Ask Bing Safety Codes Consultant Ltd.

09/07/2026

Seeking an Alberta-Registered Architect

I am looking to connect with an experienced Alberta-registered architect who has:

strong knowledge of the Alberta Building Code;
experience assessing existing buildings;
a practical understanding of life-safety and Code-compliance issues; and
the ability to provide an independent professional assessment.

This is for a potential consulting assignment in Alberta. Further project information will be provided privately to suitable candidates.

If you are interested, or know someone who may be a good fit, please send me a private message or contact me at [email protected].

08/11/2026

Existing Buildings Do Not Automatically Have to Meet Today’s Building Code

One of the most expensive assumptions in a renovation project is: “The building does not meet today’s Code, so we have to upgrade it.” That may not be correct.

For an existing building, an important first question is: Was the building lawfully constructed under the Code requirements applicable at the time?

Before recommending major upgrades such as sprinklers, new exits, fire separations, or noncombustible construction, it is important to understand:
• When was the building constructed?
• Which Code applied at that time?
• Were later additions or alterations completed under different Codes?
• Is the use changing?
• Does the proposed renovation create a new non-compliance or reduce life safety?

Sometimes the answer requires reviewing Building Codes from decades ago. That historical research can have significant financial consequences. A single Code provision may determine whether a project needs a relatively minor renovation—or a major building upgrade.

The goal is not to avoid legitimate safety requirements. The goal is to determine which requirements actually apply.

Building Code is the tool. Optimization of construction cost is the goal.

07/10/2026

The Building Code Is Not the Starting Point

After reviewing more than 8,000 building permit applications over the past two decades, I came to an unexpected conclusion:

The Building Code is rarely the real problem.
The real problem is often how we approach it.

When a project runs into trouble, the first question I hear is usually:
"What does the Building Code require?"

I ask a different question:
"What is this building trying to tell us?"

Before opening the Code, I want to understand:
• Why was the building originally designed this way?
• What code was in effect when it was constructed?
• What is the owner's real objective?
• What concern is the Authority Having Jurisdiction trying to address?

Only then do I begin reading the Building Code.
Because the Code doesn't exist in isolation.
It applies to a real building with a real history, serving real people.

Over the years, I've learned that many difficult code issues are resolved not by finding another clause, but by asking a better question.

For me, strategic building code consulting has never been about memorizing regulations. It has always been about understanding the building first.
Everything else follows.

The Building Code is not the starting point.
Understanding the building is.

What do you think?
Have you ever solved a difficult project by changing the question instead of searching for another answer?

06/27/2026

🔍 Building Code Discoveries #1: A Building Code Provision I Had Never Fully Appreciated

Even after reviewing more than 8,000 building permit projects, the Building Code still surprises me.

Today I was reviewing a comment regarding an unenclosed exterior exit stair.

Like many consultants, my first instinct was straightforward:

Unenclosed exterior exit stair = adjacent glazing should be protected with wired glass.

That has been my interpretation on many projects.

But this time, I decided to read the entire provision again.

After reading Sentence 3.2.3.13.(4)(c) more carefully, I noticed that it permits a closure conforming to Subsection 3.1.8.

That led me to ask another question:

If the exterior wall itself requires no fire-resistance rating because the limiting distance permits 100% unprotected openings, what type of closure is actually required?

Following that line of reasoning, a standard window may satisfy the closure requirement without additional fire protection.

Whether this interpretation is accepted on a particular project should always be confirmed with the Authority Having Jurisdiction. However, the experience reminded me of an important lesson:

Never stop reading after finding the answer you expected.

Many valuable solutions are discovered by reading the next clause—and then asking how it connects with other parts of the Code.

After more than 30 years in engineering and over 20 years working with building codes, I'm still discovering new perspectives.

That's one of the reasons I continue to enjoy this profession every day.

As building code professionals, our job is not simply to memorize code provisions. Our responsibility is to understand how different provisions work together to achieve the objectives of the Code while helping clients find practical, compliant solutions.

Question for fellow building code professionals:

Have you ever discovered an overlooked Code provision that completely changed your approach to a project?

12/10/2025

Is a Design Error Quietly Inflating Your Project Budget?

I recently reviewed a project stalled in the permit phase. The city had flagged it for an "Alternative Solution"—a sign of a fundamental compliance issue. The problem? A simple error in building classification.

The design was for a 3-storey single-family house, but it was incorrectly classified under the requirements for a 4-storey Part 3 building. In reality, it rightly belongs under the simpler, more efficient Part 9 provisions.

That one classification mistake was on track to cost the owner over $100,000 in mandatory fire protection systems—including sprinklers, standpipes, a pump room, and backup power—along with a lengthy, complex approval process.

This is exactly why early and expert code review is essential. Had I been engaged from the start, my focus would have been to:

✅ Correct the building classification and guide the design team back to the appropriate Part 9 path.

✅ Eliminate the need for the costly Alternative Solution and the unnecessary systems it triggers.

✅ Secure the building permit efficiently, avoiding preventable delays and expenses.

The takeaway for developers, builders, and owners is clear: a proactive code review isn't just about compliance—it’s a powerful financial safeguard. Catching a single error early can mean the difference between a project that stays on budget and one that spirals unexpectedly over by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.

Let’s connect to discuss how a strategic code consultation can de-risk your next project and protect your bottom line.

06/24/2025

🚀 Building Classification: The Soul of building Design 🏗️🔥

Did you know that building classification is the soul of building design? It dictates critical safety and cost decisions, yet many overlook its importance.

✅ Combustible construction allowed?
✅ Sprinkler system required?
✅ Fire resistance ratings for floor assemblies & load-bearing elements?
Get it right, and you save hundreds of thousands of dollars. Get it wrong, and you risk unnecessary costs.

Imagine spending $200k plus on a sprinkler system… only to later discover it wasn’t required by code. 💸

Whether you're an architect, engineer, or developer, understanding building classification isn’t just about compliance—it’s about smart, efficient design.

Have you ever encountered challenges with building classification? Share your experiences below! 👇

04/09/2025

🚀 Building Permit Approved? Don’t Celebrate Just Yet! 🚨

Just because your building permit was approved doesn’t mean your project is in the clear. In fact, that’s when the real work begins.

I recently reviewed a set of stamped-and-approved architectural plans for a new development. At first glance, everything looked perfect—until we spotted over 20 code violations, including critical life safety and accessibility issues. The shocking part? The AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) had barely reviewed them before issuing the permit.

Here’s the Reality:
✅ Permit approval ≠ Code compliance – The AHJ’s stamp doesn’t guarantee your design meets the Code.
⚠️ Liability falls on YOU – If violations are found later, the owner and design team bear full responsibility—not the AHJ.
🔍 Smart teams double-check – Savvy developers and architects bring in code consultants for an independent review even after permit approval to catch costly oversights.

Why Risk It?
A second review is cheap insurance compared to the cost of redesigns, delays, or—worst-case—legal consequences.

Have you ever discovered code issues after permit approval? Share your lessons below—let’s raise the bar for compliance! 👇

02/26/2025

A-3.8.3.13. Clear Floor Space in Universal Washrooms.

Unobstructed areas in front of the lavatory, in front of the water closet and on one side of the water closet are necessary for maneuverability of a person using a . Although swinging doors are preferable for , swinging doors are also permitted. Figures A-3.8.3.13.-A shows one design option that meet the intent of Article 3.8.3.13.

Quoted from NBC2020

02/21/2025

🚨 The Power of First Impressions: Learning from AHJ Feedback 🚨

In the construction and design industry, we’re all familiar with the delicate balance of meeting building codes while aligning with the expectations of Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs). Recently, I encountered a situation that highlighted just how critical the first submission can be in shaping the trajectory of a project.

During the initial submission, several non-compliance deficiencies were identified by the AHJ. While the building code did not explicitly require full professional involvement for this project, the AHJ requested it as a next step. At first, this felt like an additional hurdle, but upon reflection, it became clear that the first impression we made played a significant role in this decision.

Here’s why the first submission matters more than we might realize:

✅Trust is Built (or Broken) Early
The first submission sets the tone for the entire project. When it contains multiple deficiencies, it can erode the AHJ’s confidence in the team’s ability to deliver a compliant and safe design. Requesting full professional involvement is often a way for AHJs to ensure that every detail is meticulously reviewed and corrected moving forward.

✅First Impressions Shape Perceptions
Just like in any professional relationship, the AHJ’s perception of your work is heavily influenced by the initial submission. A strong, thorough first submission builds credibility, while a submission with numerous issues can lead to increased scrutiny and stricter requirements.

✅Building Codes Are the Baseline, Not the Ceiling
While building codes provide minimum requirements, AHJs have the authority—and responsibility—to enforce higher standards when they deem it necessary. A first submission with deficiencies signals the need for additional oversight to ensure safety, quality, and compliance.

✅A Wake-Up Call for Improvement
The deficiencies in the first submission were a valuable learning opportunity. They highlighted gaps in our processes and underscored the importance of thoroughness in every phase of design and documentation. It was a reminder that attention to detail in the early stages can prevent challenges down the line.

To my peers in the industry, I encourage you to view the first submission not just as a formality, but as a critical opportunity to build trust, demonstrate competence, and set the stage for a smooth project journey. Every submission is a chance to showcase your commitment to excellence—and to learn and grow when things don’t go as planned.

Have you experienced situations where the first submission significantly impacted your project’s trajectory? How did you address it? I’d love to hear your stories and insights in the comments below.

02/20/2025

Why the Prescriptive Path is Often the Better Choice for NECB Compliance

When it comes to achieving compliance with the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB), the debate between the prescriptive path and the performance path is a common one. While both approaches have their merits, the prescriptive path often stands out as the better choice for many projects—here’s why:

✅ Simplicity & Ease of Implementation

The prescriptive path provides a clear checklist of requirements for building components, such as insulation levels, window specifications, and HVAC efficiencies. This eliminates the need for complex energy modeling, making it easier for builders and designers to follow.

✅ No Energy Modeling Required

Unlike the performance path, which demands detailed energy modeling and professional expertise, the prescriptive path saves time and reduces costs by avoiding the need for specialized software or energy modeling consultants.

✅ Predictability & Certainty

With the prescriptive path, you know exactly what’s required to meet compliance. There’s no guesswork or reliance on simulations, which can sometimes fail to align with real-world performance.

✅ Cost-Effective for Standardized Projects

For high-volume builders or projects with consistent designs, the prescriptive path is often more cost-effective. It allows for the use of standardized materials and avoids the need for custom energy modeling or innovative (and potentially costly) technologies.

✅ Reduced Risk of Non-Compliance

The prescriptive path minimizes the risk of non-compliance by adhering to a fixed set of requirements. There’s no need to worry about trade-offs or balancing energy savings across different systems.

✅ Faster Approval Process

Submitting a checklist of compliance requirements can lead to quicker approvals from authorities, making the prescriptive path ideal for projects with tight timelines.

When is the Prescriptive Path Most Suitable?

It’s ideal for:

Standardized projects with consistent designs.

Smaller or less complex buildings where energy modeling isn’t cost-effective.

Builders and designers who prefer a straightforward, low-risk approach.

While the performance path offers flexibility and innovation, the prescriptive path remains a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective choice for many projects. For those prioritizing simplicity and certainty, it’s often the clear winner.

What’s your experience with NECB compliance? Do you prefer the prescriptive or performance path? Let’s discuss in the comments! 👇

Call now to connect with business.