A recent multifamily development in Chelsea. Building code-related requirements add up to 40 percent in project costs for smaller multifamily buildings in Massachusetts. Photo by James Sanna | Banker & Tradesman Staff
The MBTA Communities Act expanded zoning for multifamily development across eastern Massachusetts. Now, housing advocates say the building code needs to be updated in turn, to make small apartment buildings more practical to finance and build.
Building sites will sit fallow because the current code discourages construction of a potent source of housing production, according to a recent report by architecture and design firm Nominal, The Boston Foundation’s Boston Indicators research arm, and the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
“Small multifamily remains an orphaned building type that has similar requirements to large buildings, but far less economy of scale to compensate,” Sam Naylor, a founding principal at architecture and design firm Nominal, said during a briefing on the report. “As a result, it’s far less expensive per square foot than most other types of housing.”
The state building code lumps together small multifamily buildings with commercial buildings and their more expensive, rigorous codes. The net effect, according to the study: additional costs ranging from 15 to 40 percent for projects. As a result, many never get built.
While some cities such as Somerville have legalized triple-deckers again via zoning, the building code requirements make them largely unprofitable, the report concluded.
Residential buildings with three or more units are subject to the International Building Code, which pushes many projects out of profitability because of fire, egress and energy requirements.
In its place, the report calls for creation of a separate section of the state building code for residential projects ranging from three to 24 units. Such buildings would be subject to less rigorous requirements, such as passive fire prevention systems instead of sprinklers. It also recommends adoption of a single-stair code for buildings with eight or fewer units per floor, a topic already under review by a Healey administration committee.
And it suggests energy codes designed to limit fossil fuel emissions should be scaled back for smaller projects.
Moving any of these reforms forward would need action by the state Board of Building Regulations and Standards, which approves changes to the building code. The report recommends the board take a more activist role in updating codes to reflect the state government’s housing policy goals.
Next Steps Beyond Zoning Reform
Housing production advocates and the Healey administration have taken modest victory laps over the effects of the MBTA Communities law in pumping up the suburban multifamily development pipeline. And a ballot question in November seeks to legalize single-family homes statewide on lots as small as 5,000 square feet with water and sewer service.
But what if building codes are a bigger obstacle to housing production on small lots?
The Boston Indicators report identified significant additional costs tied to the building code as it relates to small residential projects.
“While these types of homes are now becoming re-legalized through zoning, we’re finding that they remain quite impractical to construct because of the building code,” Naylor said.
The report’s findings rang true among leadership of NAIOP Massachusetts, a chapter of the The Commercial Real Estate Development Association.
CEO Tamara Small noted the requirements of the International Building Code make it virtually impossible to build the region’s historic mainstay of workforce housing: the triple-decker.
Costs related to fire, egress and energy codes remain obstacles to “missing middle” housing that otherwise could be built on small lots in Massachusetts, Boston Indicators concluded after surveying architects and builders. iStock illustration
“It is cost-prohibitive because of the additional requirements like sprinklers, elevators etc. NAIOP fully supports examining building code reforms such as those recommended in the report to ensure we can build a wide variety of housing types – from single-family, to triple-deckers and larger projects,” Small said in an email.
The report identified fire safety-related requirements as the largest code-related cost driver, adding 10 to 17 percent for items such as fire alarms and commercial-grade sprinklers. The state code requires sprinklers in all residential buildings with three or more units.
Recent energy code changes can increase costs 3 to 5 percent, according to the report. They include the widespread requirement for airtight Passive House building envelopes, which are designed to conserve heat and cooling capacity.
John Holland, an architect and owner of Wellesley-based design-build firm Sixteen Penny, said code reform should proceed hand-in-hand with additional zoning streamlining.
“If a building is sprinkled and is three stories or less, could you get away with one stair? Sure,” Holland said in an interview. “It has an effect on the triple-deckers, and to make some of the adaptive uses easier. But I would first fix our zoning and entitlements, and how difficult it is to actually permit in this state first, before I start changing years of good building code.”
Steve Adams
State Board Lacks Resources for Changes
The report seeks a more active role for the Board of Building Regulations and Standards. The 15-member state panel is appointed by the governor and includes architects, building inspectors, fire officials, consultants and builders. No specific seat is reserved for multifamily developers.
Many small cities have larger full-time building staff than the BBRS, despite its role overseeing billions of development dollars, pointing to a need for “significant upgrades” to the BBRS’s mission, staff and budget research.
The BBRS operates under the umbrella of the state Division of Occupational Licensure, but has no full-time staff or dedicated budget. Members serve as volunteers, including on nine technical subcommittees.
Messages left with the press contact for the BBRS and its chair, Reade Milne, were not returned before Banker & Tradesman’s deadline.
