Because city planners and Nimby homeowners do not want it to be easy to build new building buildings. Every extra dollar you can force a proponent to spend, increases the odds that the project will no longer be economic to build, and simply not be built. For those most active in city politics, this is a win.
It goes way beyond design.
Early housing reformers in the 1920s, explicitly called for punitive fire regulations for multifamily buildings to make them on economical while admitting that they would not ask for any fire regulations for single-family buildings whatsoever.
It’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structure meets all legal and safety requirements. If something goes wrong, whoever signed that plan is personally liable.
In most places (in the US at least), all building plans over a certain size require a stamp from an architect or engineer. Builders get their plans stamped by an architect or engineer too. No builder will willingly take on liability that they currently don’t have, especially since it will cost them more money (in insurance premiums).
The exception is smaller buildings (usually less than 2000 sq ft) and in some places, all single family is exempt from needing a stamp.
edit: I should add that I’m not against the idea of reusable plans. But the liability issue would need to be solved somehow. Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?
I don't see why the person who assumes liability for the plans for one building couldn't also assume liability for n exact copies built using the same plans. Of course that goes against OP's wish of not having to pay for the plans, but if you're willing to pay, liability is not an issue.
Because city planners and Nimby homeowners do not want it to be easy to build new building buildings. Every extra dollar you can force a proponent to spend, increases the odds that the project will no longer be economic to build, and simply not be built. For those most active in city politics, this is a win.
It goes way beyond design.
Early housing reformers in the 1920s, explicitly called for punitive fire regulations for multifamily buildings to make them on economical while admitting that they would not ask for any fire regulations for single-family buildings whatsoever.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0194436920897553...
How can we fight back against the special interests in every portion of society putting themselves ahead of everyone else?
It’s a liability issue. The approval is granted to the architect or engineer who stamps/signs the building plans. The plan itself demonstrates that the structure meets all legal and safety requirements. If something goes wrong, whoever signed that plan is personally liable.
The liability can simply be on the builder if they choose to use a separately approved plan. The builder has liability anyways.
In most places (in the US at least), all building plans over a certain size require a stamp from an architect or engineer. Builders get their plans stamped by an architect or engineer too. No builder will willingly take on liability that they currently don’t have, especially since it will cost them more money (in insurance premiums).
The exception is smaller buildings (usually less than 2000 sq ft) and in some places, all single family is exempt from needing a stamp.
edit: I should add that I’m not against the idea of reusable plans. But the liability issue would need to be solved somehow. Who is going to be responsible if something goes wrong?
I don't see why the person who assumes liability for the plans for one building couldn't also assume liability for n exact copies built using the same plans. Of course that goes against OP's wish of not having to pay for the plans, but if you're willing to pay, liability is not an issue.
TL;DR: liability.