Issue No. 5

Editorial

"There are two things you never want to see made," Will Rogers is alleged to have said. "Laws and sausages." Somewhere between laws and sausages, and equally dubious in its manufactory stages, lies the world of codes. Codes govern every step of the building process, dictating design, driving up costs, and eliminating opportunities for creativity and cost-effectiveness. Where do they come from, and how are they made? Most architects probably know more about how sausages than the world of code development.

The first building code, which probably preceded the ten commandments, was written during the reign of Hammurabi, ruler of Mesopotamia, in 1,500 B.C. This code stated clear sanctions against builders whose designs failed to provide adequate life-safety. Should a building collapse cause loss of life, for instance, the builder would pay with his own life. This code, setting a minimum standard for building performance, was established by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Hammurabi) and imposed by royal fiat on the design and construction community. Today, 4½ millenia later, architects and builders are still on the receiving end of codes, with very little involvement in code development. The process for code development has evolved, however, into an industry with its own economic and political momentum. Legions of consultants , lobbyists, building and fire officials, and industry representatives roam the country from committee meeting to model code conference, analyzing the minutiae of proposed code amendments, squaring off in turf wars over publishing fees and code development procedures, and endlessly inventing new hurdles for the design and construction communities.

Where are the Architects?

Where are the end-users, the consumers of code, the parties most directly affected by this process? While architects have representatives involved in the code development process, their voices are rarely heard over the clamor of other special interest groups. Consequently, instead of codes which recognize the role of a licensed professional in incorporating life-safety into buildings and structures, we have codes which dictate these requirements, along with whatever additional requirements can be pushed through by powerful lobbying interests.

The AIA Board of Directors voted at their December meeting to "1) Increase the Institute's focus on codes development, 2) Expand the education of its members on codes application,

3) Advocate state and local adoption of the AIA endorsed codes, and 4) Use AIA resources to encourage the International Code Council (ICC) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) to cooperate on model code development." The BSA Codes Committee is working at the local level on a similar agenda, as reported in the January Code Newsletter. For these resolutions to be effective, however, it is encumbent on every architect to take an interest in codes and the code development process. Codes are a significant aspect of the building industry. We can have a voice in their adoption and content, or we can continue to be victims of their increasingly restrictive provisions.

IBC v. NFPA

A March 6th press release, available at the NFPA website, elaborates on the NFPA's intentions to create their own set of model codes, to compete with the International Codes currently being published. Central to the NFPA's announced intentions is their commitment to an "ANSI-approved open consensus process", as opposed to the code development process employed by the ICC. NFPA intends to partner with the AGA (on fuel and gas codes), IAPMO (on mechanical and plumbing codes), and the Western F. C. Association (merging NFPA 1 with the Uniform Fire Code). They are currently hoping for publication in the 2002.