They keep saying "built to Canadian standards" in this article. I'm sure they mean that as "built to 1st world, legally relevant standards", but given the context it sounded like they were saying "Canadian standards" as an excuse for why it fell down.
However, the previous bridge, presumably also built to Canadian standards, held up for half a century and was still working (albeit apparently not looking great) when they ordered it replaced.
> "Canadian standards" as an excuse for why it fell down.
It's a bit like here in US some construction companies will advertise they "build to code". That sounds scary to me, as all I hear is they would really like to cut corners, but it's those pesky building codes getting in the way.
Nobody wants less than code, because it won't pass inspection. Nobody wants more than code, because it would cost more money. So it gets built to code minus whatever the local inspectors can be expected to let slide.
Right, but it's the fact that it gets advertised as a great feature that seems odd. It's one of those cases where the same statement can be interpreted in opposite ways.
It's not so much that they want to build crap (margins are better on "nice" things anyway) but that if you have to do something you may as well list it as a feature. It's like how all the electronic nannys on modern cars are advertised as features even though they're required.
Construction companies and contractors make money building things. An estimate, quote or contract for whatever work is being done typically includes a profit margin on materials, labor and anything sub'd out. If anything they want code that specifies everything be grossly overbuilt.
Not really. Nice construction is generally not valued highly. Builders construct to code because higher R-values, better house wrap, pressure treated cladding, etc. don’t really raise the sale price of the house. If you’re talking about multimillion dollar custom homes, sure, this stuff starts to matter, mostly because the people buying multimillion dollar custom homes will sue you for only building to code because they expect better.
All true but I think the more central issue is, whether or not the person who will live in the house (or drive over the bridge) is present during construction, and knowledgeable enough to notice whether things are being done well. In general, the answer to one or the other is "no". The only exceptions are, as you say, in multimillion dollar custom homes, and then only sometimes.
I am to understand that in all of her Majesties kingdoms they have regulations against making things of cardboard such that the front does not fall off.
However, the previous bridge, presumably also built to Canadian standards, held up for half a century and was still working (albeit apparently not looking great) when they ordered it replaced.