|
Posted by Kris Krieger on October 5, 2006, 7:02 pm
>
>>
>>> Just thought I might get more opinions if I broke the question out
>> into
>>> its own discussion.
>>>
>>> I'm kind of surprised people haven't sounded out *AGAINST* the 36"
>>> railings. The local architects I've talked to have said that 36"
>> looks
>>> too tall for a house that is trying to look old fashioned or
>>> traditional. They say it looks like a play pen. They say none of
>>> the 100+ year old houses had railings that high unless they've since
>>> been updated.
>>>
>>> - John
>>
>> Doesn't matter what they say, if there is a code (i.e., law)
>> requiring a 36" rail.
>>
>> Style is not merely a slavish, unthinking, unadaptive adherence to
>> something that soemone did 100 or more years ago.
>>
>> Remember that people were a lot shorter "way back when", so shorter
>> rails made sense (just visit some of the original historic farm
>> buildings - they're like tiny little doll-houses...) Ever been on an
>> accurate replica of an old sailing ship, or on board the
>> Constitution? Take a look at vintage clothing? And so on?
>> Everything looks to most of today's people (in North America at
>> least) like it was made for children.
>>
>> You have a brain, why are you fretting because a few people are
>> blithering about what people did 100+ years ago? Did they have 9'
>> ceilings back then? Did they have MDF? Nylon? Central heating?
>>
>> How tall is your *front door*? Is it tall enough for today's people
>> or did you also put in a short door? If the door, windows, storey
>> heights, and so on, are all scaled to modern standards, a short
>> little railing will look absurd. And even at all of that, style,
>> schmyle - what *matters* is the minimum height *required by the
>> code/law*. If you choose to ignore that, you'll probably not qualify
>> for home insurance (or have it cancelled if you lie about the height
>> and they come out to double-check it), *and* you would be liable if
>> somene fell over a shorter-than-required railing. And no, it does
>> not matter whether the person is a relative/friend, a pizza delivery
>> guy, or a peeping tom - hell, even people who were *robbing* places
>> have won lawsuits if they were injured because of "safty hazards".
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>> You asked and got answers before. Didn't like them and want
>>>> different?
>>>
>>>
>>
> Kris...he said somewhere that code does not require a railing.
The code required it but he lives outside the area where the code is
required.
That doesn't mean it's smart to ignore it. If an injury occurs, the
lawyer is likely to make some sort of argument regarding what is
customary and expected.
>
> the thing about the code can get you into trouble, but not why you
> think.
Well, not what I specified in detail, at least.
> If you put no railing, cause none is required, your fine.
Right - it's sort of like the "act of God" bit with shoveling snow off
your walkway. If you don't get all the snow off, and it thaws a bit
then re-freezes, and someoine falls and cracks their coconut, well, it
used to be that you'd be liable. Dunno what the scoop is these days -
but I was always meticulous about that.
> If you put a 36" high railing where none is required, your fine too.
> You put a 30" railing in, and the inspector will not care if it's
> required. He has a piece of paper that says railing must be 36" high,
> and so he will red flag you on it. If you explain that the railing is
> not required, he will just tell you to take it out, or make it to
> code. (Their checklist has not room for exceptions, those are called
> waivers and around here require a couple more weeks of permitting)
> This of course is not always the case, but I've seen it time and
> again.
>
Right.
So why take the chance?
It's the OP's choice of course, but IMO, it'd be nuts.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap