The Disfunction of “Plancheck” Engineering and Inspections
Engineering, traditionally seen as the backbone of infrastructure development, has evolved significantly over the years. While the essence of engineering remains rooted in innovation and problem-solving, the motivations behind it have transformed. Today, engineering is not just about making a building work; it is increasingly driven by financial considerations and a relentless pursuit of “getting things done” with regards to the red tape established by city “planchecks”. However, this shift in focus is not necessarily benefiting society as intended, especially when it comes to engineering for structures. This article explores how engineering for structures has changed and why our current system, involving plan checks by city officials and reviews by city inspectors, is failing to ensure building efficiency.
The Changing Landscape of Engineering for Structures
Historically, engineers tasked with designing and constructing structures prioritized safety, functionality, and durability. Their work was driven by the desire to meet societal needs and provide solutions to complex problems. However, contemporary engineering for structures has undergone significant changes, with an increasing emphasis on engineering jobs and city red tape.
One critical factor influencing the shift in engineering priorities for structures is the high transaction costs associated with development projects. These transaction costs encompass various bureaucratic processes, including plan checks by city officials and reviews by city inspectors. Developers often opt for simpler, less innovative designs to expedite these processes and get projects off the ground quickly.
Innovation is Discouraged: High transaction costs, including lengthy plan checks and inspections, discourage innovation in engineering for structures. Developers under pressure to minimize costs and timelines are less likely to invest in cutting-edge technologies or designs that could enhance building efficiency and safety.
Quality May Suffer: Simplified designs aimed at reducing transaction costs might lead to structures that lack resilience and efficiency. Low-quality buildings can result in increased maintenance costs and reduced overall lifespan, undermining the goal of efficient engineering. Engineers rarely visit the site for small and mid sized projects because their hourly rate is too high, however, the city insists upon engineering planchecks. Thus, engineers favor inefficient “catch all” designs often designing from an office many miles away or even across the globe. While such efficiency is laudable, it misses many potentially opportunities especially when renovating existing structures or dealing with complex problems. As an example, we recently added two units to a 54 unit apartment building and the city inspector wanted us to get plumbing plans done by an engineer, with calculations. The installed water system worked and the engineer had certified that it would work. The total added water load was less than 1% of the existing building water requirements. But LA City Inspectors were insistent that calculations be completed by the engineer regardless of what logic would dictate, and in the end the plumbing was redesigned to go all the way back to the main water source because of complexities proving where the existing water source in the building traveled.
Safety Concerns: Rushed approvals and inspections may overlook critical safety issues. This jeopardizes the safety of occupants and the public, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that ensures safety alongside a working process. All too often, engineers, builders, and others in the industry are so frustrated that they cut corners and favor unsafe designs. In the City of Los Angeles, many renovation permits are left open because the work requested is too expensive to complete profitably. Inspectors foolishly and erroneously believe they can check “everything” about a project while being present for less than twenty minutes at a time. While they catch the “dumb” contractors, sophisticated contractors easily avoid the most expensive code requirements.
Conclusion
Engineering for structures has evolved, emphasizing financial considerations and efficiency goals. However, our current system of plan checks by city officials and reviews by city inspectors can inadvertently hinder building efficiency. High transaction costs drive developers and engineers toward simpler solutions, potentially compromising the quality, sustainability, and safety of engineered structures. At the very least, engineer self-certification, placing responsibility for failed systems on a competent licensed and bonded individual is one of the most significant ways to ensure that systems remain functional. City inspectors and officials also must remove their egos from the equation, rather being granted flexibility to approve projects where the code grants leniency. Almost all building codes allow decision makers to approve modifications to the code if those modifications do not impair the safety of building occupants. But modification approval can be given to decision makers lower in the city apparatus. Many modification structures were developed at a time when information was not readily available on the job site through the use of smartphones, making them extremely time consuming and unruly.
To address these challenges, a more holistic approach to engineering for structures is necessary. This approach should consider long-term societal, environmental, and safety impacts alongside short-term financial gains. Engineers, developers, city officials, and policymakers must collaborate to strike a balance that allows for innovation, fair compensation, and efficient project delivery while ensuring that the built environment remains safe, efficient, and sustainable for years to come.
