The argument’s main premise is that ‘the surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed.’ While I agree that this would be the quickest way to satisfy safety codes, I do not agree with its reasoning and I believe that this argument suffers from numerous flaws

First, the idea that significant innovation is impossible because safety codes are too restrictive is flawed. While it is true that some safety codes do mandate the use of certain materials and methods, in the modern era most codes simply require that buildings are built with materials that have been tested and proven safe. However, this does not mean that modern architects are unable to come up with innovative designs that push the boundaries of what is possible. For example, many modern skyscrapers make use of a safer form of concrete known as pre-stressed concrete, which was invented in the 1940s by the engineer George S. Philadelphia. This improved concrete design was pioneered by architect Fazlur Khan, who utilized it in his designs for the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world’s tallest building. Khan also designed the Willis Tower in Chicago, which at 1,451 feet is the fifth tallest building in America. This building was so structurally sound that it survived the 9/11 terrorist attack without suffering damage. These designs would not have been possible without the innovation and creativity of Khan and other architects who were willing to use new materials and methods in the construction of these skyscrapers

Second, the argument assumes that if architects and builders were allowed to use new materials and methods, then there would be no significant innovation in architectural design. This is false; in fact, new materials and methods allow architects to create buildings that are aesthetically pleasing and aesthetically pleasing buildings require a great deal of creativity. The skyscraper designs that were made possible by the use of pre-stressed concrete were beautiful structures, inspiring admiration from the general public. Also, new materials and methods have helped architects design buildings with unprecedented structural strength. The 2008 Beijing National Stadium, which was designed by architect Ma Yansong, is a case in point. This building was constructed from a series of shells and panels that are extremely strong and flexible. The shells are constructed from glass fibres, while the inner panels, which contain the seating, are made from high-strength, ultra-lightweight, and extremely flexible carbon fibre. These materials allow the stadium to change shape with changing weather conditions, so that the structure is optimally rigid and strong when it is cold and wet and flexible enough to accommodate changes in temperature when it is hot and dry

Third, the argument that safety codes restrict innovation is flawed because it assumes that safety codes are in place simply to keep builders and architects from making mistakes. In fact, safety codes are there for a reason, which is to ensure that buildings hold up in potentially dangerous situations. For example, if a building includes inferior materials that are prone to breaking under heavy loads or factors that are likely to cause fires, then the building could collapse or catch fire during extreme weather, inflicting great harm on everyone inside. Building codes therefore serve to protect people from harm, rather than simply preventing them from making poor choices

Fourth, the argument assumes that the only purpose of a building code is to protect people from harm. However, building codes also serve to protect property values. If building codes were relaxed and allowed architects and builders to violate safety codes, then the value of buildings would decrease. This would cause property values to fall, and this decrease in property values would be especially harmful to low-income people, who may live in substandard housing. Therefore, allowing architects and builders to experiment with materials and methods could damage property values

Finally, the argument that the ‘strictness of these safety codes’ is the major problem facing the construction industry, and therefore the only solution is to relax safety codes, is a question of perspective. In reality, there is no single solution to the question of how to ensure the safety of buildings that are constructed in the modern era. Architects, builders, and engineers must all be involved in the process of designing buildings, and when new buildings are designed they must be thoroughly tested to ensure that they meet safety standards. Also, older buildings must be periodically inspected to ensure that they are not becoming unsafe and that their structural integrity is not diminishing. While building codes must be stricter in certain areas, such as the construction of high-rise buildings, they must not be so restrictive that they prevent architects from creating innovative, beautiful, and structurally sound buildings.