BOCA question... minimum stair tread width for open stringer straightstair?

[Rich]

My Code Check flip card book says 36" minimum.

Hope that helps, Rich

[Slumlord]

BOCA 1996 to be specific. Anyone here have a code book handy? Trying to design a set of loft stairs.

[manhattan42]

In what state do you reside? BOCA Code is largely obsolete and is no longer used and has bee replaced instead by the International Codes Council 2003 Internationa Residential Code.

ICC is the new codes council composed of the old BOCA, SBCCI and ICB code.

IRC 2003 does not permit 'open stringers' nor 'open treads' for stair over 30" high.

Otherwise stairs can be no less than 36" in clear width

-- manhattan4

----------------------------------------------------------------------- manhattan42's Profile:

this thread: post was submitted via http://www.HomeRepairForums.or

[Slumlord]

[manhattan42]

On May 5, 2003, New Jersey adopted the International Residential Cod

2000 as it's residential code standard:

BOCA Code is obsolete for your state:

Since sections R311.5 dealing with stairways is modified in the 200 version of the IRC from the 2000 version of the IRC, I can't tell yo if there are any significant changes concerning stairs and woul suggest directing your question to your loacl code enforcement office

-- manhattan4

----------------------------------------------------------------------- manhattan42's Profile:

this thread: post was submitted via http://www.HomeRepairForums.or

[Doug]

Humm, Another case where the codes seem to be regulating blindly. Why must everything be so rigidly standardized?

I've seem several open stringer and open tread staircases that were architecturally designed and quite safe. They often were fabricated of ornamental steel or engineered lumber.

I also installed a 28" wide tread spiral staircase in one of my houses. It only makes a 180 degree turn so that furniture can still be lifted up. It is supported by a 6" steel center post and has perfectly adequate hand rails. No other solution was possible to reach a new upper level, aside from building a side addition on the house.

Yep, it violated codes - it's my house and my choice. If the building inspector had made a real issue over it, I wouldn't have backed down - take me to court is my viewpoint.

It seems like too many folks have been willing to cede their rights in exchange for "perfect" safety that can never be truly achieved.

Doug

[manhattan42]

Fortunately, however, the codes are not drafted 'blindly' and ar offered in well thought out response to scientific research o statistical analysis to actual tragedies and only with the bes interest of public safety in mind.

Architecturally designed stairs might indeed be 'safe', but accordin to who's standard and who's liability?

The fact that you have no concern for the codes or the law really onl serves to illustrate that there are those in this world who have n concern for anyone else but themselves and their wallet.

And it is a shortsighted concern, because it fails to consider what ma be considered 'safe' for an adult may not be 'safe' for an infant o child or elderly person...and does not take into account the fact i all likelihood someone else is going to buy and own your mistakes an the hazzards that lie within one day.

Ignoring building codes also passes the cost of non-compliance ont those of us who do comply.

How?

By the innocent and law abiding having to pay in the form of increase insurance premiums and taxes the settlement of lawsuits and medica expenses and government intrusions because of those who have maime and killed by the irresponsible ownership and maintenance of thei private properties.

Your 'rights' end when they infringe on another's rights.

And others have a 'right' to be safe and kept free from bodily injur even if it is in your private home...and the building codes ensur other's health and well being even if it is in your private home..

I welcome the building codes who protect us from people who completel ignore them and who want to take away our reasonable expectation of an right to be safe

-- manhattan4

----------------------------------------------------------------------- manhattan42's Profile:

this thread: post was submitted via http://www.HomeRepairForums.or

[Goedjn]

All of which is why you and people who think like you need to be killed. So they'll leave the rest of us the hell alone. Good news, though, in your grave you won't have to worry about injuries, insurance payments, *OR* taxes.

[Doug]

Some interspersed comments in response to manhattan42:

That in itself is debateable.

Have the code committies truly considered the cost of compliance? It is also demonstrable that increased code requirements in many areas have driven up the cost of housing, thus reducing affordable housing for the poor. It is not feasable in many areas for developers to construct new affordable housing. As a result many folks are living in increasingly substandard older housing, especially within inner cities. Perhaps you live in an ivory tower suburb where that is not readily apparent but it does exist.

Also, if an apartment building owner, in many jurisdictions, wants to upgrade something like the electrical service, he is required to update ALL the mechanicals of the building to conform to current codes. At least that's how it is here in my state. As a result, many perform NO upgrades since they can not afford the cost of a general upgrade of the entire building.

During one of my state's legislative sessions, a bill was introduced to allow for "smart" codes. It would have allowed for individual upgrades of a specific thing without the forced requirement of having the entire building upgraded. I've heard that such a bill passed in the State of New Jersey. In my state, the office of the State Building Inspector lobbied against it, saying that it was not needed since local building officials allowed for individual variations.. Thus the bill was defeated. The reality is that most local officials DO NOT allow individual variations in enforcement.

Well, since it's my house, it is subject to my standards and of course to my liability, which I accept and assume.

You have extrapolated a gross conclusion out of my one objection. I do not object to all codes and to all laws . I mainly object to those that are arbitrary, reduce property rights and are inforced rigidly with no variances possible.

Then they assume the liability with full knowledge, or should have the full knowledge as an informed consumer. The price they offer me for that house should reflect their concerns, if any, over the non-compliance aspects of that house.

That arguement can be used to justify government tyranny in all aspects.

If we carry that to its logical extension, we should tear down or remodel every non-code compliant building in the country.

Also, can you document ANY study that shows if the vast majority of insurance claim payouts are due to code violations? I suspect not....

Of course they do. So far you have not proved your case as to why my actions infringed upon anyone else's rights.

Humm, with that logic, it would be illegal for me to smoke in my own home (I'm not a smoker - just an illustration) since my smoking might threaten the safety of a visitor. With that logic you would deprive us of the freedoms within our homestead - guaranteed by common law for centuries.

I agree until you define the "right" to be safe so broadly that it restricts too many of our liberties.

I believe it was Jefferson who said "those who sacrifice liberty for safety do not deserve one and will not achieve the other".

Doug