new construction.  For the owner builder this would be $1200-1600—vastly cheaper than hiring licensed vendors to do the work. 

With such a change, city staff inspectors would inspect as usual.  If the work met the intent of the code, then it would pass.  If it did not, it wouldn’t.  If it didn’t pass, the homeowner would need to contact the professional inspector, find out how to correct what didn’t pass, and call for a re-inspection.  Perhaps this second “pre-inspection” would also be chargeable—an arrangement between the professional inspector and the owner/builder.  In many ways it would be self-policing in that an owner/builder wouldn’t presume to do work he didn’t know how to do, since the cost of “pre-inspections” would at some point accumulate beyond what it would otherwise take to hire a licensed vendor. 

The net result of such an ordinance is that owners and owner/builders would be encouraged to maintain their properties, or attempt to build their own houses.  This would impact overall maintenance of buildings in the city, and encourage “homesteading,” which would in turn impact affordable housing.  Licensed vendors might see an increase in business either as “mentors” or as technicians to correct what the homeowner couldn’t do or didn’t feel comfortable doing.  In any case, quite likely the vendors wouldn’t be losing out on any business, since they don’t get the business now anyway because of expense. 

This wouldn’t be viewed as “relaxing the codes.”  We simply would be relaxing bureaucracy in the mutual goal of the safety and well-being of the building occupants—which is the point of all building codes. 

Brigid’s Paradigm

Brigid’s Paradigm is a homesteading concept that emphasizes using recycled materials for the construction of affordable housing.  Originally developed in Huntsville, Texas, the non-profit, secular organization Brigid’s Place, sponsored by Christ Church Cathedral in Houston, targets single mothers, and helps them build their own houses. The houses are scaled at the minimum square footage allowed by law, which is approximately 240 square feet for one person, with an additional 100 square feet for each added occupant.  Each house has a porch, which is half the size of the allowed square footage, which already has a roof, with insulation and electrical stub-outs.  Then when the owner would like to increase the size of the house, it is a simple matter of adding three walls—which the homeowner can do, since he has already built the house in the first place. 

The model is working splendidly in Huntsville, and promises to be a paradigm for the 21^st Century.  Brigid’s Paradigm is based in the market place.  Potential owner-builders must have $500, good credit or no credit—but not bad credit—and a stable job.  They then proceed to build their own houses under the tutelage of a seasoned builder, who is compensated.  By the time they finish they will own 60-80% of the property, based on their own labor and free, salvage and recycled materials.  Banks are happy, since the loan-to-value ratio is 20-40%, rather than the typical 80%.  In case of default, the bank has ample security to cover the risk.  But default is unlikely, since the owner-builder has considerable labor invested in the property.  The owner and property then enter the economic mainstream, paying taxes, and maintaining the property with the expertise developed while building it in the first place.  While donations of money and labor are gratefully accepted, they are not necessary.

Brigid’s Paradigm further encourages social responsibility.  Once a homeowner has built his own house, considerable pride is invested in the property. Since he is paying taxes, he is suddenly interested in property tax valuation and city services generally.  There is no room for the “I deserve” mentality, where expectations of “freebies,”  “someone else is responsible for my welfare,” and general “safety nets” abound.   While the paradigm isn’t for everyone, it represents a substantial segment of those who do not own homes. 

Recycled Materials    

It has only been months since we all watched with horror the carnage that two hurricanes caused.  Every day images of houses being bulldozed and loaded up for landfills beleaguer our awareness.  FEMA has proved through its track record that relief is neither timely nor incisive.  It devolves upon local communities to develop infrastructures that will solve their own problems—on a daily basis and in times of disaster.  Whatever might be forthcoming from FEMA must be viewed as icing on the cake.

We grieve at the televised useable building materials that are carted to the landfills.  How simple it would be to create jobs to deconstruct ruined houses, and then, using the salvaged materials, reconstruct new houses for those in need.  The aftermath of two hurricanes has taught us that jobs, housing, and materials are of utmost importance—all of which are in short supply in times of disaster.  Certainly as a culture we are shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring the opportunities that salvage materials represent.

Technical Description of Proposals

The following proposals are submitted as reasonable changes for the way residential construction is accomplished within the City of Houston.  In all cases the changes are simple, and require little adjustment and no increased workload for city staff.  The effects, however, could be exponential for the future of Houston.

1.  Allow owner/builders to pull their own permits for homestead projects, provided the house to be built was the minimum square footage allowed by law.  The person who would call in appropriate inspections, however, would be required to be a licensed professional inspector with the State of Texas, or a licensed tradesman in the appropriate area.  The city staff would simply inspect as usual.  The minimum square footage requirement would discourage abuse of the system.

2.  Allow owners to pull their own electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits for rehabilitation projects on their own homesteads.  Currently the homeowner can obtain only plumbing permits.  Once again, for electrical and mechanical inspections, a licensed professional inspector would need to call in the inspection.

3.  Allow salvage materials to be used in the construction process in the following areas:

            A.  Salvage framing lumber for stud use only.  Literally any framing lumber in good condition—regardless of species—will accommodate at least stud-grade performance.  The least quality that is allowable is #3—which is stud grade—which since the late thirties has been milled S4S.  Number 4 lumber is simply not milled S4S.  So it is reasonable to allow any lumber in good condition to be used in a stud capacity.  Visual inspection during the framing inspection will easily identify any qualities that would make a member marginal, such as rot, termites, a preponderance of fungus, or warpage beyond allowable deflection.  Surface oxidation of tannins in the wood (the gray color) in no way affects structural integrity. 

            B.  Salvage ceramic, porcelain, and stainless steel sinks and lavatories in good condition.   Sheila Blake pointed out that these are not allowed because of health hazards from previous-use grime and contamination.  What makes this ordinance inconsistent is that any renter anywhere automatically inherits the previous user’s grime and contamination, not to mention antique sinks and lavatories that often are installed in high-end construction.  These products can be easily cleaned and visual inspection would reveal any trouble areas, such as cracks or chips that could not be cleaned. Toilets are not included in this proposal since older toilets typically are not low flush (1.6 gallons per flush).

            C.  Salvage windows and doors.  One of the arguments against using salvage windows is that the testing laboratory listing has long since been removed or obliterated, and therefore the e-value of the glazing cannot be confirmed.  Since the energy code is performance based, it would make sense to require that the glazing-to-exterior-wall ratio be no more than 10%.  Even highly energy-efficient windows will not overcome deficiencies in other elements of the energy-efficiency profile of a home, such as infiltration, insulation, weather-stripping, caulking and SEER ratings.  

4.  At least in the beginning, assign inspection of such homesteading projects or rehabilitations by owners to a Multiple Discipline Inspector, who could cultivate specific sections of the code that allow alternative strategies and materials and alternative agencies for activities that would otherwise require licensed tradesmen.  These inspectors are already on the city staff.

Arguments Against These Proposals

1.  It might be complained that such proposals favor a particular segment of the construction industry.  These changes would apply and be open to anyone wanting to go this route.  It is unlikely that developers of any size would take advantage of these changes, since salvage materials take more time to clean and install, an expense that most developers would gladly dodge, but individuals would embrace. 

2.  It might be complained that licensed tradesmen are being squeezed out of their rightful territory.  This is territory that they would not otherwise have, since people taking advantage of these changes wouldn’t be able to afford them anyway.

Arguments In Favor of These Proposals

1.  These changes would allow people who could not afford to build or repair their own homes, to do so legally, with no compromise in the city’s ability to monitor quality for safety and health.  Any “hand-holding” would have been done in the marketplace, and not by staff employees.

2.  There would be very little adjustment in city inspection staff.

3.  The need for affordable housing is at crisis proportions.  These proposals will encourage those who have the will to improve the quality of their lives without city ordinances saying they cannot.

4.  Allowing the use of more salvage materials makes materials affordable for those willing to clean and install them.

5.  Accepting these proposals would put the City of Houston on the fast track as a major urban center that is pushing for sustainability, green construction, and recycling.  Right now the City of Austin is the only large city in Texas that is pushing green construction, but they are doing it at the high-end of the construction industry only.  No one is helping the small guy build sustainably.

6.  The owner-built or rehabilitated house creates responsible citizens.  It is a huge investment in a family’s self-esteem, and every member of the family will benefit.  It stops the “I deserve” mind-set, and launches families into the economic mainstream.

7.  The owner-built house promises to grow neighborhoods.  Right now derelict properties attract illegal activities and generally degrade neighborhoods.  If these vacant lots and houses could be re-introduced into the economic mainstream entire neighborhoods would benefit. 

8.  The waste stream at an average landfill contains at least 10% useable building material.  This percentage can climb to as much as 40%, depending on the level of building activity in the area.  This is a beginning for addressing the landfill problem from at least one perspective.  At some point in the future perhaps builders could be required to deposit unwanted, useable leftovers at warehouses for such a purpose, or to sell them to salvage operators.  Salvage industries could be expected to grow.

9.  Tax revenues would slowly increase.

10.  Future hurricane seasons promise to be more brutal than the one we have just lived through.  Having an infrastructure in place that can accommodate the re-use of materials from destroyed homes would be a welcome disaster-response strategy.  As of right now, none are in place. 

11.  Houston would be doing its part in the larger perspective of an environmental imperative.  This would be good public relations for Houston that could easily be exploited in presenting itself to the rest of the country.

 For more information, contact:

Dan Phillips

email:  marshajp@totalzone.com

or

Amanda Tullos, 281-384-3756 or email her Amanda.Tullos@hva.cc

or contact Brigid’s Place (713) 590-3333

email:  brigidsplace@brigidsplace.org