The Ridiculousness of the Building Code
Like most jurisdictions, the City of Seattle recently adopted the 2009 International Residential Code. For you non-architects out there, this is the book that guides most everything about what can and cannot be done with the design of a home; it is what jurisdictions look to for enforcement; it is the rule book for architects.
We recently bought our office copy ($98.10) and we’ve had a chance to get familiar with it. And maybe it’s just us, but it seems like this thing is getting a bit out of hand. The IRC is 868 pages plus the City of Seattle amendments which add about another 250 pages to the volume. For conversation sake, lets round it off to a clean 1,100 pages. ELEVEN HUNDRED mind-numbing pages, it’s like 1.5 copies of the Fountainhead, except without the plot twists and the dry protagonist to keep you entertained. It doesn’t even have a bad guy! We digress… where were we. Ah yes, eleven hundred pages; is a document this extensive really necessary for the design of a house?
Keep in mind, this is just the building code, in addition to this code there is the structural code ($79.99), the fire code ($79.99) the electrical code ($119.00) and the mechanical code($61.00). To say nothing about Municipal Codes which govern land use and the ICC/ANSI which governs accessible design. When stacked on top of one another, all the code books required for the design of a home comprise the 2nd tallest structure in the world.
Don’t get us wrong, we like doing our homework and being diligent. It’s part of an architect’s job to be familiar with the current code, to follow the rules, and to design safe buildings. It just seems that the International Residential Code has gone way beyond the mission of “developing better building construction and greater safety to the public by uniformity in building law”. It’s practically turned into hyperbole. Just 15 years ago the building code was a manageable little book, but with each new release it becomes larger and more unmanageable. None of the building code’s friends have the gumption to say it to his face, but the building code has a weight problem.
Since we’re going to be dealing with this gargantuan volume for the next several years, it’s bound to generate a great deal of frustration. We figured we’d get this off our chest now, that way in our future blog rants we’ll have something to refer back to. Here are our top 5 criticisms of the 2009 International Residential Code:
1. This thing is enormous –it used to be that you could put the code in your bag, take it to a job site, take it to the meeting with your structural engineer. The current code basically requires its own table in the office. Taking this thing to a job site would require a trailer. Note to the International Code Council; when the volume gets bigger than the houses it governs, it’s time to scale back.
2. It is complicated and nebulous -this thing is so complicated that they actually sell a Guide to Understanding the 2009 International Residential Code ($39.99). We’re no experts in the publishing world, but typically when a book needs a second book to explain the first book, the first book shouldn’t get published in the first place. No?
3. It’s not actually standardizing much -the IRC intends to standardize building codes from one county or city to another, but cities continue to develop ever more complicated addendums of their own, thereby contradicting the standardization. The city of Seattle addendum is 1/3rd the size of the building code. Really, city of Seattle? You had a conflict with a third of the codes? At this point it might be simpler if cities just came out with their own building codes and gave up the illusion of being standardized.
4. It is making design and construction more expensive –even researching a simple detail (like a handrail) in these codes can consume an unproportional amount of time. It takes more time in design and it takes more time for the city to review and approve permits. All of this drives up the cost to the homeowner.
5. It reinforces loopholes –with each iteration, the building code acts less as a guide and more as an exact prescription of how things are designed and constructed. The constricting nature of the building code leaves less room for interpretation and less opportunity to meet the requirements though innovative design. The creativity that architects are becoming good at is, rather, finding loopholes and exceptions in the code that allow for good design.
Ahh, that feels much better. So that’s our two cents, what’s yours?
By Antonio Tort, March 11, 2011 @ 10:08 am
You’re not alone, guys. You repeated word by word what we said a couple of years ago in Spain when the CTE (Technical Buildind Code) appeared.
We wonder if any lemon head really believes that every common building must be constructed under the same regulations than a nuclear plant!
By Ioana R, March 11, 2011 @ 11:43 am
it is in big trouble… because of too many lawsuits. I’m really serious…
By Bill Bradburd, March 11, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
gotta keep those plans checkers and inspectors employed. since they’re billing by the job, let’s stretch it out as long as possible…
By Aaron, March 11, 2011 @ 1:47 pm
I fully agree re size v. effetivness. Another salient point, the 2009IBC continues the tradition of referencing other standards making the suite of documents required to design a building even larger first glance.
By Nicholas Williams, March 11, 2011 @ 2:18 pm
I’ve got the PDF version, much nicer as it is stored digitally. CTRL F is my savior!…But I rarely open it, I only use it for occupancy group determination and things like that, luckily most of the codes are “common sense” and unless you are doing something extremely groundbreaking or out of the ordinary, you are generally designing to code….I find the biggest criticism of the IBC and IRC is that it is like a circular equation in Excel, you find the section you are looking for, it then refers you to 3 other sections, they then refer you to 4 different tables, which then require you to do your own mathematical equation (referencing high school calculus books)…and all this just to figure out your occupancy load for a space…damn bureacracy!
By Nicholas Williams, March 11, 2011 @ 2:19 pm
umm plus the IRC and IBC are going to RUIN Europe and all the cool things you were once able to get away with there!…how many bldgs in Europe have 2 exit stairwells that are on separate ends of the building?
By Nicholas Williams, March 11, 2011 @ 2:20 pm
maybe if we let our clients take a shot at deciphering these codes we can validate higher design fees!!!
By Garrett, March 12, 2011 @ 7:37 am
Exactly. Job security, not only for plan checkers, but for architects too…not that it does not induce bouts of cussing in the work-place.
By amr, March 12, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
Gee, I feel lucky.
The BCA here in Oz for houses is only 750 or so pages.
By Cameron Maltby, March 14, 2011 @ 7:50 am
Unfortunately, the increase in red tape brought about by the various levels of government are only serving to drive up the cost of construction. Here in Vancouver, it is estimated that all these regulations and hurdles can add up to an additional $100,000 to the cost of a new, detached, single family home. Bureaucrats are slow to respond to this problem, as are our own professional organizations (AIA, AIBC, etc.). So far, the only people I see trying to do anything about it is the home building industry. The building permit application process alone for single family homes has become ridiculous. Remember when a home could be built from a couple of sheets of drawings? Those houses are still standing and perfectly serviceable.
By archaalto, March 14, 2011 @ 8:04 am
just wait until it all moves into “performance based” building codes…
By custom metal fabrication, March 14, 2011 @ 8:30 am
Here in Vancouver, it is estimated that all these regulations and hurdles can add up to an additional $100,000 to the cost of a new, detached, single family home.
By vlord, March 14, 2011 @ 8:45 am
Hmmm, interesting commentary when you consider this article:
http://www.smartplanet.com/people/blog/cities/japans-strong-building-codes-keep-millions-safe/267/
Also,as Nicholas says, PDF is available, so no need to complain about the document being unmanageable.
By jon, March 14, 2011 @ 6:29 pm
This is exactly why I’m leaving the profession- too much tedium for not enough fun
By amr, March 15, 2011 @ 5:43 am
A question for you guys in the USofA. How soon do you deal with your building code? In schematics? Design development? Or documentation?
Here in Oz with the new energy rating section of our BCA (Building Code of Australia) I need to now open the BCA much earlier in the design process than I ever used to. I could hold off until documentation but now I am checking in a schematic phase.
Interested to know how you guys over there deal with the bloating of bureaucracy in the design process.
By Bob Borson, March 15, 2011 @ 6:54 am
don’t forget about the energy code and the green building code (Dallas has a green directive addendum to the IRC).
People ask me if you have to be good at math to be an architect … no, you have to be good at navigating bureaucratic wastelands of red tape and obstructionist thinking. I wish they offered that class when I was in college.
By Lisa, March 15, 2011 @ 7:05 am
We’re dealing with the same thing with the new WA energy codes for the building envelope. It seems that no one knows what these new energy codes are all about or how to enforce them. They also seem to dismiss other city building requirements.
Luckily, we don’t have to haul around a ginormous book. All information can be found on a mind numbing website.
By Robert M. Longo, March 15, 2011 @ 7:48 am
I design mostly commercial buildings and therefore deal more with the IBC; same issues however. I agree with Aaron, it is the referenced standards that get so cumbersome. The IBC has over 50 different ones, and most of them have multiple publications referenced within. For example IBC references 50 different NFPA standards and over 250 ASTM standards.
Every new edition of the code has more referenced standards than the previous one. Some of my new favorites are the Rack Manufacturers Institute standard RMI/ANSI MH 16.1 and ICC-400 Standard for the Design and Construction of Log Structures. Does every special interest need to represent in the code!
By tyler, March 16, 2011 @ 4:11 pm
How many pages upon pages of text could be saved with a simple diagram? There’s a reason architects use drawings AND text instead of pure text to describe how a building is to be built. At least we’re given some in regards to accessibility.
By Lee Calisti, March 20, 2011 @ 5:22 pm
When did we become technicians to work through pages of stuff instead of being creative and making a real difference? Soon we will have to resort to a paint by numbers approach and give up designing. No one wants to speak up and appear to be the “goat” opposed to public safety and all of the other restrictions.
By Albert, March 21, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
Great piece. Here’s a paradoxical thought: as those code volumes become heavier and heavier our buildings turn into primitive bunkers in terms of the arch. design aesthetics. Bureaucracy kills any attempt to be creative & original.
By triple beam scale, April 12, 2011 @ 9:19 am
Interested to know how you guys over there deal with the bloating of bureaucracy in the design process.
By Build LLC, April 12, 2011 @ 9:43 am
@triple beam scale -it certainly takes more time and planning. unfortunately it means that the design process becomes more expensive. Keeping tabs on the city and their wait times is very important. As far as the code goes – we’re fortunate to be familiar with the sections that apply to the type of projects we do, it’s always a pain to try and figure out what has changed in the new versions though.
By Dan Merrick, August 8, 2011 @ 8:23 am
I am with you 100% on this. Oddly, even though the codes have become more detailed, the rate of structural failure really hasn’t changed.
By web design central coast, September 12, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
Great Article.
this is an excellent article to read and give consideration. I look forward to reading more useful articles as this one.
By Sebb Hathaway, October 14, 2011 @ 1:04 am
I’m sorry, but working as an architect in Berlin we’ve got 20 of those 4″ folders full of building code and regulations, that álso all require a paid subscription to be kept up-to-date. You have NOTHING to complain about.
By Build LLC, October 14, 2011 @ 7:43 am
@Sebb -it’s good to know that it could be worse. Sorry to hear about the Berlin situation.