# Chicago Codes are made by Unions



## I41Lovemyjob (Nov 24, 2017)

When will this City catch up with the times and make our life easier. For example No Romex? Really? You would think Pex is a four letter word and I'm pretty sure the new requirements for balconies will ensure after the next natural disaster you'll find cockroaches perched on a Chicago balcony preparing a class on pyramids for the next pack of of rats that come along.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

I didn't realize Chicago is so backward.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Nice first post.

My guess is you're here just for a one-post ***** session.


----------



## B.Johnson (Sep 17, 2016)

I'm not sure his user name is appropriate for the post. :whistling


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

FYI-Chicago has adopted the NEC-it goes into affect in about 3 months.

The "new" balcony requirements are about 10 years old now...

Tom


----------



## WBailey1041 (Jan 31, 2014)

They will never catch up,its by design


----------



## Big Johnson (Jun 2, 2017)

B.Johnson said:


> I'm not sure his user name is appropriate for the post. :whistling


Maybe It’s supposed to be ironic.


----------



## Windycity (Oct 3, 2015)

You do realize how many balconies have collapsed in Chicago killing numerous people because of shoddy construction? 

A lot of Chicago codes are very old.

And The codes for balcony construction has nothing to do with the union it has to do with the fact that balconies were collapsing that were literally ripping away from the wall, so yea they are pretty strict with balconies Especially when you’re tying a new balcony into an old building....not smart to tapcon wood into a 90 year old common brick wall


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slowsol (Aug 27, 2005)

Someone should be along shortly to explain that you can’t use nm cable because of the mutant rats. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

This is the collapse that triggered the balcony/porch/deck code change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Chicago_balcony_collapse

Tom


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tjbnwi said:


> This is the collapse that triggered the balcony/porch/deck code change.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Chicago_balcony_collapse
> 
> Tom




Actually not according to the article. It may have triggered it, but it wasn't the cause of the collapse.

The deck wasn't even to existing code. So there was no code problem there was a contractor problem. 



> The balcony also had inadequate supports,[5] was floored with undersized lengths of wood, and was attached to the walls with screws that were too short.[1] However, the City of Chicago's Inspectional Services Department visited this site over 5 times and never noticed or cited the code violations noted above.



Mike.
_______________


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Actually not according to the article. It may have triggered it, but it wasn't the cause of the collapse.
> 
> The deck wasn't even to existing code. So there was no code problem there was a contractor problem.
> 
> ...


I don't understand your statement. 

My statement did not infer or reference the porch that collapsed was built to any code. Just that it's collapse caused the extreme code to be put in place. 

According to the quote you included, looks like an inspector problem also...

Tom


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tjbnwi said:


> I don't understand your statement.
> 
> My statement did not infer or reference the porch that collapsed was built to any code. Just that it's collapse caused the extreme code to be put in place.
> 
> ...




Did the inspector build the deck? ****ty work is never an inspector problem where I come from.


Mike.
_______________


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Windycity said:


> You do realize how many balconies have collapsed in Chicago killing numerous people because of shoddy construction?
> 
> A lot of Chicago codes are very old.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that most of the collapses were not built to code or maintained properly. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Nice first post.
> 
> My guess is you're here just for a one-post ***** session.


 Doesn't make it any less true. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Did the inspector build the deck? ****ty work is never an inspector problem where I come from.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> _______________


Agree, this building was being inspected during a remodel (finished about a year before the collapse). It is their job to note code violations and require they be corrected. 

Tom


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

TNTSERVICES said:


> I'm pretty sure that most of the collapses were not built to code or maintained properly.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk




Exactly. There's many old decks that are not in any danger of collapsing if built right. The number one reason for deck failure is improper flashing. No code in the world will protect a wood structure if it isn't protected properly.

Also I might add that collapse in Chicago had too short of screws. Easily missed by an inspector. That didn't make the collapse his fault. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## tjbnwi (Feb 24, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Exactly. There's many old decks that are not in any danger of collapsing if built right. The number one reason for deck failure is improper flashing. No code in the world will protect a wood structure if it isn't protected properly.
> 
> Also I might add that collapse in Chicago had too short of screws. Easily missed by an inspector. That didn't make the collapse his fault.
> 
> ...


Is it the inspectors fault they missed the undersized joists and supports? I know those are visible on this open porch. 

Tom


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tjbnwi said:


> Is it the inspectors fault they missed the undersized joists and supports? I know those are visible on this open porch.
> 
> Tom




****ty building not built to code is the builders fault always. 

Every single one of my plans have a disclaimer when stamped. Says right on it, (paraphrased) contractor is responsible to build everything to code. 

Not to mention, every city in America has an immunity clause for city employees. 


Mike.
_______________


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

tjbnwi said:


> Is it the inspectors fault they missed the undersized joists and supports? I know those are visible on this open porch.
> 
> Tom




Also There's no such thing as typical, when it comes to building out here anyway. Joists that are fine in one place may not be in another. Inspectors come to inspect something else and don't go back and research an address to find out what was engineered, or approved by the plan checker. So just because he didn't do that for the whole house, in no way makes it his fault.


Mike.
_______________


----------

