You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

R

"RicodJour" wrote
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

Sometimes, but even that is slipping it seems.
Caught a few mins of TOH late last night with that new guy and I had to turn
the channel.
It was embarrassing and this comes from a person that has watched that show
since the beginning.
Yes, he was a dick, but I'll take Vila over the noobs 8 days out of 7.

Ya know, with all the inherent *problems* that occur in construction, and
even more so with remodeling, it takes a special kind of idiot to do a TV
show about such things. Frankly, most people (homeowners) don't want to know
about such things and would be completely mortified to know the real story
behing their own remodeling projects. I couldn't imagine putting myself in
the position of explaining unforeseeable negative circumstances on TV in
front of gazillions of people.
Those that can, do. And those that can't, well if there are no teaching
positions available, they start a new TV show.

"Don" wrote in
:

"RicodJour" wrote
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some
sort of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction,
yet makes plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology
(hallmark of someone who read a book without understanding it) and
makes comments that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different
codes is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this
stuff is inexcusable.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and
home improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

Sometimes, but even that is slipping it seems.
Caught a few mins of TOH late last night with that new guy and I had
to turn the channel.
It was embarrassing and this comes from a person that has watched that
show since the beginning.
Yes, he was a dick, but I'll take Vila over the noobs 8 days out of 7.

Ya know, with all the inherent *problems* that occur in construction,
and even more so with remodeling, it takes a special kind of idiot to
do a TV show about such things. Frankly, most people (homeowners)
don't want to know about such things and would be completely mortified
to know the real story behing their own remodeling projects. I
couldn't imagine putting myself in the position of explaining
unforeseeable negative circumstances on TV in front of gazillions of
people. Those that can, do. And those that can't, well if there are no
teaching positions available, they start a new TV show.



Well, I wouldn't mind doing a show, but OTOH, it's always been my
tendency to try to find out who knows what, and then tap into the
knowledge of whomever knows the most. A lot of poeple seem to have no
idea about the concept of "finding, evaluating, and using experts"...

"RicodJour" wrote in message

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction.

Is he running for the Senate? Sounds like a bonehead political speech.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction.

Is he running for the Senate? Sounds like a bonehead political speech.

When he said it, I shook my head and couldn't believe I heard it.
Later in the show he repeated it. There are so many other stupid
things he says that it's hard to believe he actually ever worked in
construction. If you ever watch the show you'll notice a young guy who
works with him that actually does the work and apparently is the one
with the building smarts. Holmes is simply beefcake. He was hired
because he comes across as being morally outraged by the shoddy
building practices he's correcting and prances around wearing overalls
without a shirt. Give me Tommy Silva any day of the week. He's no
model, but he knows his stuff.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
ups.com...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction.

Is he running for the Senate? Sounds like a bonehead political speech.

When he said it, I shook my head and couldn't believe I heard it.
Later in the show he repeated it. There are so many other stupid
things he says that it's hard to believe he actually ever worked in
construction. If you ever watch the show you'll notice a young guy who
works with him that actually does the work and apparently is the one
with the building smarts. Holmes is simply beefcake. He was hired
because he comes across as being morally outraged by the shoddy
building practices he's correcting and prances around wearing overalls
without a shirt.

Such is the nature of TV land

Give me Tommy Silva any day of the week. He's no
model, but he knows his stuff.

Would he come off as sort of Ben Stein? :~)

Matt Barrow wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

Give me Tommy Silva any day of the week. He's no
model, but he knows his stuff.

Would he come off as sort of Ben Stein? :~)

Excellent! I could imagine all of his sarcastic, dry humor applied to
construction. That would be fun viewing.

R

"RicodJour"
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering a
house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of it,
when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the same
"cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old
House. They actually know what they're talking about.

They're still on?

Warm Worm wrote:


"RicodJour"

You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering
a house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote
Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"

You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering a
house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.

Explain that term *needs to be*.

"Matt Whiting" wrote

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.

If two engineers use their best professional judgement, and one decides
that a higher factor of safety is warranted, does that mean he's not
engineering, not an engineer, not as concerned with the extra money
involved, or simply doesn't fit into your incredibly narrow definition?

R

Don wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering a
house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Explain that term *needs to be*.

The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is
making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that
is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are
considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote
Don wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote
Warm Worm wrote:
"RicodJour"
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering
a house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.

Explain that term *needs to be*.

The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these conditions,
but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is making
something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that is a waste
of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are considerations in
addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.

Building codes again.
sigh
I wonder if someday professionals will no longer be able to function without
gov't guidance?

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Don wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker
knows enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be
some sort of super contractor with extensive knowledge of
construction, yet makes plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses
terminology (hallmark of someone who read a book without
understanding it) and makes comments that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to
the medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one
code. It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing
different codes is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert
spouting this stuff is inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how
over-engineering a house would affect a house's design, cost or
resale value. I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed
that, at the end of it, when the owners would come back and see the
change, there'd be the same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing"
background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Explain that term *needs to be*.

The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of
a given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need
to bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering
is making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond
that is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability
are considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the
picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.


I keep thinking of the program I saw on the Discovery Channel about
tornadoes - they showed one neighborhood (no basements of course) where
every house had been flattened and the population was decimated - except
for one guy and his family; he'd had a reinforced shelter installed in
the center of the house, and that shelter was the only thing left
standing, and he and his family were the only people left without some
sort of injury.

So, if something is "overengineered", but is left unscathed, or at least
with only minimal damage, when that supposedly 100-year storm hits, is
it actually over-engineered, or is it correctly engineered?

It seems to me that the "minimum code" is just that. Minimum.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't pay much attention to statistics, and
storms are tending to get stronger, not weaker. So personally, I'd
prefer to pay more for something that is "over-engineered", and did pay
extra for things like Tech-Shield and Tyvek.

Most people - well, most people just hink about what's cheap today, not
about what will cost less over a few years or even what will be safer if
a severe storm hits.

What it all comes down to is how much someone wants to pay up-front
versus what they might save over the long term. Most poeple can't see
past next week, when it comes to money. So, most houses (since most are
development houses) are intended to give people "what they want".

Every year, without fail, we see news reports about "sufficiently
engineered" homes destroyed by natural events that are *known* to have
occured in their given areas, hence are a known risk. On average, those
non-average conditions are called "statistically insignificant", and
engineers are called upon to do their calcualtions and plans accordingly
- they're given a certain set of parameters and a certain budget, and
told to stay within those, regardless of whether or not they might think
it unwise to stay only withing the minimum/code. So, IMO, much of what
gets called "overengineering" is actually "engineered to withstand a
wider range of conditions than those which occur on average".

Matt Whiting wrote:
Don wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote

Warm Worm wrote:

"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some
sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet
makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different
codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this
stuff is
inexcusable.



Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how
over-engineering a house would affect a house's design, cost or
resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end
of it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd
be the same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.


No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.



Explain that term *needs to be*.


The building codes define pretty thoroughly what loads a structure of a
given type, for a given purpose, in a given part of the country need to
bear. A properly engineered structure will meet all of these
conditions, but not much more. As someone said long ago, engineering is
making something strong enough, but no stronger. Anything beyond that
is a waste of material. Obviously, things like serviceability are
considerations in addition to raw strength, but you get the picture, right?

Anyone can build something 10X stronger than it needs to be. An
engineer's job is to balance strength against economics.

Matt

One of the best lines I ever heard was on a PBS show about bridge
building. One of the engineers said (paraphrased):

"Anyone can build a bridge to carry a given span,... The trick is to be
able to build a bridge that will *just*(barely) carry the span".

It couldnt be summed up any better.

Mark

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:28:03 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Warm Worm wrote:


"RicodJour"

You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering
a house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Matt

What would you thing of an engineer who designs a gas engine in such a
way that the air intake and exhaust flow through the same hose?

Many people seem to find billions of examples of such incompetent
design all around them. THAT is scary.

Tony M wrote:

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:28:03 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Warm Worm wrote:


"RicodJour"


You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.


Maybe he meant "over-engineer" although I'm unsure how over-engineering
a house would affect a house's design, cost or resale value.
I've watched his show only a few times, but noticed that, at the end of
it, when the owners would come back and see the change, there'd be the
same "cheesy, lame and eerily soothing" background music.

No such thing as over-engineered. If a structure is stronger than it
needs to be, then it wasn't engineered ... by definition.


Matt


What would you thing of an engineer who designs a gas engine in such a
way that the air intake and exhaust flow through the same hose?

Many people seem to find billions of examples of such incompetent
design all around them. THAT is scary.

What has that to do with this discussion?

Matt

I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:

Smug pretty-boy ****** drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.

Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.

Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.

The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.

Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.

wrote in message
ps.com...
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:

Smug pretty-boy ****** drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.

Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.

Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.

The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.

Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.

When Bob Vila was on TOH he built a penthouse on his town house in the Back
Bay of Boston even though it was not zoned for penthouses and was an
historic district. I also heard that he did not pull a permit. When his
neighbors brought him to court he told the judge "But I'm Bob Vila". The
judge replied that he was the judge and made him remove it. He's no better
than any other TV face, mostly bull****.
EDS

wrote in message
ps.com...
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:23:59 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


wrote in message
ups.com...
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.

Mike Holmes is on TV. He is on TV in part because he knows how to
entertain people. Part of how he entertains people is by taking a
boring topic like the building code, and adding a little hyperbole and
rhetoric.

For Mike Holmes to talk about "maximum code" is pure bombast, and one
of the reasons the show is entertaining. It is a *TV show*, not a
training video. It is *supposed* to be *entertaining*, even at the
expense of pedantic, stultifying accuracy.

I have no doubt that Mike Holmes knows there is only one building
code. I am also quite sure that he knows the code is no guarantee of
quality; it is a bare-minimum standard laid out to avoid disaster.
It's pretty clear from the show that there's nothing bare-minimum
about what Mike Holmes likes to do -- so if the code says 10", Holmes
will go 12" to get the benefit of the extra material, be it a cinder
block, or joist, or whatever.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with deciding to use a bigger item
than code. That can still rightly be called "engineering". If you do a
calculation and the minimum thickness of a house-building member is
0.196", no engineer in the world will advocate planing something down
to meet that. You'd use 1/4", minimum. Maybe more, if it matches an
even more common standard, or gives some other benefit, like ease of
handling or installation -- or even so it "looks right".
"Over-engineering" just means choosing a higher factor of safety, or a
lower deflection, or a higher R-value, or what-have-you. The
engineering part comes in being able to figure out what the minimum
is, and what the benefits are in your choices beyond that.

The building code defines what the minimum safe values are; it is up
to an individual's judgement how much better to build something.
Holmes usually goes a little overboard in this department, but it's
pretty clear does good work that he takes pride in, and I'll bet he
has almost zero callbacks.

"Karyudo" wrote in
message

I have no doubt that Mike Holmes knows there is only one
building code.

Only one? No kidding. Every little jerk water suburb around here
has a slightly different code. Makes 'em feel important.

I have watched every show he has made and have caught him on a number of
items but I don't hold it against him, I am sure he could find fault with
me. He has to do so many TV shows per year and the pressure is to try to say
the same thing in a different way each show. He also seems to enjoy is
little rants against bad contractors.

That particular show where he built a retaining wall was as most of them,
filmed in Toronto. He got caught by a building inspector and hauled into
court because the wall was built on city property without a permit. They
eventually allowed it to stay, because the neighbours had done the same all
down the street and the wall replaced one in the same location. However this
made for news in the press and TV reporters.


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

wrote in message
ps.com...
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

But that does not make his statement about codes any less dumb.

wrote:
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

There's no doubt the original contractor messed up. He undersized the
block, didn't waterproof adequately, and didn't install a suitable
drainage system. Of course it failed.

Holmes, building to "maximum code", used 12" block and dur-o-wal wire
reinforcement on every other course. Definitely an improvement, but is
that "maximum code"? Is it even the preferred construction? I don't
think so. He could have gone with a reinforced concrete wall that
wouldn't have required the parging on both sides and would have been
far stronger. But that wouldn't have fit in with the TV filming
schedule. If he was set on using concrete block, he should have used
bond beam block and used some rebar - that would have been far stronger
as well and essentially the same price.

Did you notice his little kids' grin about the way the block
interlocked in the corner? He'd never seen it before. WTF? This guy
is supposed to be Joe Construction. There are many concrete block
shapes other than 8x8x16, but this seems to be news to him.

I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:

Smug pretty-boy ****** drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.

Sponsored television and product placement...in America?! There oughta
be a law.

Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.

There are some areas of construction where I certainly look to the past
for direction. HVAC isn't one of them.

Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.

Would it be preferable if he earned less or came from another state?
How does either one of those affect the content of the show?

The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.

Don't look to television to correct immigration problems. Roger Cook
is enthusiastic about what he does. He obviously loves his work.
That's exactly the type of person you should be looking to hire.

Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.

Bob Vila didn't know how to replace a faucet. He now knows as much
about replacing a faucet as someone watching the show. He's not
exactly a hands-on guy. He was trained as an architectural historian.
In the early shows he was always pointing out the architectural details
and using the correct names. That's admirable and nearly unheard of
even in architectural circles. But he's a TV host and not a
construction expert. If you like the guy better, that's
understandable, I prefer him over Holmes, too.

R

LOL

wrote in message
ps.com...
I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:

Smug pretty-boy ****** drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.

Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.

Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.

The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.

Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.

wrote in news:1162740592.266768.90460
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

I beg to differ. The show where he made that statement concerned a
block retaining wall. It was spec'd as 10" blocks, the previous
builder used 8" blocks, and Holmes used 12" blocks. The wall they
built on the show will still be there after the world ends.

I canNOT watch TOH anymore. Here's the basic show:

Smug pretty-boy ****** drives out to a 12,000 sq ft frame house in the
Boston suburbs that is owned by a couple, one of whom is a brain
surgeon, the other has one several Nobel Peace Prizes. They want more
room, so they plan to add another 5,000 of studio space but they want
to do it with materials that are of the same exact age and quality as
the original construction, except for the windows, which must be
manuffactired by the show sponsor -er- underwriter. And the flooring.
And the lighting. And the truck they drive up in, that's also the
sponsor's product.

Rich Trehewie comes in and runs a million dollars of underfloor heating
back to a boiler that is slightly more technologically advanced than
the Space Station.

Some local contractor who makes $800,000 a year does the plaster.

The landscape guy thinks he's Frederick Law Olmsted but then brings in
a crew of Mexicans to do all the work, since that's who does all the
hard stuff in the US.

Bob Vila showed how to replace a g*dd*mn*d faucet and the show was 10x
better.



Bob Vila was and arrogant, rude, interrupting, self-serving incompetent
Sears Whore.

I hear from this group that he now does HSN. Since all the shopping
channels are deleted on my set, all I can say now is he is a fat-ass HSN
Whore.


p.s. Bet I'd do it too for the wad he brings in.
p.p.s. My other favorite is that dome head jackass sidekick of
Letterman's.

On 4 Nov 2006 13:41:52 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:

You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

R


Got to admit althought HOH is not educational, it's entertaining. How
many times can he bash everyone for not having common sense, yet stand
there squinting bashing concrete with a maul, cutting wood over his
head, all without any safety glasses. Put on some freeking glasses,
where is your common sense.

Just an observation....

tom @ www.FindMeShelter.com

Tom The Great wrote:

Got to admit althought HOH is not educational, it's entertaining. How
many times can he bash everyone for not having common sense, yet stand
there squinting bashing concrete with a maul, cutting wood over his
head, all without any safety glasses. Put on some freeking glasses,
where is your common sense.

You mean like cutting a hollow in a tree stump to make a planter,
bare-armed but wearing gauntlet gloves? I'm sure that of all the body
parts that could get damaged, and the clothing to protect them, wrists
are low on the list and gauntlet gloves useless.

There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all ****ed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.

At least he's consistent. He picks his target and sticks to it.

R

According to RicodJour :

There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all ****ed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.

On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
and failed to inform the buyer.

Can you say breach of trust?

The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to RicodJour :

There was an episode on where a homeowner bought a home where the
previous owner had done a ton of work without permits. Years later the
municipality is going after the current owner. Holmes was all ****ed
off at the previous homeowner instead of the real estate lawyers
involved, the title company, the realtors, the current owner for not
doing their homework, etc.

On the contrary, in that episode, Holmes pointed out that the buyer's
lawyer _knew_ of the problems and outstanding municipal work orders,
and failed to inform the buyer.

Can you say breach of trust?

The buyer's lawyer lost the resulting lawsuit.

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

According to Don :

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...

You weren't paying attention, were you?

If you're going to be critical, at least get your facts straight.

Lemme get this straight.
You're aguing the validity of a TV show?

The OP is basing his criticism of HoH on the _content_ of the
TV show. I'm just pointing out that he's wrong about the content.
Which tends to poke holes in his argument.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
couch potato audience grasp the difference?

Matt Barrow wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
couch potato audience grasp the difference?

Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?
I'm sure many people simply parrot what they heard on the show when
trying to sound knowledgeable. Which is unfortunate because anyone
saying "I want you to build it to medium or even better maximum code"
is automatically pegged as clueless by a contractor. Kind of
self-defeating.

R

"RicodJour" wrote
Matt Barrow wrote:
I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
couch potato audience grasp the difference?

Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?

Excellent point.
Primetime TV is the perfect vehicle for educating the masses on the issues
pertaining to the most expensive thing they'll ever be involved with.
Just about everything I've seen though has been superficial silliness with
almost zero educational value.

One of the most difficult things I've had to deal with for the past 20+
years is the awkwardness of trying to explain to clients the horribly
convoluted nightmare of getting a building permit and how codes play into
the whole thing. Its not a thing that can be easily explained to novices in
a paragraph or two without putting big blackmarks all over your own
credibility.

I need to get my head examined, expecting TV shows to be honest, factual and
educational........I mean, that sounds like work and what couch blob wants
more work after slaving for what, 2 or 3 hours each day? heh.

Don wrote:

One of the most difficult things I've had to deal with for the past 20+
years is the awkwardness of trying to explain to clients the horribly
convoluted nightmare of getting a building permit and how codes play into
the whole thing. Its not a thing that can be easily explained to novices in
a paragraph or two without putting big blackmarks all over your own
credibility.


Speaking of nightmares... Check out this Wired story:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/me...?tw=wn_index_5.
Isn't this from your old stomping grounds? What got me was this:

quote
The most prominent example, Carroll said, occurred this summer with The
News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida. In May, readers from the nearby
community of Cape Coral began calling the paper, complaining about the
high prices -- as much as $28,000 in some cases -- being charged to
connect newly constructed homes to water and sewer lines.
....
Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired
engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets,
and an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of
bid-rigging.

"We had people from all over the world helping us," said Marymont. For
six weeks the News-Press generated more traffic to its website than
"ever before, excepting hurricanes." In the end, the city cut the
utility fees by more than 30 percent, one official resigned, and the
fees have become the driving issue in an upcoming city council special
election.
/quote

Doesn't surprise me one bit...

(and, to add to another thread...those who did the bid-rigging would be
the "evil people")

"3D Peruna" wrote
Speaking of nightmares... Check out this Wired story:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/me...?tw=wn_index_5.
Isn't this from your old stomping grounds? What got me was this:

quote
The most prominent example, Carroll said, occurred this summer with The
News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida. In May, readers from the nearby
community of Cape Coral began calling the paper, complaining about the
high prices -- as much as $28,000 in some cases -- being charged to
connect newly constructed homes to water and sewer lines.
...
Readers spontaneously organized their own investigations: Retired
engineers analyzed blueprints, accountants pored over balance sheets, and
an inside whistle-blower leaked documents showing evidence of bid-rigging.

"We had people from all over the world helping us," said Marymont. For six
weeks the News-Press generated more traffic to its website than "ever
before, excepting hurricanes." In the end, the city cut the utility fees
by more than 30 percent, one official resigned, and the fees have become
the driving issue in an upcoming city council special election.
/quote

Doesn't surprise me one bit...

(and, to add to another thread...those who did the bid-rigging would be
the "evil people")

That just went down a few months ago in the paper and I was raking
politicians over the coals in the online forums to the point that I got
banned.
That sewer and water deal has been in the process for about 8 years now and
though it didn't effect us when we were there it did effect my brother.
His house was built in 2001 and he had a septic and well and was happy with
it.
So the city spent 3 years ripping up his street, driveway and yard and then
forced him to pay $22k to connect to the stuff.
They also forced him to cap his well and remove or crush his septic tank.
He had already paid $6500 for the well and septic in 2001.

There are thousands of vacant lots all over Cape Coral that people purchased
long ago for hundreds or maybe a few thousand dollars and the city is
considering putting in the water-sewer lines and then assessing the owners
for the full $22k. What this will do is force many people to surrender their
lots. Those lots are currently selling for $120k and the market is
completely saturated there right now, hardly anything is selling. The city
wants the land for schools.

Last, guess who the contractor has been on this fiasco?
A subsidiary of Haliburton.......MW something or other.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt Barrow wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
oups.com...
You may have seen the TV show Holmes on Homes. The lead joker knows
enough about construction to be dangerous. He purports to be some sort
of super contractor with extensive knowledge of construction, yet makes
plenty of mistakes of his own, confuses terminology (hallmark of
someone who read a book without understanding it) and makes comments
that are inane.

"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

I think he was meaning "medium STANDARD" or some such. Would the average
couch potato audience grasp the difference?

Would it be better if they did or didn't understand the difference?

Yes...unless ignorance is truly "bliss".

I'm sure many people simply parrot what they heard on the show when
trying to sound knowledgeable. Which is unfortunate because anyone
saying "I want you to build it to medium or even better maximum code"
is automatically pegged as clueless by a contractor. Kind of
self-defeating.

So it goes with our public schools that pretend knowledge about history,
science, economics...

For example, I've seen teenagers get hysterical with Thomas Sowell, Walter
Williams, etc.

"Matt Barrow" wrote
For example, I've seen teenagers get hysterical with Thomas Sowell, Walter
Williams, etc.

Read both those guys for years over at the Townhall Meetings but for the
past coupla years I just wanna strangle both of them.

According to RicodJour :
"We don't want to build to the minimum code. We want to build to the
medium code or even the maximum code." WTF? There is only one code.
It is the minimum acceptable construction. Referencing different codes
is at best misleading. Having a supposed expert spouting this stuff is
inexcusable.

And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?

Geeze.

Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.

For example, many custom home builders prefer to exceed code on certain
things. Eg: go up a joist size or down a notch in joist spacing, because
some people find the springiness of "minimal code compliance" floors to
be objectionable and sometimes cracks ceramic floors. But it won't fall
down...

Some years ago, I remember reading a letter to the editor in FHB from
a contractor referring to the "plus two steps club" (or something like
that), of contractors who prefer to go up one or two increments from
code.

Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.

If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.

If you are going to turn to TV for information on construction and home
improvement, stick with This Old House. They actually know what
they're talking about.

Yeah, on how to spend $500K to turn a $100K house into a $200K one.
On bathrooms that cost more to build than most people earn in their
lifetime. On materials that are ridiculously expensive, highly
impractical, or simply aren't obtainable where you live.

Heck, I _like_ Norm. But TOH has become so far out of "normal
experience", it's ridiculous.

Most of Holmes' shows are about where the previous contractors _don't_
meet code, or where they did, it didn't do the job. In _both_ cases the
work he does usually exceeds code - in the latter, code didn't work, so
he has to, don't he? In the former, it failed, and to-code might still
not work, and it gives an opportunity to expound on the elements of
doing it right.

Indeed, given many of the things he does, the "normal" thing would be to
bandaid - with a bandaid that doesn't necessarily work. Many episodes
show where builders/contractors have repeatedly come back and tried
cheap fixes, because the "right" one was too expensive. That didn't
work. In circumstances like that, doing it "minimally right" (eg:
excavating around the foundation, coating the foundation and replacing
the weeping tile) and doing it "possibly overkill, but _guaranteed_ to
work" (eg: same as "minimally", but add fancy drainage membranes) has so
little cost difference, you might as well do the overkill, and sleep
better at night.

If you've seen more recent episodes, you'll have seen more places where they
clearly say "this is way more than necessary". Perhaps one of the best
examples is where the plumber installed a plastic water supply system
with a single large manifold, and a valve + homerun for _each_ fixture.
It's explained that it's overkill. It's also explained why it works
better than "minimum acceptable". Someone watching it will wonder
"should I do that in X?", and ask the plumber. _That_ negotiation leads
to the homeowner being able to better understand and compromise on
quality versus cost.

I've built/done a lot of stuff around the house for decades. Decks,
sheds, plumbing, electrical, trim, insulation, walls etc. I was
pretty good at it (for an amateur ;-) even before I started watching
HOH. But I've learned a _lot_ on doing things right (or at least better)
on a couple of episodes of HOH. TOH is more of a "how _not_ to renovate".
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...


And you took that to _literally_ mean that there's more than one
code?


Sounds like it to me. Medium Code? Maximum Code? What else would a layman
interpret that to be?


Any contractor worth anything will be familiar with the concept, and
perhaps even with those words.

I've never hear the term used. Have you? Often?



Code is _minimum_ acceptable to keep things from falling down. Sometimes
you prefer more. Sometimes you need more.

Exactly. And there is only one Code that states what that minimum is.



If you were to go to a contractor and parrot Holmes in saying "I want
X built to medium code", any contractor with half a brain will know what's
meant, and discuss with you what options there are, which ones may be
worth it and why, and how much it'll affect cost. In other words,
negotiate on how far you want to go.

Sure, while he tries to keep a straight face he'll open his wallet and allow
you to fill it up. I worked with my step-father, a contractor and
architect, for many years and he never used the term "medium code". Nor
have any of the building inspectors or subcontractors. Maybe this is
something new?