Issue No. 13

In this Issue:
I. Buildings, Codes and Safety
II. Whither Codes in Massachusetts?
III. BSA Codes Committee and the Future of Codes
IV. About the Sullivan Code Group

I. Buildings, Codes and Safety
The way we viewed our world changed on September 11, 2001 when commercial airliners were used to topple the two tallest buildings in New York City. The process of determining what should be built on the site of the former World Trade Center has stirred a new interest in the symbolic potential of architecture. Meanwhile the structural and life-safety implications of this event have engendered an unprecedented scrutiny of codes, building performance, and life-safety in buildings. Why are these two developments apparently separate? The architectural world is focusing on memory, symbols, and an appropriate formal response. Architects have left the life-safety concerns to structural and fire-protection engineers and the bureaucrats, code-eaucrats, and building officials whose job it is to regulate building construction. Now two disastrous fires in nightclubs, in Chicago, Illinois and West Warwick, R.I., have stunned us into recognition that life-safety in buildings cannot be left to others. The best memorial to the 98 victims of the Station Night Club fire in W. Warwick would be a vow by all architects, engineers and code officials that we will do everything possible to see that nothing like this ever happens again. For the architectural profession this means treating life-safety as the first priority in the design process, staying on top of developments in the world of codes, and demonstrating leadership by advocating for unified and coordinated codes as well as effective code enforcement. This newsletter advocates for these goals. Please share it with your colleagues.

II. Whither Codes in Massachusetts?
The regulation of building construction in Massachusetts is at a crossroads, and the outcome of several recent dramatic developments is very much up in the air. While the State Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS) continues to assemble a new edition of the State Building Code based on the International Building Code (IBC) there have been reductions in the Board’s budget, a public hearing on moving the BBRS from the Department of Public Safety to the Department of Consumer Affairs, and legislation to increase fire services representation on the Board and remove the regulations for installation of fire protection systems from the Building Code and put these under the jurisdiction of the Fire Prevention Code. Meanwhile a Codes Coordinating Council formed under Acting Governor Jane Swift has been meeting monthly without clear direction and cannot even determine if the proposed legislation, designed to dismantle the Building Code and assert the authority of the Fire Services as the dominant source of building regulations in the Commonwealth, is within their mandate as a subject of discussion. The Public Safety hearing on Beacon Hill where public testimony on the Fire Services legislation was given included pleas from relatives of victims of the Station Nightclub fire. Not coincidentally the NFPA had hosted a special meeting of their “Assembly Occupancy Committee” at a Boston Hotel the morning of the hearings, with the same relatives and fire officials who testified later on Beacon Hill as invited guests. State Fire Marshal Steve Coan testified on behalf of Governor Romney in favor of the Fire Services legislation. The timing of the hearing (less than a month after the W. Warwick tragedy) and the choreographed “coincidence” of the NFPA hearing suggest the extent of strategic sophistication at work. The legislation was moved out of committee and local media outlets gave both events significant coverage, focusing on sprinkler requirements rather than political positioning as the key issue.

III BSA Codes Committee and the Future of Codes
The BSA Codes Committee has joined forces with the Associated General Contractors (AGC), the Builders Association of Greater Boston (BAGB), The Massachusetts Building Commissioners’ and Inspectors’ Association (MBCIA), and the Boston Association of Structural Engineers (BASE) in calling for a coordinated and comprehensive approach to construction regulations in the Commonwealth. By emphasizing conformance with the latest National standards and adequate training for code officials this mostly private-sector coalition hopes to call attention to the pivotal economic impact of code adoption and enforcement. We are also closely watching all developments and providing monthly updates at BSA Codes Committee meetings (next meeting Wednesday May 21 at 8:30, BSA 52 Broad Street, 5th floor). A position statement on “The Future of Construction Regulation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” follows this newsletter.

IV About the Sullivan Code Group
With five Fire Protection Engineers, one Architect, and a Certified Building Official with a degree in Electrical Engineering and a head for zoning analyses, the Sullivan Code Group is the region’s most versatile and experienced code consulting resource. Current work includes planning for a major new university high-rise building in downtown Boston, a comprehensive accessibility audit of three Boston Housing Authority developments, due diligence reports for the sale of landmark Boston high-rise structures, fire alarm design for new independent living developments, and full-time availability for pesky and hard-to-track down code answers. To learn more about our services contact Paul Sullivan, President, R.W. Sullivan, Inc., at pds@rwsullivan.com. To view past editions of our website please visit us at www.rwsullivan.com. For comments on the contents of the newsletter contact avw@rwsullivan.com.

The Sullivan Code Group is: Paul Sullivan, P.E.; Ed Kotak, P.E.; Ron Melucci, P.E.; Jim Albanese, P.E.; A. Vernon Woodworth, AIA, Kevin Hastings, P.E, and Doug Anderson, C.B.O..

Boston Society of Architects
Codes Committee

Position Statement: The Future of Construction Regulation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Code development, enforcement, and construction permitting are areas of tremendous importance for both life-safety and the economic vitality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Governor Romney has focused on these key issues, the recent report “Getting Home” from the Pioneer and Rappaport Institutes identifies these as roadbloacks to the development of housing in Greater Boston, and the recently formed Codes Coordinating Council, under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Community Development, has begun to tackle the thorny problem of competing and conflicting codes under separate jurisdictions. Clearly now is an appropriate time for a comprehensive approach to these problems that ensures public safety, adequate training for code officials, timely review and permitting processes, as well as coordination and communication between code promulgating agencies.

Developments at the national level provide guidance in this effort. Partially due to the prompting of the American Institute of Architects three publishers of competing construction codes have joined forces and are now jointly publishing the “International Family of Codes”. These documents provide one source for the latest in comprehensive, coordinated construction codes ensuring the highest level of life-safety according to current industry standards. The AIA advocated for this single family of codes because it recognized that multiple codes with local idiosyncrasies are inefficient and costly. Adoption of the International Family of Codes in Massachusetts without local amendments would place the Commonwealth on an equal footing with a handful of other states at the cutting edge of building regulations, and would be a source of considerable savings by simplifying the design, permitting and construction process.

The regulation of construction in existing buildings is of critical importance to the health of our older towns and cities. Avoiding economic penalties for undertaking rehabilitation while increasing life-safety in existing buildings involves walking a fine line. Over the past few years the “New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode” has been receiving a lot of attention for its balanced and reasonable approach to building renovation, and for the apparent stimulus it has provided to construction in New Jersey’s older cities and towns. What is not well known is that the New Jersey Rehabilitation Subcode is modeled in part on the older, shorter, and easier to apply “Chapter 34” of the Massachusetts State Building Code. This rational approach to building renovations, alterations, and additions recognizes that older buildings have stood the test of time and do not need to meet all of today’s standards as long as egress is safe and the occupancy is not changing to a more hazardous use. Recent modifications to this chapter have obscured its original clarity and intentions. Restoring Chapter 34 by eliminating contradictions and ambiguities will ensure that existing buildings can continue to be renovated and reused safely and economically.

In a document entitled “Report of the Governor’s Special Commission on Barriers to Housing Development” the Department of Housing and Community Development analyzes the nature of construction regulation in the Commonwealth. This report describes separate Boards promulgating separate codes without any formal means of communication. Some of the Boards provide avenues of appeal from the provisions of their codes while others do not. Inspectors each have their own areas of expertise and training and support for most field inspectors is irregular or unavailable. Before she left office Acting Governor Jane Swift signed an Executive Order establishing a “Codes Coordinating Council”, one of several suggestions from DHCD’s Barriers Report. This Council is currently meeting and could provide the appropriate format for improving the code climate in the Commonwealth. The goal of such an endeavor should be a comprehensive approach to construction regulations that ensures appropriate public safety, adequate training for code officials, timely review and permitting processes, an appeals procedure from all code provisions incorporating the principles of due process, and a formal method for ensuring coordination and communication between code promulgating agencies.

It is a mistake to believe that Massachusetts is unique and therefore should have a unique structure for code promulgation or unique code requirements. Building code regulations are most effective when consistently adopted, interpreted and enforced. Recent legislation to remove fire protection systems from the State Building Code and place these requirements under the jurisdiction of the State Fire Prevention Code would complicate the design process, permitting, and construction unnecessarily without any improvement in life-safety. No other jurisdiction divides its provisions between two codes in this manner. There is nothing unique to the buildings, the codes or the agencies that enforce them that would justify this unique and idiosyncratic arrangement in the Commonwealth.

Economic vitality and life-safety in buildings need not be competing priorities. An emphasis on adopting national consensual standards enforced by well-trained professionals can lead to the achievement of both of these objectives. The Boston Society of Architects’ Codes Committee joins with other interest groups in calling for an approach to construction regulation in Massachusetts that is in harmony with developments on the national level, encourages the rehabilitation and reuse of existing buildings, provides training and support for the enforcement community, streamlines and rationalizes the permitting process, and guarantees the right of appeal in a just and timely manner. The achievement of these goals would promote economic growth, reduce wasteful and expensive delays, encourage the renovation of older downtowns and neighborhoods, reduce sprawl, conserve energy by recycling existing urban fabric, encourage the development of affordable housing, and make the Commonwealth more accessible to investment from out-of-state, all without sacrifice to the safety of building occupants. These are goals we all can support, and we offer our assistance and encouragement in achieving them.