I was proud as punch when I first shared our lofty goals for renovating derelict homes in the West End. Not understanding the benefits of lying, I told plan examiners and building inspectors the truth.
"We'll gut them and replace all the old wiring, plumbing and heating systems. If floors are unsupported, we'll support them. If old supporting walls were built with 2 by 2 lumber (dangerous), we'll replace it with 2 by 4 lumber and 2 by 10 beams (safe). If the stairs are rickety, we'll tear them out and replace them."
I looked at them and waited for a pat on the back, a gold star, a smile - anything but what I got.
With a look somewhere between consternation and condescension, they said, "Slow down a bit, Harry. You can't just do that. We need drawings and paperwork detailing the exact changes you want to make."
They started telling me all the things the current building code doesn't allow, offering no suggestions for compromise or alternatives.
"We're not allowed to serve as consultants," they explained. "It would be better if you consulted with engineers and architects, and got their stamp on whatever you're doing." I explained that we couldn't afford that.
When we first got into a building, we stripped the insides so we could expose all the problems that required fixing. We were told we needed a permit for that too. It didn't make sense that we would need a permit to get the information needed to apply for a permit.
The building code demands that we put 6" of insulation into 4" of wall. What if we can't afford it? Isn't blowing insulation into the empty wall cavities better than no insulation at all? The costs of properly building up walls to accommodate R20 insulation far exceeds the extra energy required to heat an R12 insulated wall.
Stairs reveal more problems with the building code. You can't replace old broken stairs with new ones that don't conform to the current code. Imagine a set of stairs that have been used 2 million times. They're weakened and loose, in danger of losing a few treads. It doesn't matter that they're not safe. If you can't put in new stairs that are the correct width and length, the code says you can't replace them at all - even though it would be safer than doing nothing at all or a partial repair.
Imagine trying to make your stairs wider or longer. Moving walls, adding floor joists, tearing out ceilings, making roof dormers wider, moving cabinets. All for 4" of extra stair width?
We also discovered that it takes a long time to get a permit. The permit "one-stop-shop" has many desks behind the front desk, with many delays and less interaction with people handling your application.
Contractors commented, "It was better when it was a multi-stop-shop where you physically took your application to each desk and talked to each department about it."
Others told us, "The best way to deal with the city's permit process is to lie. The less you tell them the better. The more information you give, the more they criticize, without any constructive (sic) or economical advice on how to address the concerns."
And some told us just to renovate without permits. Contractors estimate that about half the renovations in Winnipeg are undertaken without any building permits.
I figured the system should reward honesty, not dishonesty.
So we complained to the city about the irrelevant code and the frustrating process. We argued through permits. We found ways to gut buildings so we could discover what kinds of renovations we needed on the permit application.
To their credit, they actually started to listen. They've committed to
lessening the delays in getting permits. They even helped us complete a
nationally published study demonstrating some of the problems with a
building code that is designed for new buildings - not renovations in
100-year-old homes.
The city is allowed to approve equivalencies to the code - not alternatives.
To do that, we need the help of the Province and some actual reference to
renovation alternatives in the Manitoba Building Code.
We proved the point in two homes we renovated on Maryland Street. We went
strictly by the code in one house and created reasonable alternatives to the
code in the other. On the 10 items we used in our renovation comparison, the
alternatives were $10,000 cheaper than the building code requirements. We
have improved, not compromised, the safety or livability of the home. The
extra $10,000 in costs would have scared us off the project - leaving the
house unrenovated and unsafe.
And that's the last thing we need around here!
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca