For better building codes, a more deliberate course is overdue

Building codes are ripe for change as policy analysts and the housing reform movement at large move beyond land use and zoning alone.

After working through several hundred hours of building code reviews in Minnesota over the past decade, reforms are needed, even with our robust local adoption process. 

But we cannot reform just the local code adoption. 

We must also investigate where it all starts with the model code development process for all building codes. Both must be reformed; otherwise, we are left with a system in which we can never reach the destination. 

Heightened scrutiny is long overdue

Regardless of the level, broadly speaking, there isn’t sufficient scrutiny of code changes. 

I saw this firsthand in a recent legislatively mandated study in Minnesota on single-stair multifamily dwellings. Researchers took the current Minnesota Building Code provisions, which align with the 2020 International Building Code (IBC), and overlaid these structures with existing fire data.

Their findings? Locally speaking, with two minor adjustments in the code, multifamily dwellings could be built twice as large, up or out, without impeding safety. 

To me, there was an obvious question raised by this review: How many other long-held assumptions of the code don’t match the data?

Model codes 

As with any process, if you seek improvement, you have to start with the first step. For all building codes, this is the model code process used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the United States. 

Perhaps the most frequent complaint is the current system of perpetual adoption. From start to finish, building codes operate on three-year cycles across the various publishers. When one cycle ends, work on the next set of codes soon begins. 

The result is incrementalism, and the problems are twofold.

First, smaller changes are made that open the door to greater changes in the future. The rationale is often knowing that substantive changes are costly, and incrementalism allows this to happen gradually, making the financial impact less severe. 

Second, this incremental movement, paired with perpetual adoption, allows no time to study the effectiveness of changes. The next code is being written before cities, counties and states have put these codes into place, and any home built to these new specifications. 

When it comes to the model building codes, it’s time the industry asks itself a simple question: Are we improving outcomes or just updating books?

I would argue that emphasis is on the latter.

There is another issue: the lack of scrutiny of these changes. Last year, I spoke with a representative of an emerging construction technique who was displeased with the scrutiny being applied to his local code proposal. He was frustrated as the International Code Council’s (ICC) process allows arbitrary proposals to be enacted in the code, so why couldn’t Minnesota’s local adoption? 

To me, the issue isn’t that local adoption is too strict, but rather that the model code process was too lax. 

Local adoption

As the last mile of the code adoption process, and where these NGO proposals become law, increased scrutiny of changes is needed.

Even where heightened scrutiny already exists, local adoption jurisdictions often apply detailed review to amendments while accepting sweeping model code changes with little independent evaluation, even when those provisions carry real cost and feasibility implications. 

This imbalance, combined with inconsistent adoption timelines and limited coordination across codes, creates a system in which requirements are layered in without a full understanding of how they perform in the field. A more rigorous, uniform review process at the last mile is needed to ensure that every provision, not just local edits, is justified, workable and aligned with safety, durability and affordability.

Better process builds better codes

Whether it is model codes or local adoption at various levels across the country, it is time to apply heightened scrutiny to building code changes. If the process at either level is more important than the outcomes they produce, we’re doing it wrong.

At the model code level, establishing a clear baseline for safety, durability and affordability, extending code cycles to allow real-world evaluation and requiring evidence, cost analysis and a clear problem-solution link are necessary for any new mandate. Any widely unadopted provision should be cast aside.

For local adoption, this same scrutiny should be applied, adding affordability guardrails and aligning code updates to ensure the system works as a whole. Should model code publishers not adjust their timelines, state legislatures should take the step in unison to slow local adoption. 

The goal isn’t fewer building code changes; the goal is better codes where safety, durability, efficiency and affordability are in balance, guided by data-driven decisions. 

Nicholas Erickson is executive director of Housing Affordability Institute and senior director of housing policy for Housing First Minnesota.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners. To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com.