Not that anything about this shed is built to code, but this takes the cake:
> PRO TIP Use screws for everything; if you mess up, remove the screws and redo it; with nails, it’s a lot harder to do that.
You absolutely should not do this for framing, and most building codes specify the type and size of nails that you must use when fastening load-bearing structural components.
Screws are convenient, sure, but they are necessarily much harder than nails and are prone to embrittlement and cracking, while nails are soft and pliable. You can get structural screws, but they're uncommon, expensive, and I'd wager they weren't used here (they're much beefier than a similarly rated framing nail).
I was going to post about code violations but I’ll just tuck it under yours here so we don’t flood the top level (although one could argue that this really deserves it).
I had to stop reading r/diy because half the stuff in there made me angry. Especially people building lofts to store heavy stuff without knowing anything about construction.
You can’t overlap rooflines like this. That’s how they allow people to build small outbuildings but make large projects have to get permits. If the roofs “touch” then you’re using a loophole to make an illegal addition to your house instead of a shed.
> The way I did it was to run both wires inside a 3/4 inch PVC conduit using 14/2 electrical wiring + 100ft cat6 ethernet cable.
You are going to get somebody killed. I didn’t see you dig a trench, which means you have a single plastic conduit carrying power and data and exposed to the air. It’s supposed to be grounded metal buried conduit to create a faraday cage that can’t be electrified by nearby lightning strikes or hit by a tree or debris in a wind storm. And deep enough the next owner doesn’t kill themselves planting a hydrangea.
I have half a mind to doxx you to your city planning office.
I like your parent's explanation of why screws are not allowed by code in some places and also saying that yes, screws actually can be used, if you use the right ones, even if they aren't allowed by code in some places.
I really like that because just mentioning code doesn't do any good. Just because code says something doesn't mean that it makes sense. There's tons of omissions in codes or stuff that is unnecessarily restrictive or way not enough to be safe.
Screws are the perfect example. If code forbids screws but you are going to use the proper screws that are (with good reason) allowed in other jurisdictions that has a completely different vibe to it than someone blogging about using dry wall screws to frame a house. One is a safety concern and why inspections are a good thing, while another is a minor case of ignoring code without any concerns and where an inspection would suck (if you were the homeowner doing some work yourself). If they want to use something that is more expensive and let's them do something themselves that they wouldn't be able to do at all if they had to use nails, more power to them! Change code to allow the right type of screws!
Your second part of the reply does the same, it sort of explains why you think it's a bad idea (and I agree that it is for various reasons).
Could you explain why it is not a good idea to overlap roof lines?
Overlapping rooflines allow you to make a “detached” building that is functionally an addition to your house. The downside is that if you want to build a breezeway to a detached garage you’re going to have to get permits to do that. It sucks but otherwise you get people who make a long narrow house that’s a series of rooms that were built over time, and never inspected.
You may see properties that have three fairly large but separate buildings, this is often someone skirting building codes in such a way that they stay within the letter of the law.
This still doesn’t explain why overlapping rooflines are actually problematic, though. I have always wondered this myself, as I actually own a house with a detached garage where the previous owner and next door neighbor put an easement on file that allowed the next door neighbor (whose ground level is about 5 feet higher via a retaining wall) to build an outbuilding very close to the property line with the roofline hanging over my garage by about 6 inches. So far, the only practical downside is that my downspout ends up getting all the water from half of his roof, which means the problem is worse if I don’t keep it clear. Not a terribly big problem in my book, since I have to keep it clear anyway. What else am I missing?
(Note: there are other things that are suboptimal about my garage, namely that it was built 100 years ago right on the property line and when it was rebuilt sometime later, it was allowed to stay there despite normally having a 5 foot setback requirement. As a result, this concrete block structure itself actually serves as part of the retaining wall and has moisture seepage issues from the uphill side. I actually think having the neighbor’s outbuilding covering that patch of land and managing the rainwater via my downspout helps the matter, because the ground between them gets no rainfall at all.)
It’s a “this is why we can’t have nice things” situation. There’s no physics problem with overlapping that I know of, but it’s a giant loophole for people who are up to no good.
It’s not so much that you shouldn’t be able to do it as that there’s no way we can do it without a permit.
The water management issue is a bigger deal in some locations.
In the original post, he's sloped the new roof back towards the house - huge issue where I live (Atlanta - we got a lot of heavy rain) since that's going to cause water entry in the basement or erosion on the foundation.
It can also be a fire hazard in many situations. Ex - in my area there's a mandated 10ft gap between the property line and any structure. It's there to prevent people from building right up to the property line, essentially creating townhomes, but with none of the fire/safety planning those require.
All that said - I agree with you, this code is likely there to discourage people trying to skirt around inspections (and because it's easy to spot).
No physics problem? I consider a fully equipment fireman carrying a person trying to squeeze between the house and the shed to be a physics problem. And yes, those situations are considered when codes are written.
The thing to remember about building codes is that they're one solution to a problem. More often than not, one good solution. That isn't to say they're the only solution.
So for new construction or reno, absolutely follow code! Why not?
But for old construction that doesn't have obvious dangers and has served its purpose across decades? Why fix what ain't broke? It's entirely possibly it's a perfectly viable alternative solution.
Fire safety is a major motivation throughout the building code, and this rule is kind of a proxy to fire risk assessment. If you join rooflines then fire can jump from one to the other. Larger structures and structures used for residence are high risks for fatalities if a fire spreads too quickly and/or without adequate ability to evacuate. Structures assembled ad-hoc over time tend to be high fire risks for several reasons, and avoiding permitting and inspection requirements avoids any check on that.
In this case, the shed will have rain runoff into the house. Possibly not a problem, but generally not a good idea.
Also, as mentioned, sheds don’t usually need inspected. Sheds with power that act as extensions to the home should be (should = good idea) but might not be required, depending on location. Basically, some of these rules are to prevent uninspected/unpermitted extensions to the main dwelling.
I've heard it said that frugal home improvement is a very good reason to stay on very friendly terms with an electrician. You can frame and wire a new room in the basement, but not attach it to the mains, then have them come out and tell you if you did it right before anyone dies or burns the house down. You pay them for a couple hours instead of the whole project.
You could try chatting up your electrician on a simpler house call, or you might be able to chum around on a Habitat for Humanity project and get a hook-up.
Most people try to avoid electrical wiring or plumbing repairs (other than faucets), because the blast radius is so high. The bravest I've gotten is rewiring a light fixture, and I went extra slow to make sure I didn't end up flying off the ladder. I taped a cup over the light switches so nobody could help, and it still felt like when you're trying to fish something out of the garbage disposal and keeping one eye on the switch to make sure nobody even looks at it.
This is exactly the reason I asked for reasoning. A perfect example of a specific reason for something in code where depending on what you are doing yourself you can safely ignore the code violation (except for the legality part). If the reason you gave is indeed the reason and only reason.
I would argue that if inspections for safety reasons are why this is in code then code needs to remove this restriction and other rules should be put in place and inspections should become less expensive, easier to get done etc. Basically make it easier and less of a problem for people to get inspected. You will still get people that won't do one of course. Make it possible to inspect them anyway. Of course I understand that there are conflicting priorities at work here too. Meaning funding. The optimal way for everyone would be quite expensive. So we get suboptimal solutions that are sometimes "OK" to circumvent and sometimes not.
Here the bylaws for example allow one main structure, a shed and a detached garage (even if you have an attached one already). No need for roof overhang code stuff. The intent of the bylaw is also much more clear.
The guy in the article arguably is creating such a detached building. He is also in violation of rules about how far structures have to be from the property line assuming the rules in his place are like here and that fence is towards the neighbors.
> Basically make it easier and less of a problem for people to get inspected
Totally agreed, and this post is the perfect example of why: people should want to be inspected! The whole point of a city building code is to have rules to keep people safe in situations that aren't obvious to, e.g., the DIY shed-builder.
If I'm building a shed in the backyard, and I have the opportunity to call an employed expert to make sure I'm not gonna fuckin' kill somebody? Yes! Give me that!
Building codes are complex and nuanced creatures. Safety features prominently but it is certainly not "the whole point."
Some elements are for safety. Some elements are aesthetic: give the town a coherent look and feel. Some elements are economic: promote property value, ban what could be seen as ugly or low class. Some elements regulate interactions between neighboring lots: setbacks, placement of windows, rules for fences and trees, limits on combining adjoining properties. Some elements serve redistributive or consumer protection goals: minimum dwelling sizes and features, standards for light and air. Some elements seek to curate the community's demographics. Obviously we regulate plumbing for safety and sanitation reasons. We also regulate plumbing to prevent illegal second kitchens, which could bring renters or multigenerational (immigrant) households into homes meant for affluent (white) nuclear families.
It is multifaceted, overlapping (safety at all costs? or find
a way to price out the dirty poors and blame it on safety?), and different people at different times may be intentionally lying or genuinely confused about the intentions behind and effects of different rules. And that's just in theory. In practice there are whole other layers regarding what goes on at the permit counter, in variance/discretionary review hearings, and in day to day enforcement operations.
I’d be happy to have projects inspected. If the inspection only cost a modest fee covered by the permit.
Instead, permits are a way to find ways to raise assessments and therefore property taxes. Given the recurring costs, it’s no surprise at all that a lot of work is done without inspections.
Permits are for both safety _and_ tax reasons. Adding outbuildings to your property increases the value, so you should have your taxes increased, by the same logic that people with more expensive houses should pay more in taxes than people with cheaper houses. And property taxes, if properly codified and enforced, are a good way to ensure rich people can’t avoid taxes by hiding it in real estate. They also incentivize people to actually use land for productive purposes rather than hoard.
So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically, I’ll argue that the permitting and inspection process in most cities is a good thing for society despite the personal hassle. It ensures that buildings are safe and helps the city assess the changing value of homes.
Quick edit: I will acknowledge that your point is correct that inspections and taxes cause a lot of work to be done without notifying the city and hoping they don’t notice.
> So unless you have some disagreement with tax in general or property tax specifically
I could easily see (and probably agree with) the argument that we should be taxing land and not improvements. It feels a bit unfair to spend time and money to improve your own land, not be able to realize any gain/income from that improvement until you sell it, but meanwhile be on the hook for extra taxes every year.
To be clear, I think property taxes (or land-value taxes) are reasonable: desirable land is a scarce resource, and we should ensure landowners are doing productive things with it. But the current assessment process leaves much to be desired IMO. (And that's without even getting into California's Prop 13 nonsense.)
Yeah, I wasn't trying to make the case that property taxes are perfect, but they are what we have. There are some bad features such as discouraging maintenance to keep the taxable value down. But it does act partly as a land value tax, since the land value goes into the assessed value calculation.
I'm sure some people would disagree with this argument, but buildings do increase the value of the land, albeit in a temporary manner. I personally would pay more for an acre with a house on it than an otherwise comparable acre with nothing. Sure, land is truly permanent and finite while houses fall apart over a few decades and can be renewed. But for my human timescale, the presence of a building is a valid consideration in the taxable value of land, as much as other things such as the terrain and proximity to water. And if you take a land value tax and also consider the value of the buildings on it then you end up with property tax.
I'd support a different set of taxes in the US (I'm pretty sure that's where OP built the shed). I'd happily let go of property taxes in favor of a wealth tax and a land value tax. I'd even take an honest accounting of how much things cost and forcing the people and politicians to get our tax to align with our spending so we aren't passing ever increasing bills to our children. But with the current political system there is a 100% chance those ideas would be corrupted, so I'll settle with the inefficient taxes we have now and try to be a good sport about paying them.
How many times have we seen a deck collapse on Reddit? Those are shockingly easy to get wrong. And even if you make it structurally sound, it may be attached to the house in such a way that the wall begins to rot. Water, screw, and wood physics dictate a lot of what's legal in a deck.
Elsewhere in this thread someone mentioned that nails and screws are not interchangeable, but there are situations like decks where nails also aren't sufficient. You need carriage bolts.
It also looks like from the single angle shown here that the shed roof is pitched towards the house, so any water is going to be channeled towards the foundation. This is a terrible idea.
Keep in mind, while yes this is a huge code issue mixing low voltage and high voltage - ‘it depends’ in a lot of jurisdictions on other elements.
Following is for other folks running across this, in case it helps them.
At least in California, I’m pretty sure it’s code compliant to use rated non-metallic conduit for outside high voltage runs for instance. That conduit is made of PVC. It’s the grey plastic electrical conduit at every hardware store (if branded as UV resistant/outdoor rated).
Normal PVC pipe (for water) falls apart at too low a temperature and becomes super brittle when exposed to
Sunlight surprisingly quickly.
It’s a much better idea to use EMT or even ‘hard’ conduit depending on how it’s exposed, but it’s not required. EMF protection is nice, but I haven’t seen a such a requirement for power feeds in residential anyway. If using 3 phase and some industrial equipment I imagine you’d be a jerk to not do so, but most residential neighborhoods here have overhead unshielded lines anyway.
Running to a separate detached building has a bunch of rules around grounding (for which you’ll find multiple mutually exclusive and conflicting codes across the county). Many areas don’t have lightning suppression rules though.
Depending on exactly how the building is constructed (technically ‘mobile’ vs ‘fixed) also changes codes a lot. Running the equivalent of an extension cord to a ‘mobile’ structure (which can be functionally fixed) is perfectly fine as long as it’s GFCI protected for instance. Not that he did that.
Ideally it would be a separate sub panel, grounded and protected as such, with proper rated conduit, etc.
But the bar is a lot lower than what you’re saying if someone follows some basic guidelines. And can be done safely.
But yeah, Article Author - you’re going to get someone killed. Jesus.
Ah yes, I know about the grey PVC but spaced on it. Typically this is for external runs bolted to the side of a building though. Or at least, that’s almost all I ever see it used for. Can you use it for open air horizontal runs? Say between two buildings?
Data you want shielded, for the reasons I stated. Stringing Ethernet between buildings often ends in tears.
The issue is not running cat6 in a conduit (per se).
Original poster was running cat6 in the same conduit as high voltage residential
Wiring.
That’s scary. The wires in cat6 can carry a surprising amount of current at 120v and wires get chafed or damaged sometimes.
It can be thermal cycling from load, or weather, or a gorilla yanked on them too hard during installation, or whatever.
That can result in 120v or 240v mains voltage at BIGAMPS (most HACR type breakers and residential panels can sustain 10k Amps for a tiny bit) until the wire vaporizes. That’s routine during things like AC compressor startup.
That can make that random ‘should be harmless’ RJ45 plug an immediate danger to anyone nearby. And since the wire won’t vaporize until there is a sufficiently low impedance path to ground, it can stay dangerous for awhile.
Also, different buildings somewhat often have different ground potentials, so running something low voltage and sensitive to voltage spikes and net current imbalance between buildings like Ethernet tends to not go well sometimes. It’s really hard to tell this is happening too, so it sucks to debug.
6 ft away? Probably not a problem if both buildings are grounded decently. Metal conduit helps with that as it acts as a supplemental ground path to reduce any potential differences.
Hundreds of feet? Can be a problem if you do it much.
The cat 6 is fine, it's the power cable that's an issue. Realistically in this scenario it's fine too, it should be branched off of a GFCI. The only issue with the network cable is that it picks up static from lightning and blows some equipment, you can put Ethernet breakers on both ends though.
Not the OP but my understanding is that you're probably fine if that metal conduit is grounded. If you're stringing ethernet around outside you want properly grounded surge suppressors on both ends.
One of the nice things about actual metal conduit, depending on the nature of the soil where you live, is that it only needs to be buried 7" down to meet NEC rules. PVC conduit requires significantly more depth.
Yeah we had a couple of comments going back and forth with conflicting scenarios. The one I was responding too was stating exposed above ground conduit, where EMT is often better than PVC due to sun exposure. Ridged is of course even better from a durability perspective, but a real hassle to deal with.
Burying EMT in soil or concrete is generally a bad idea and quickly leads to some serious tears - sometimes in a year or two with the right soil or if the concrete is exposed to harsh conditions).
Most codes technically allow it though, sometimes with ‘supplementary corrosion protection’. NEC 358.10(b).
Some electricians use duct tape for the ‘protection’ which is terrible.
Proper pipe wrap is expensive and doing it on your own is a real hassle.
That is one of the areas where plastic really shines - I’ve had great luck with schedule 40 or 80 rated plastic conduit - always go up a step or two in size above
what you think you’ll need unless you hate future you. Schedule 80 for anything exposed to impact or exiting/entering the ground or a building.
And if you’re burying something like conduit, it’s almost always better to bury 2 or 3 instead of 1.
18” to the top of PVC conduit (12” for 120V, GFCI protected, 20A max overcurrent protection). If you’re willing to put 2” of concrete over it, PVC drops to just 6”.
Putting signalling and power wires in the same conduit is about as bad as it gets.
The proper way to do this is to dig a trench and use armored cable suitable for burial without further protection and to use a plastic uninterrupted tube for the cat6 (which you can blow through).
That said, there isn't a lot of difference between a DIY person and a low grade contractor, and a competent DIY'er is probably better than most mid level contractors. The big difference is usually that they have the tools and they're with a couple of people and you're just by your lonesome.
It's short. Put a normal extension cord in the "conduit", with plugs on each end. At least here in California, electrical code ends at the receptacle. You can do practically anything you want on the other side, as long as it plugs in.
That trick won't work. An extension cord is only seen as such as long as it is not permanently attached to a structure, and definitely not when it powers a fixed structure. In other words, it needs to be temporary and to be disconnected when not in use. As soon as you connect it permanently affix it or bury it you are violating the electrical code.
Otherwise this would act as a giant loophole around the electrical code, you could simply use a high current plug to connect your distribution panel and call it a day.
I'm pretty sure it's against code in CA to install an extension cord permanently inside a structure or conduit like that.
When I put all the cables in the wall for my TV, I ran Romex from the bottom junction box to the top junction box, despite the bottom junction box having a male electrical plug. An extension cord plugs into that from another outlet. (Ideally I would have just hardwired the upper outlet, but that would have been another can of worms.)
Not a good idea. The outer layer is plastic, underneath that something that is best described as an oversized shower hose. Burying it will allow you to take vehicles, wheel barrows, lawnmowers etc over it without damaging it.
I bought a ton of this stuff surplus from a dam construction, that served me quite well in Canada, some of the outbuildings were quite far away from the main house. It's pretty easy to work with, though stripping it is a bit of an art (you really don't want to damage the inner wires).
The author's shed is about 2 feet from the house exterior, so he can wrap the steps around as decking (very tiny decking) and put the cable under the steps.
That's possible, but you'd need to clearly mark it.
For two feet it's overkill, but normally, especially if there is the possibility of going between the two structures, you'd dig down 4', lay down your cable so that it is going down vertically in both structures and is well below the frost line where you bury it horizontally.
Yes, true. That cable has a special marking and there are even kinds that are solid enough to be driven over with tired vehicles. But those are super expensive, far more expensive than the kind that can be buried, and they are serious work to strip and connect. In a lot of cable that I bought there was one chunk of that stuff, about 2" thick for what looked to be tri phase, 40A+ground (so five wires + the steel cover). Bending radius about a mile :)
I'm sure there are thinner more pliable versions of that stuff available as well and I sometimes see the equivalent tie wrapped for temporary industrial applications to cranes and bridges.
Ignoring the type of conduit, there’s NM-B and CM (hopefully) in the same conduit.
NM-B is not allowed outdoors (in “wet locations”) [0], and running your Ethernet cable and your power in the same conduit is no good. (Look up the code for feeders supplying structures — this is not even close to how it’s done. Maybe you can squeak by and consider this a structure supplied by a branch circuit, but there are still code requirements to pay attention to.)
Also, that weather resistant barrier…. Imagine you are a drop of rainwater on the outside of that WRB, following gravity. Where do you go? Straight to the exposed OSB sticking out at the bottom. The sheathing is toast in heavy rain.
[0] NM-B has paper running through it. Good old-fashioned water-wicking brown paper. If it gets a bit wet in a flooded conduit (hint: every outdoor conduit can be assumed to flood eventually), it will wick along the cable and never dry.
edit: there is absolutely no requirement that buried conduit be metal. In my experience, despite code allowing various types of galvanized steel conduit to be buried, they tend to corrode severely long before whatever wires are in them are safely disconnected, creating a hazardous situation. You can use PVC, HDPE, etc.
That's not the point. The point is that if you don't recognize the acronyms for non-metallic cable, comm multi, water resistant barrier, or oriented strand board, you should not be building a structure in a dense residential area.
The electrical code is surprisingly readable, and building a small shed with power, to code, is not substantially more expensive or time consuming than building it not to code. UF-B and plain THWN-2 wire are not very expensive, especially for a short run. A second conduit is cheap. Ground rods are cheap, although installing them can be annoying. A disconnect switch is maybe $150 and is an extremely polite thing to have if a firefighter shows up and wants to disconnect a structure.
Moldy Romex wire in a flooded conduit next to some random intended-for-indoor use Cat 6 cable with insulation that may degrade when wet is asking for trouble. 50mA leakage into that Cat 6 cable will kill you 100% dead under the wrong circumstances but will not trip a conventional breaker.
I mean the solution is straightforward: do what you want, just do it to (at least) minimum code.
Hire someone if you’re not interested in taking the time to learn what minimum code is. It’s not particularly complex and is generally intuitive, but every line is written in blood.
If you are interested, just start with each component. Building a powered workshop is not fundamentally different from building a house, and that’s not recommended for a first project.
Tackle one subsystem at a time. Replace some flooring, some siding, add a receptacle, etc.
Each one will let you learn best practices and minimum code for each part, and put you on the right path.
I can comment on the second portion of this issue- never run Cat cables in parallel with electric cable.
You are forcing low voltage and high voltage cables to share their electromagnetic field. That’s never a good thing. It can lead to unstable connection all the way to frying your Ethernet card.
Forget the devices -- the risk is to people. If the insulation fails on the power cable and your network cable is insufficiently insulated, then your network cable could end up live. People generally avoid playing with hot power conductors, but no one takes any care to avoid touching network cables or, for that matter, the devices plugged in to network cables.
Thank you both. The number of "Wow this is so cool!" encouragement-replies here is pretty scary. Building a shed is definitely something most people can DIY, but please don't make it hazardous! And, at least make an attempt to look up local building codes. Even if conformance is not required for your particular application, they can be used as a reference for best practices.
I believe some jurisdictions now occasionally check e.g. Google Maps to look for obvious things like sheds built too close to existing structures (which this one likely is), so it's possible he'll get an unrequested visit from code enforcement anyway.
You don't need to take power underground. Most midwestern construction doesn't and I usually see PVC conduit. There are hazards from breakage, but putting it in PVC conduit tends to exceed code.
You just went from concerned citizen, to person with anger management issues lashing out. If your thoughts here were in good faith, you would help the author learn about code compliance so that he could make the necessary modifications and learn about the real-world consequences of not being in compliance. Instead you're making a threat to send code enforcement after him so that he can be punished for being ignorant. Please try to re-evaluate the feelings you have and ask yourself if there is a more positive, less harmful way to use those feelings.
All the people replying to this minimizing the concerns of the original comment need to go back and reread it. The point that really raised their hackles was the electrical issue, not insulation or overlapping rooflines.
Electricity can instantly kill you or start a fire, which could kill you and your neighbors. Look at what just happened in Boulder. Fire is dangerous, especially when combined with high winds. I personally saw that play out twice while living in Boston, one of which was determined to have been caused by sparks from unpermitted welding, the other by improper disposal of smoldering construction debris. Both small starts whipped up by winds, both times multiple people died.
The phrase I’ve heard is “regulations are written in blood.”
Unless there’s an electrical outage during a big snowstorm or heat wave, and then lack of insulation can kill you. Maybe. Or the old people you sell your house to later.
But sometimes you are correct. Like in writing where it’s best to know the rules of grammar before you start breaking them, it’s best to know why the building codes exist before you break them as a DIYer.
Poster seemed most upset specifically about the electrical issues. Those kind of things absolutely can kill you (or the next homeowner), or start a fire that can kill you, or your neighbors.
Most building codes are not a life or death matter. Most of them are windowsill clearance, door clearance, minutia about the spacing of steps. In some locations you have really stupid proscriptions about load bearing structure types (so e.g. you can't use a metal frame for your house simply because they specify you must use wood).
Most electrical building codes are indeed a life and death matter, and that seems to be the focus of the original comment, or at least the part that got the poster so upset.
> Not that anything about this shed is built to code
This is why we can't have nice, or at least affordable but slightly less than perfect, things. I would also note that, while I'm sure everyone's right about the rules in Santa Cruz, this is jurisdiction specific. In the UK, if your shed is less than 15m^2 and is not used as living accomodation, no building regulations apply, and you can build it with screws, nails, or corrugated cardboard and PVA glue if you're so inclined.
This is why we can't have nice, or at least affordable but slightly less than perfect, things.
I really enjoyed reading the article just as someone who likes writing and reading. It was very engaging and I enjoyed the process he went through from having an idea to finally committing to it and I especially liked him commenting on things like choosing materials that fit in his car.
I also really am enjoying the comments on HN from knowledgeable, experienced people who know whereof they speak and I appreciate your comment because I spent years homeless and I've studied housing issues and lack of affordable housing is a root cause of homelessness in the US.
So this is a real issue and I'm reminded of the fact that after racist White people burned down "Black Wall Street" they then began interfering with the rebuilding by trying to pass more stringent fire safety codes when building codes had nothing to do with why it burned down. It burned down because hateful people torched it.
And I wonder how we solve this. I wonder how we balance all those concerns of not squelching creative impetus and not squelching a desire to add something cost effectively with real world concerns that "If you do it that way, people die or you burn out your Ethernet card (or whatever)."
Seems like with the internet being a thing, we could find ways to balance those many issues. But so far we really aren't.
People in the know are often comfortably well off. They have no problem with saying "Well, pay the few extra bucks to do it right." and the result is some people are sleeping in the streets and it falls on deaf ears when you try to draw those connections.
> So this is a real issue and I'm reminded of the fact that after racist White people burned down "Black Wall Street" they then began interfering with the rebuilding by trying to pass more stringent fire safety codes
This 100% has nothing to do with it. Screws aren’t even the easy, cheap, or fast option for construction. Everyone defaults to nails anyway because they’re the cheap, fast, easy, and correct option for framing.
Building a code-compliant small structure is basically trivial these days. The information is readily available from so many different sources that you have to ignore them all and choose to improvise your own thing, such as using screws instead of framing nails in a framing nailer, to get things done.
Many of the code violations in this build are just common sense problems, like putting high voltage wiring in a pipe with low-voltage wiring.
> People in the know are often comfortably well off. They have no problem with saying "Well, pay the few extra bucks to do it right." and the result is some people are sleeping in the streets and it falls on deaf ears when you try to draw those connections.
Construction workers are well-versed in building to code. It’s definitely not causing housing shortages or even remotely related to it. Code isn’t causing houses to not be built, and abolishing building code wouldn’t increase the rate of construction.
Trivial for someone in the know can mean (something like) "If you have a PhD and a decade of experience, it's obvious." People not in the know who look things up online have the problem that they often cannot properly judge the quality of the information they are seeing.
I'm confident that some of the people on HN saying "Oh. God. Don't do that." actually know whereof they speak. But reading the article in no way tripped any warning lights for me. I just thought it was an enjoyable read for other reasons.
This is not the right forum to say that. I said that and it was downvoted and I deleted that comment to leave the one above cuz reasons, not due to the downvote per se, but the downvote helps tell me my enthusiasm for the writing quality etc is unwelcome here because so many people here do know it's bad construction.
I agree zoning is an issue. It's a huge issue, as is car-centric design.
But, no, it's not trivial from my perspective but I feel like it ought to be easier to sort the wheat from the chaff and so forth. The internet seems like a huge opportunity to foster better processes for DIY projects.
But, then, I naively thought nearly two years back that "Surely, the CDC or WHO will have a list of recommended OTC meds for self care for Covid to discourage people from going to the hospital and spreading it." and was unable to find such.
I was at one time pursuing an online degree. I have had a college class in online search. If an officially recommended list of OTC drugs existed at that time and I was unable to find it, I am skeptical that "your average Joe" could find it.
I think there is so much potential to do things better than this. The internet is a tremendous opportunity to help make effective answers available for "free" to the masses and we see some of that happening but I remain shocked and confused by the huge gaps in such that still remain.
> Trivial for someone in the know can mean (something like) "If you have a PhD and a decade of experience, it's obvious."
Construction workers don’t get PhDs and a decade of experience before they can build a safe structure.
It’s trivial because you can look up virtually any plans or tutorials and see the accepted ways of doing things. You can type it into Google and get instant results explaining why something is against code.
This person had to go out of their way to spend extra money to do it differently. It’s not even a good example of a pitfall, because everything in framing construction revolves around nails by default.
Some people are exposed to certain things from early childhood and others aren't. Some people have a rich ecosystem of pertinent experiences and are surrounded by knowledgeable people and others don't have those assets.
People who have no friends or relatives who know anything about X real world physical skill and are googling up info online are often poorly positioned to judge the quality of the info in question.
To me, it seems to be a simple and obvious point. I don't know why it seems to be failing to click with you.
Ironically, that's perhaps an example of the kind of disconnect I am trying to describe, though that fact seems unlikely to help me make my case.
I don’t think there are OTC drugs that are effective against covid. So far we have a couple new drugs, a dewormer that only seems to be effective in countries with high rates of parasites, and an antidepressant that pulmonologists feel really weird about prescribing off-label. Did I miss any?
I don't actually know and I am likely suffering from tunnel vision because I have a very serious medical condition with a respiratory component and I have long managed it with diet and lifestyle and was able to transition to that in part via displacing harsh prescription drugs with gentler prescription drugs and eventually OTC drugs and then getting off drugs entirely.
It's routinely ridiculous levels of drama for me to try to talk about medical topics no matter how carefully I word things. It makes sense to me that the government or some official source should use the internet to inform people on what they can do to mitigate things but from where I sit that appears to not be happening.
In the book The Hot Zone, it was local African tribes who stopped the ebola epidemic and one of their practices was to tell people "Do not go to the White man's hospital." because you would go in with something treatable, like a broken leg, and die of ebola. And it had like a 90 percent death rate.
I've tried to judiciously share things I know are helpful. I was attacked and accused of trying to practice medicine without a license. I've tried to blog. Most of my blog posts get around 25 page views if I don't personally post them to HN and I do not post any of my health writing to HN.
I'm me and that's routinely drama for reasons I often find baffling. It seems logical and obvious to me that putting useful information on the internet from official sources to help empower people to engage in self care of some kind and give them a viable alternative to seeing a physician would be an excellent thing to do when trying to mitigate a global pandemic.
The world mostly seems to think I'm a loon and not worth listening to. So you don't really need to hold your breath and worry about my personal opinions.
I'm on HN because I'm medically handicapped, I'm too screwed up to do anything more productive and I'm just trying to distract myself from the misery that is my life and my terror that I will die on the streets in the near future.
No one is required to care one bit about what I think and most people don't.
I don't think anybody thought they were being hyperbolic, but I also don't think that particular event from a century ago has much of anything to do with modern building codes and regulations. I am having a really hard time seeing at all how it's relevant to this topic.
It's very tricky, and while I think it's usually a safe bet to look for racism when some US policy is inexplicable, building code inflation is a problem in a lot of places. Each individual measure usually makes sense, and may even be driven by a particular incident - see the Grenfell fiasco in the UK which is forcing everyone in an apartment to check for flammable cladding. But the totality of the measures can be quite onerous.
We get a particular version of NIMBYism here in Edinburgh with living in a UNESCO world heritage site. There's strong pressure to freeze the city core in its 19th century appearance; I broadly agree with that, except that exceptions seem to be made for the most expensive and ugliest buildings. While round the outside two-floor suburbs are going up.
How is this defined? The purpose of this structure is to be used as an office; they'll presumably spend on the order of 40 hours a week in there. Is it only considered a living accommodation if you sleep in it?
I would expect electrical regs to apply regardless of how the structure is used. And regardless of whether the regulations apply, I would implore anyone reading this to do the electrical safely, not because the law tells you you have to, but because of the "it might kill someone" part.
> In the UK, if your shed is less than 15m^2 and is not used as living accomodation, no building regulations apply, and you can build it with screws, nails, or corrugated cardboard and PVA glue if you're so inclined.
In many US locations you aren't required to pull a permit and get inspections for sheds below a certain square footage either.
But that's not a free pass to build an unsafe structure. Using (non-structural) screws instead of nails is not a big deal for something this small that won't see snow load, but other things like mixing high voltage wiring and low-voltage wiring in the same conduit are a problem regardless of code.
Connecting something to the electrical system will also invoke code regulations, regardless of the size. There's no free pass for ignoring electrical regulations just because a building is below a certain size in the US, and I doubt there is in the UK either.
There's no free pass for ignoring electrical regulations just because a building is below a certain size in the US, and I doubt there is in the UK either.
Right, this is the case in New Zealand too. Want a sleepout under 10 m^2? Go for it. Want it wired to electricity or plumbed in? Then you need consent.
> In the UK, if your shed is less than 15m^2 and is not used as living accomodation, no building regulations apply
And is 'temporary', right? I didn't know about the size limit, but I thought it had to be a sort of free-standing structure not fixed into the ground - i.e. you can make a concrete level base, but you can't embed your vertical supports in it?
My dad has built several sheds in our backyards/land over the years. I recall he hacked the "permanent structure" definition by packing the dirt, then laying 4x4 lumber as the foundation.
As much as everyone loves to complain about red tape, building codes have a lot of useful info. Even if you're not going to pull permits (at your own risk) it's useful to be aware of what code requires and why. Specific examples from the post:
* Plywood thickness required for floor decking
* Min roof slope for asphalt shingles
* Drip edge, where it's required and how to install it
* Roof drainage - probably doesn't matter because California but as a general rule you never want to channel water towards your foundation.
In the grand scheme these are relatively minor. They'll probably need to demolish the thing when they sell the house long before the roof slope causes water issues.
I thought the entire backyard was already brick/pavers? I doubt there are many termites hanging out on top of those waiting for some wood to get a little damp. If it was pressure treated, it should be fine to use those beams as a sort of footer on the pavers "foundation".
Also it sounds like he ran both the low voltage network cable and the high voltage line-level power wiring inside of the same conduit which is a big no-no for various code and safety related reasons. From what I understand messing with electric code violations is not a good idea, if your homeowners insurance finds out you put in some janky stuff like that and your house burns down, they might invalidate your policy because it was your fault.
Home insurance covers stupidity as well as acts of god, in most cases
They might send an inspector and then refuse to insure, but if you are paying the premium and make an out of code change that causes a claim, they are going to have to pay out for the most part unless your out of code changes are super negligent. Using screws instead of nails would definitely not be considered super negligent. Nor would anything ever be inspected close enough to notice that. Running electrical through the wrong type of PVC is also not likely to be considered negligent enough to deny a claim. Of course, doing everything right the first time is the better way to go anyway as you never know when an insurance may become super petty and try to deny a claim for whatever reason they can find.
The home insurance people will absolutely nail him on this. They'll eventually send someone out to inspect the property on a policy renewal. They'll refuse to renew the policy until the code violations are corrected. And they'll definitely notice and have questions about the odd 'shed' that looks new and very out of place.
If he has really wired it as it seems, if anything consequential (unrelated) happens to the property in the meantime they'll use that against him when they inspect post event. They'll try to claim he breached the policy prior to the event.
Where do you live that insurance companies send inspectors ‘round? I’ve owned 2 houses for a total of over 25 years and never had an insurance inspector visit nor heard of them visiting anyone else for a renewal.
I have rental properties and it happens about every other year before a renewal. They definitely find things that need fixing. That being said, I've never had it happen on my primary residence (20+ years).
That has not been my experience as a homeowner in CA for the past 5 years. I think the insurance company sent someone out once when we first bought the house? I vaguely recall they looked at the breaker box to write down the main breaker rating, and that's about it.
Definitely want to use nails for framing (especially in zones that might experience the shearing forces of an earthquake) -- here are a couple of links so folks can see for themselves:
In that project farm video, the screws came out stronger than nails in every test except the repeated bend test (even the drywall screws). I think it could be argued that since screws are much stronger and have better holding power, they are much less likely to get loose enough to the point that they are going to be repeatedly bending back and forth.
I think this is valid -- I'm not a structural engineer so I can't speak to how an earthquake might behave differently than the tests in the Project Farm video, but I can imagine a scenario where a screw becoming a bit loose would create a situation that more closely resembles the repeated bend test.
The IBC still outlines nails as appropriate light frame fasteners [0], and where I am (on Maui) there's no local provision in the code to allow swapping in screws. The GRKs [1, 2] and Simpson [3] screws others have mentioned are seemingly valid alternatives to 16d nails, but ultimately it's going to come down to what you're comfortable with, the local code, the inspector, etc.
I definitely don't know for sure. But one thing I do know for sure, is that a lot of official building code is not necessarily based on careful scientific study but rather on "that's the way we've always done it".
Something I appreciate about HN is the number of reverse-bikeshedding moments there are and for which the parent comment exemplifies. Points out a critical flaw and explains it in plain language with no rhetorical flourishes.
Bikeshedding describes our tendency to spend too much time discussing trivial matters, and too little time discussing important matters as a result. It describes the inverse relationship between time spent and the importance of an issue.
That was the first thing I noticed as well. I don’t blame him mind you since I would have assumed they are better and easier as well but recently my brother who is a carpenter told me you have to use nails they are needed. This just reminds me that being handy is good but knowing code is critical for some thing. In this case he will probably get away with just screws.
Have an architect as a friend? I have such a friend, and it's always fascinating when talking to him about building codes and such (such as the type of covering for network cables in a commercial setting depends upon the type of A/C used in the building, due to concerns over fire hazards and air intake).
You can always do it the hard way and have an inspector tell you what is wrong, fix it, repeat. The whole point of inspection is to get it right. This method isn’t cost efficient for starting. Find friends to ask questions before starting to reduce inspection failures.
The simple answer is testing. When you go to school you get a test that certifies you have a basic knowledge. It may not cover every aspect but will teach you where to find the answers you don’t know.
A while back I looked briefly into what it would take to be an electrician, and it seemed like there was quite a lot to know. I wonder how soon you get to the stage where you could wire up a shed like this with full confidence that you've done everything to code.
From there, how many other subjects do you have to get right? I learned how to swing a hammer as a kid but I wouldn't know jack about designing load bearing structures, weather proofing, foundations, hanging windows and doors, etc — let alone plumbing, HVAC, etc.
Electrical is a whole field of expertise. To wire a shed to code however is not that hard. I’ve done my dad’s tiny home personally and then had my electrician friend come in after and said it was all done and to code. Some of the skills overlap but usually the carpenters do the work and at a certain point the electrician comes in and does all his work then the carpenter finish up. The real secret to getting fully comfortable is doing an apprenticeship where someone is going over all your work.
In my area, community colleges have trades programs for such things. I've gotten overrides for pre-reqs when I've audited classes for hobby rather than for the certificate/degree, allowing me to take the few core courses that cover most of what I'll get into in my projects.
Also, when applying for a home-owner permit, my city requires you pass a short test showing you know the basics of the code (not nearly as in-depth as certification exams).
> You can get structural screws, but they're uncommon, expensive
Agreed that eg GRK R4 structural screws are pricey, but they are widely available. You can buy them at Home Depot, for example. I do like them better than nails for small projects.
Was thinking the same thing. Also a nail gum would make putting that frame together pretty easy. I worked in construction until I was in my mid 20’s and I’m amazed at how uninformed people are when building sheds and tiny homes. YouTube also spreads a lot of bad info.
You can get structural rated screws in pretty much any Home Depot or Lowes in the US and they don't cost that much relative to all the other expenses building that shed.
Telling people to not use structural screws is wrong, they are far superior to nails for DIY person. For starters using the right nail isn't that easy either - do you know if you inspector allows clipped head nails? Are you driving them in pressure treated wood? If so, do you have the right nail? With a GRK R4, you don't have to worry about any of those issues. They are easy to drive with an impact driver, for a noob, they are faster than driving a nail by hand, they can be removed, they are less likely to split wood.
The important thing here is that neither nails nor screws are "all the same". Know what you are using them for and use the correct ones. If you use any hangers or other ties, you can generally use screws or nails, but you MUST read the spec sheet from the manufacture to get the correct ones. Even "professional" home builders frequently use the wrong fasteners for these applications.
Ya, it is bike shedding in most cases. I've seen a few side by side comparisons of nails vs screws for framing and while it's true that screws are more likely to sheer off, nails are more likely to pull out. And assuming you used a reasonable size and quantity of screws, the load required to sheer them will be so far and above anything required by code that it becomes a distinction without a difference.
as a dumb european: what are non-structural screws? I've only ever seen people building their bike-shacks and terrace stuff, using "Spax". Which are sold as "structural" screws in the US. Then, if you somehow fix together things with a classic nut and bolt-screws (from mechanical engineering): well, for most real things you probably would think about the force anyway I hope. And then screws are used in like any industrial machine...
A good example is the common wood screw, which you might use in repairing a piece of furniture. Another is a drywall screw that holds drywall to the wooden studs behind it
You don't always want the beefiest screw. Sometimes you want it small and cheap. Most screws a random person would have sitting in their garage are of the small and cheap kind, because they're well-suited for most of the everyday projects people do.
For example, I recently mounted speakers to the walls of my living room. The wires come out of the wall, so to make that work well without just having holes in the wall, I mounted outlet boxes in the wall and covered then with panels that let the wire through. Those outlet boxes are screwed into the studs (the boxes have little channels in them to run the screw through). Those screws aren't structural, and probably wouldn't fit if they were.
Seriously people, it's a glorified crate with some openings, in the UK you wouldn't even need planning permission for something like this.
I think a bunch of folks need to get off their high horses about "building codes" and sort out their perspective. Sure nails might be the correct thing for a much larger structure, but for this piddly wee thing, who cares? If there's an earthquake then the adjacent house is likely to flatten this box regardless of fasteners used.
My only concern would be the electrical and that they'd hooked up a separate breaker for the "crate supply". Yes defo make sure that's correct.
Signed in to say this. I built a shed in my backyard as one of my first DIY projects and also used screws. Not even structural screws, just standard 3” construction screws. The thing is solid. No one is walking around on it. It isn’t under the same stresses as a two story house. Like you said, it’s a box!
I did my research, understood that nails provide better strength. I chose screws. So do many other shed builders.
Where I live (Portland, Oregon) the rules for sheds are actually pretty generous. It can be something like 10 feet high, 200 square feet or less, and I don't think requires any setback, so the shed in the article might comply with similar rules depending on where they are.
> You can get structural screws, but they're uncommon, expensive
And worth it. I have boxes of different sizes of Simpson strong-tie and strong-drive screws and I adore them. And they're mostly available at any Home Depot.
I wonder how much the code should apply to a lightweight construction like pictured. Not legally but from the civil engineering point of view.
I completely agree that running power and network cables in the same conduit is dangerous. I'm not as certain about the use of screws. To me, it looks that even if the whole shed collapses, the rubble would have hard time seriously hurting the person inside (except for the glass; I hope it's safety glass).
To support your point: if you are a DIYer who is not super cost sensitive, for example if you have a tech job, then I highly recommend structural screws. (I quite like GRK RSS fasteners.) It requires more research than you might think to find screws that are properly rated, but it is much more fun to do small projects with an impact driver than a nail gun or hammer.
Also, it’s just not that hard to “undo” a nailed framing joint. Bang the top piece of wood with a hammer from the underside. It will separate from the other piece with the nails still in it. Now bang the nails out by hitting the pointy bit with your hammer. Job done. 45 seconds of work, just need to be comfortable on the tools.
Thank you for explaining the screw/nail/framing thing. I knew nails were used for framing but always thought "screws are better, why not use screws for everything?". TIL.
PVC-U cable ducting for 240V cabling is the norm here in NZ, just helped my dad lay about 60m of it from the house to the office. I doubt it's going to be the end of the world.
Is the roof slanted in the right direction? You are sending the water toward your house instead of away from it. This might create drainage problems in flash flood conditions.
There is already impervious coverage on the ground, sloped that way. This shed does nothing to change that, and it's not attached to the ground. If you really want to get away with this from a code standpoint, put wheels on it.
Also in the UK it's against regulation to have a wooden structure so close to a residential property... Although this is the US where most properties are made of wood... So probably no such rule?
Buildings that overlap are often seen as attempt to make an addition without the right permits. They have zero sense of humor about that over here either.
Since the wall of this building is actually under the roof line, they’ll make him tear this down or reroof his house to move it four inches over (although that might take a permit too, since you’re changing the roofline). Tearing it down is cheaper.
He may also be violating setbacks from the edge of the property, but those have been diluted here so frequently in large cities that he might be okay.
That is also the case in my area of the US. The wooden structure must be a certain distance from the house, fence, etc. However smaller structure don't need a permit so people just ignore the rules if space is tight. And some areas don't have strict enforcement of the building code particularly rural areas. But those properties tend to have lots of space.
Each member country of the UK have their own different planning regulations - Scotland, England, Wales and NI. Also please cite where having a shed next to your property is illegal in any one of these jurisdictions. Under certain dimensions and heights, planning "law" doesn't apply.
It looks like it’s designed to fit under of the eves of the house while still providing head room and there is a down pipe on the house that the shed can hook into sharing the soakway.
Not gonna pollute with comments about it that others have already made.
I will add that I am making electrical/gas renovations to the house/detached garage.
Basically we are adding LP to the house for my new range, and a gas water heater. Also ran gas to the garage for powering a genset. The past year or so has taught me the import of off grid solutions for certain things like cooking and hot water.
So, I had to dig a trench from the house to the garage. Code called for 18” deep, but I went as deep as my backhoe would allow. Grey pvc conduit was put in for elec, a separate tube for fiber, and pex for water.
The LP co, came and installed a 250gal tank on a pad I poured, then ran gas in some kinda pex-like tubing to the house and garage. County eventually came out to inspect and signed off, allowing me to back fill (partly down now). Next steps are to finish connecting the pvc to the house, finish the water run, and then I need to buy the copper for the elect run - probably $1500 worth.
The only bits I’m concerned about is getting the power shut off, and power lines moved to the underground conduit I’ve placed from the pile to the house as I’ll need an actual electrician or will have to wait a week for the power company to turn back on after the shut off.
Oh, I’d add that my current power runs through the trees to the house, and from the house to the garage in the trees. And the house is nearly 50 years old, and therefor grandfathered in without an electrical shutoff on the side of the house. Part of this project is to fix all that.
Off grid = No need for a permit but more importantly, a proof of concept that with starlink, this small office “shedquarters” could be placed anywhere in the world — say a beach in Costa Rica for example!
Imagine if all the nerds that could afford it set up their shacks on the beach in Costa Rica. Instant slum. I prefer the beach without such structures.
Thanks! Quickly looking at the rules, it doesn't look to me like the issue is whether you're connected to the grid? If you have high-voltage wiring (50V+) it looks to me like you still need to get that permitted and inspected?
Minor etymological note: the word plumb describes something that's hanging vertically. It comes from the latin word plumbum (lead). When people wanted to make sure something was vertical, they'd hang a lead weight from a string, and align the string with whatever was supposed to be vertical. Even though we've moved on to different metals, we still call them plumb bobs, and we still say that a vertical part of a house is "plumb".
I knew "plumbum" meant "lead", but I'd always assumed the etymology of "plumbing" was just that pipes were historically made of lead. thanks for posting!
I've noticed this happening as well, and the explanation that I've stuck with is that the follow-up posts are posted by readers who recognize a similar article they've previously read that's deserving of a (re)post on HN.
That, or they go searching for additional information and find related articles.
Another easy one to spot: there's sometimes clusters of articles from the same site if it's not a well-known one - people look around the site, find other good stuff and submit that too.
Sure, but I noticed those similar posts always have the same keywords in them. This time it is "sheds" and I am a little bit in disbelief that someone is gonna post more about sheds :). The first post wasn't even about sheds, it was a question about hobbies.
I don't say that this bad or anything, in fact I like that every day has a different topic on the front page. If this is a natural phenomenon then I have not heard about it yet (and it might be interesting to research?).
No. A lot of people in tech really like to live vicariously through other makers (woodworking, esp). It appeals to both the DIY crowd, which in a way is basically our entire career, and a real life problem of programmers not being able to work in peace, whether at home, or in a bullpen of peers.
Check your insurance coverage! Erecting a structure that does not meet local electrical and building codes, zoning bylaws, etc. may either threaten or void your insurance. In the event of the worst case scenario (fire, flood, collapse, etc.) you will likely not get a payout.
In my part of the US, a temporary structure does not require a permit or zoning allowance, while a permanent structure does. When we build sheds to meet the "temporary" definition, they are built on top of cinderblocks and not a poured concrete foundation. In this case, the author built his shed directly on top of his patio, so I am curious whether this would be considered a permanent or temporary installation.
CA has been lightening up about ADUs, it's typically not hard to put one in. There were a few legal changes in 2020, allowing larger sizes, less planning oversight, less parking requirements, utility hookups can be shared with the primary building.
> Bikeshedding is arguing about stuff that doesn't matter
Well in many jurisdictions the size of this thing (a shed) wouldn't matter, so yes it is bikeshedding. And this thing looks like it's built well enough to be a shed you can go and sit in with a laptop, a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. The overreaction here by HN to this ancient project perhaps explains why we end up with maddeningly overly complex systems to just stick a bloody simple webpage in a website.
You know when you read an article in a newspaper written by a generalist journalist about a specialist topic in which you are an expert? This.
It's the same as Matthias Wandel on YouTube. Ignores decades of knowledge and tomes of wisdom in favour of an 'engineering approach', which is to say trial and lots of error.
There is so much involved with building structures, even something like a shed. Sheesh.
I always figured that if I wanted to do a serious project like this, I would first do some volunteer work, maybe with Habitat for Humanity or similar, just to gain some experience.
Does anybody have stories about noobs volunteering to help with construction?
Looks cool! What would worry me is that you're displaying a screen and (presumably) a computer in front of a large window outside of your house. Of course I don't know what the rest of the property looks like, but from the pictures it looks perfect for burglars.
He mentioned blackout curtains so perhaps he can at least obscure what’s inside when he locks up for the night.
But assuming it’s a fenced in yard in the US, if someone is already in there when they shouldn’t be they’re already quite committed to mischief anyway.
My interpretation is that the fence behind the shed is the street, so the glass doors on the shed faces other houses. Other houses which can probably already see TV/etc in the presumably glass-doored living room that faces the same direction if they were to look.
This whole thing is just a fire hazard but this is just dangerous advice to be giving people:
"PRO TIP Use screws for everything; if you mess up, remove the screws and redo it; with nails, it’s a lot harder to do that."
Please don't, screws shear. Don't learn constrtuction from someone who hasn't learnt it himself.
As for writing about your experience like this, write a blog about something in your own field or otherwise don't give advice. It could end up with someone getting hurt.
The irony is you are telling people to not write about things they aren't qualified to write about, but that is exactly what you are doing.
There are structural screws that are excellent options for framing. GRK and Simpson make extremely well regarded structural screws that, at least in the US, are accepted for framing most/all building code offices.
And the author is right - if you are a weekend warrior, they are far better than framing nails. You don't need a nail gun, just an impact driver which is usually less expensive and more useful for other tasks. They don't split the wood as much as a framing nailer, are generally more accurate to put in, and can be easily removed if needed.
> As for writing about your experience like this, write a blog about something in your own field or otherwise don't give advice.
I don’t get it. I see the majority of us, developers, writing about software without having a deep knowledge on the subject. The author’s shed is no more to me like the usual post “I built Twitter in Rust on a weekend”. Should we all stop giving “PRO tips”?
Yes? If you're just starting to code, you shouldn't give out advice like you know everything. You're not a pro and you shouldn't be masquerading as one. You should be listening to advice, not giving it. You really want advice everywhere of "Coding pro tip: always make all variables strings because then you can put numbers or letters in there and you don't have to use multiple types."?
Yes, because he is giving dangerous advice. Hey! This weekend I operated on my cat, pro tip, nail the cat down to avoid him moving. If you write a twitter in rust then giving the wrong advice will at worst spur someone to create another successful startup.
I know, and feel for you. The level of overreaction here is beyond comical. Given this is HN in the San Fran startup zone I have to say that for a culture of break all the rules this lot are hilariously conservative just because you built a shed.
If anyone is looking into this, I really like Shed King (shedking.net) for plans. They have a few shed models you can choose from, costs around $20, include shopping lists, and are super thorough.
I recently snagged the 12x16 with porch plans. I’m excited to give this a shot.
Nice, thanks! Just snagged the 4x8 plans. Almost bought a shed from Home Depot but it's more fun to build. This will be an improvement over parsing endless YouTube videos :-)
For the in-garage option, I've encountered three fully enclosed and insulated cubicles/offices in garages.
The first was a construction Project manager who built his along one side wall of his garage. I was very curious and talked with them about it and they had a couple good thoughts. The first was that they had a nice big window opening to the garage. Even it only gave them a view of their pickup truck, it really made the office feel less like a closet and could be opened for ventilation. The other advice was to leave enough room by the garage door for a repairman to get at everything; on a long enough timeline it will be necessary.
The other two were built by tradesmen I knew with single bay shops. They both built their offices on big casters for flexibility and one would roll theirs outside when they cleanded the shop.
When we bought our house it came with a run-down 'summer house' in the garden. We had it plastered and insulated and added a laminate floor. We ran an armoured electricity cable from the house through a trench and attached it to the house alarm system. We then got the an 'L' shaped desk custom built by a neighbour (who is a joiner). Heating is provided by an electrically powered radiator. I've been working there now (as a 1-man-band software product company) for the last 11 years. It's been great.
The author mentioned organizing material transport by figuring out what would fit in his car. I would highly recommend just renting a flatbed truck from home depot to transport your materials home if they don't fit in your car. Its usually something like $20 to rent for an hour.
Also I wonder if the author has any plans to heat/cool the space. Seems like they might live in a temperate area. I'd would probably just install one of those DIY mini-split units to heat/cool the office if necessary.
Heh, I am glad I read the comments here. I bought a piece of land (a garden basically), and it has an old house / shack where the roof needs to go. I am debating internally for two days now if I should replace the roof myself or not or just bite the bullet and pay somebody. I am on a kind of a sabbatical so in theory I have time, and the idea is tempting, but it's definitely not software.
Cool! A coat of gloss will make your exterior paint last a lot longer and seal everything better. A nice exterior gloss paint is like a skin for your walls.
Anybody looking to do this, you could probably go 8x8 for the same money, plywood comes 4x8 and most lumber comes in 8' lengths.
You can also go to your local reused building materials store and see what they've got, and change your plans around a bit to fit those materials. You might find a bundle of boards not quite 8'/16' but could save you a pretty penny (and it just helps the environment)
Not all insulations are the same. You have to research which type is best given your temperature, humidity, etc. Some require special handling and care... For example, you don't want to breathe fiberglass, or to contaminate your workspace with it.
Good air quality in a work area is a must. You want air free of particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. Opening the window when it's raining is not a viable option. You need some form of ventilation and air filtering. Maybe also air conditioning and heating.
You also don't want to build a structure that is against zoning limitations or that brings you tax liabilities.
Note that it’s against code to run electrical and data cable in the same conduit, both for safety and interference. Get outdoor rated cat 6 and leave it out of the conduit instead.
It genuinely is not that hard. I did spend most time working out the right spec (ie safety, structural etc.) and the main build took me about 2 months. I was in by month 3 and fully finished by 4 months.
I am ok with big structural stuff, interior (drywalling for example) I don't have the finesse for, but it looks OK.
I love DIY, it gets me off a keyboard! And scratches the engineering itch I miss as a people leader.
It's not hard though. Like anything it takes a bit of planning and practice. Plus the confidence to have a go.
The fact that you need a shoddily built (I'd be ashamed to post something like this on the internet) 6x6 shed to work in, while you have a perfectly fine house right next to it.
Or how many fear-mongering code NIMBYs there are in this thread. Some even threatening to doxx the OP. Yikes. Do you guys know how much legacy not-up-to-code housing stock there is across the country, that's actually dangerous to inhabit? And you chose to cry wolf about an accessory structure CA?
The reason you use nails rather than screws is that nails bend, screws do not. As the framing shifts (and it will because nature) the nails will bend and allow the boards to remain attached as they shift.
Screws have the advantage of not backing out. So at right angles (think a deck board attached to the joist) they are preferred. Lateral force will, however, easily snap them. But for framing they are probably a code violation.
I am planning on building what is essentially a tiny house for my shoffice. Basically I want something that also includes a bed and a shower/bathroom. My biggest concern is whether I will need to pull permits for this project and/or if I need a foundation or if I can get away with a gravel pad + railroad ties as the base. Tying into house plumbing and power is going to be the trick I guess.
Some bylaw research is always in order because it can get sticky.
Where I happen to be, I can build what I like without a permit as long as it's under 100 sq ft, doesn't tie in to plumbing or electrical, isn't in lot setback areas, and it doesn't push the lot coverage over the limit but if I were to park a trailer on the property for any other reason than to store it, I'm in trouble.
Never assume. I knew someone in the situation of being on a road that was a zone boundary. Research revealed they couldn't do what they wanted just because the guy across the street was doing it too.
Another angle to look into: Have you considered just buying a travel trailer or pre-built shed to use as an office? More than once I have personally fallen into the trap of spending $100 in materials and $1000 of my time to avoid a $500 expense when my time would have been better spent getting back to work to pay for a bought solution.
I definitely am considering getting a camper as well. That seems like a more straightforward solution, just potentially a more expensive one in the long run.
I’ll definitely do my research and see what I can come up with.
At minimum, you should swing by (virtually these days, but in past years, you could go in person) your local building enforcement office. I suspect that as soon as you add electrical or plumbing, you need permits and inspections, as it’s no longer a shed.
I think it's very likely that the OP was supposed to pull a permit and get zoning permission, but if you are going to be including plumbing and sleeping, you almost certainly need to.
I am in the process of planning something similar at my house. My county requires a land use permit for any new development, as well as a building permit because power will be run. Both of those permits require plans to be submitted and take multiple weeks to be approved. It’s worthwhile to check at your local planning office if you care about such things.
I was considering doing something similar this spring, but instead of trenching my yard I was considering solar and just a small mesh network to get to the corner of my backyard, maybe 300 feet from the house. My thought was that it would be an office and reading area. Perhaps a place to nap away from the kiddo as well :)
This is great to see. Very nicely documented project and a fantastic result. Encouraging to see people with little past experience doing projects like this. I’m in the process of planning a self-build cabin in the woods, so also diving into YouTube to learn all of the requisite skills.
Really enjoyed reading this and have always wanted to try. The aesthetics came out better than I expected from a backyard shed too. It seems like you got most stuff cut to size but I’m wondering what power tools were required other than a nail gun I assume.
Congrats! It will probably take me 5x as long to build the same thing because I'm a perfectionist who's always hemming and hawing over changing plans or the right way to do things. It definitely feels awesome once you complete it though.
I would probably reroute the end of the rain sprout on the left side of the shed away from the shed, since it would put lots of water at the base of the shed whenever it rains, weakening the base of the shed.
A lot of people in Santa Cruz are building secondary buildings on their property since the city loosened the rules to help with the housing crisis in the area.
Does anyone know how zoning restrictions affect this in California? Wondering at what point you need to get approval to set up something in your backyard.
Check your city/county, but in most places in CA and the rest of the US, zoning allows up to a 120 square foot shed without building permits. Neighborhood HOAs, if applicable, would be the other restriction.
36 square feet? good to go.
If I were to do it, I'd make it slightly bigger and put a electrical sub-panel in it with an extension cord like an RV has. You could plug it into anywhere with an RV outlet.
It's also easy enough to move any shed like this that's 8 feet wide or less on a car-hauler trailer or with dollys/rollers underneath.
Where are you seeing he used drywall screws? I use deck and construction screws for framing all the time, it's fine. You can always add nails too. 24" centers are ok for this too, there's very little weight. Far less well constructed sheds are moved daily.
Many sheds are built this way. Some even lighter - e.g. the overpriced wood sheds you buy pre-built use very minimal framing. And they all can be moved just fine. I commented because it's somewhat surprising how easy it is and how well it works.
I didn't say they were the same thing. And I meant what I said: zoning allows a shed without building permits in most places. It depends on the jurisdiction but because of model zoning codes the rules are almost all the same across CA.
In CA and most of the US there is usually no separate "zoning permit", although it exists in a few places (I see berkeley and sonoma county). Usually zoning and the development and land use codes just say what you're allowed to do, and are enforced based on helpful neighbor-driven complaints. But you usually don't need a permit up front except for things like conditional use and special use permits, certainly not a shed. For things requiring a building permit, the permitted use (zoning) is just part of that process.
The OP can and should check the city/county and find out. The point I'm trying to make is there is actually a fairly high likely hood that even in over-regulated CA you can build a 120 sq. ft. "shed" or "playhouse" in the backyard without a building or zoning permit. Without knowing the exact jurisdiction, this is just general advice about the most usual practices - for example San Diego, LA, San Bernardino cities and counties.
One thing I should mention: technically plumbing/electrical in the shed or calling it or using it as an "office" might not be kosher, but in practice everyone does this with no issue. It's just a very nice "playhouse".
My city and county is infamous for fighting tooth and nail to prevent any kind of construction or development. And they look for any excuse to re-assess and double your property tax.
So, by your thinking, anyone who leaves the home to go work in an office regrets having children and regrets living with their spouse. Yes, I agree with you, your lack of understanding is offensive.
I appreciate the downvotes as they confirm the emotional damage, but I am not a fan of misusing logical implications.
Obviously, in a pre-Covid world leaving your home to go to work was simply the societal expectation of how to acquire an income. WFH mostly came with economic downsides (lower salary, no promotions).
During Covid and post-Covid it's quite an interesting question why somebody would voluntarily lobby to add unpaid work time in the form of a commute to their day.
I'm in a similar situation and also built something similar for an office during covid. I definitely don't regret having children or living with my spouse, and we actually decided to have a third child (now 6m) during covid.
So basically there was no dedicated room inside the house for WFH before?
When you use your shed, what are the aspects that you came to value? E.g. is it more about the feeling of nature (because the garden is much closer) or is it more about the sound-separation from the rest of the home? Or would you be as happy with a dedicated room within your house?
> So basically there was no dedicated room inside the house for WFH before?
I was previously working from our bedroom. The main downside was if I wanted to start working while my wife was still asleep.
> When you use your shed, what are the aspects that you came to value? E.g. is it more about the feeling of nature (because the garden is much closer) or is it more about the sound-separation from the rest of the home? Or would you be as happy with a dedicated room within your house?
Sound separation, and not needing to work for my room that also has another purpose. But a dedicated room with in a house is better for me, and when one became available I started working from there instead of the shed.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experiences. Did you do extra-preparation on the extra room that is now available to you? E.g. foaming walls or door to have the same level of sound separation?
Which direction of sound separation is more important to you, incoming sound (not being disturbed) or outgoing sound (not disturbing sleeping people with your work)?
> PRO TIP Use screws for everything; if you mess up, remove the screws and redo it; with nails, it’s a lot harder to do that.
You absolutely should not do this for framing, and most building codes specify the type and size of nails that you must use when fastening load-bearing structural components.
Screws are convenient, sure, but they are necessarily much harder than nails and are prone to embrittlement and cracking, while nails are soft and pliable. You can get structural screws, but they're uncommon, expensive, and I'd wager they weren't used here (they're much beefier than a similarly rated framing nail).