2024 I-Codes?

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm reminded that the ICC has reportedly changed the entire interior formatting for the I-Code books with the 2024 editions. I'm waiting to buy anything until my state had adopted the 2024 codes, so I can get the state-specific versions. In the meantime, as a self-published author I'm always interested in the actual formatting/layout of books. Does anyone have a PDF of any of the 2024 I-Codes that they could extract just a couple of sample pages from and send them to me? Or a printed copy from which you could scan a couple of pages.

TIA

 

[Sifu]

I don't have the 2024 in print yet. But, YES, it is a complete reformat, done to align the print versions to the online versions. The following except from the 2021 is what we are accustomed to from 2021, then the same section as presented in the preface to the 2024 version outlining the new format.

I'm not sure I will get the print version. My company provides us with the ICC premium so they don't have to buy a thousand books. I am an old school book guy, so it is different. I like having multiple books open, easily referencing and cross referencing between versions and other codes. Now I have to toggle between online books which is clunky to me, but it is what it is. If I get the print versions it might be on my own dime. However, as I recently moved and had to pack everything, the stacks of books made me wonder if I needed to continue down the luddite path.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's going to take my poor, tired brain a while to adapt to a totally new look after twenty-plus years of two columns in Times New Roman.

Still 8-1/2 x 11 pages? What are the margins? Can you decipher what type face and font sizes they're using? My inner book designer needs to know. And, like you (Sifu), I prefer books. And that's going to be my problem. After nearly twenty-five years of reading the codes in two columns of Times New Roman 10-point, a lot of things become more or less implanted. With a totally new format, that's not going to work any more. It's definitely going to slow me down when I have to look things up. The question is how long it will take me to get back up to speed.

 

[jar546]

You can access it online for free. There are no more PDF versions. I pay just under $800 per year for premium access, but it also includes a lot of standards and more.

 

[Joe.B]

For how important our jobs are it's good for us to have the information we need in the format we like. I'm always going to be a print user. Some of my staff like the digital versions, so I get them access, and I occasionally use the digital format too. But 9 times out of 10, I get up and grab the book. Each have their advantage, and you get used to a particular format. If nothing else, getting up 20-30 times a day is good for my health. And I spend too much time staring at a screen as it is...

 

[BN4537]

The format change is extreme enough to drive me straight to full digital access instead of hard copies. I like having a book in my hand, but I remember where code sections are by how the pages look. I can re-learn them every code cycle pretty easily when the format is the same, but now it's so different that it is actually easier for me to learn the digital format.

Annoys me every time I pick up the new books.

Also, they moved a whole bunch of sections in chapter 3 of the IRC. You might think you know where stuff is... but you don't.

 

[BN4537]

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You can access it online for free. There are no more PDF versions. I pay just under $800 per year for premium access, but it also includes a lot of standards and more.

Yes, there are still PDF versions.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The format change is extreme enough to drive me straight to full digital access instead of hard copies. I like having a book in my hand, but I remember where code sections are by how the pages look. I can re-learn them every code cycle pretty easily when the format is the same, but now it's so different that it is actually easier for me to learn the digital format.

This is my concern.

 

[BN4537]

The 2024 codes are like the Windows 11 version of the I-codes.

 

[Sifu]

The format change is extreme enough to drive me straight to full digital access instead of hard copies. I like having a book in my hand, but I remember where code sections are by how the pages look. I can re-learn them every code cycle pretty easily when the format is the same, but now it's so different that it is actually easier for me to learn the digital format.

Annoys me every time I pick up the new books.

Also, they moved a whole bunch of sections in chapter 3 of the IRC. You might think you know where stuff is... but you don't.

I too remember things based on page, position, even thickness of the pages in between the front and back. The new books will be very hard for me, will slow me down. Not sure which will be slower, finding what I need in a whole new book, or switching to and from in the digital format. Either way, it will take some getting used to. Honestly hope to be gone from the game before too much works gets done out of the '24 and beyond.

 

[bill1952]

It's going to take my poor, tired brain a while to adapt to a totally new look after twenty-plus years of two columns in Times New Roman.

Still 8-1/2 x 11 pages? What are the margins? Can you decipher what type face and font sizes they're using? My inner book designer needs to know. And, like you (Sifu), I prefer books. And that's going to be my problem. After nearly twenty-five years of reading the codes in two columns of Times New Roman 10-point, a lot of things become more or less implanted. With a totally new format, that's not going to work any more. It's definitely going to slow me down when I have to look things up. The question is how long it will take me to get back up to speed.

The font is all driven by what's best for people with vision problems. ICC seems to have added staff for these issues. Was discussed in a recent committee meeting. I believe font is Verdana which looks like Arial to me. Can't speak to size of print version.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The font is all driven by what's best for people with vision problems. ICC seems to have added staff for these issues. Was discussed in a recent committee meeting. I believe font is Veterana which looks like Arial to me. Can't speak to size of print version.

Hmmm ...

Decades -- if not hundreds of years -- of typography studies have shown that serif typefaces are easier to read in body text than sans serif typefaces, but in the 21st century the ICC has decided that they know better. Okay, then. I think what this really means is that sans serif typefaces work better on computer screens, and the ICC (like the entire world) is pushing people to "go digital," so they picked a screen font and gave the finger to those of us who prefer printed books. And, of course, it's just not possible to use one typeface in the books and a different typeface on screen.

I have never heard of a font named Veterana and I can't find any reference to one, anywhere. The font appears to be (or is very similar to) one called Source Sans Pro. That's one I'm not familiar with and have never used, but it's better than Calibri.

 

[jar546]

Yes, there are still PDF versions.

Then buy one

 

[bill1952]

Hmmm ...

Decades -- if not hundreds of years -- of typography studies have shown that serif typefaces are easier to read in body text than sans serif typefaces, but in the 21st century the ICC has decided that they know better. Okay, then. I think what this really means is that sans serif typefaces work better on computer screens, and the ICC (like the entire world) is pushing people to "go digital," so they picked a screen font and gave the finger to those of us who prefer printed books. And, of course, it's just not possible to use one typeface in the books and a different typeface on screen.

I have never heard of a font named Veterana and I can't find any reference to one, anywhere. The font appears to be (or is very similar to) one called Source Sans Pro. That's one I'm not familiar with and have never used, but it's better than Calibri.

My typo - Verdana - corrected. I have no dog i'm this hunt - just reporting what was presented to the committee.

Cutting and pasting from the ICC codes on line it tells me the font is Source Sans Pro.

I haven't seen a hardcopy in several editions actually.

 

[klarenbeek]

The change that I really don't like is they got rid of the bars and arrows in the margins showing where changes were made. Instead, you get a QR code at the beginning of each major section to scan, and it downloads the digital version of that section with the changes in blue. Its really hard to tell if a subsection was removed or moved to a different location. No arrow to indicate a removal.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The change that I really don't like is they got rid of the bars and arrows in the margins showing where changes were made. Instead, you get a QR code at the beginning of each major section to scan, and it downloads the digital version of that section with the changes in blue. Its really hard to tell if a subsection was removed or moved to a different location. No arrow to indicate a removal.

I agree. This is another example of adopting gee-whiz technology just because we can, not because it makes any sense. There's an old saying: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of feeble minds." Having hyperlinks in digital codes is okay, I guess, but putting QR codes in the printed code books just slows things down. If I'm looking in the printed book, I'm just looking for what the code actually says, and it's not useful for me to have to pull out a cell phone or a tablet and scan a QR code to access more information than I need or want to know. And what if what I have is a tablet that doesn't have an Internet connection?

The problem is that the young whiz kids at the ICC are promoting a consistent appearance between/among the digital codes, the on-line codes, and the printed books. And that "foolish consistency" doesn't make sense.

 

[jar546]

The problem is that the young whiz kids at the ICC are promoting a consistent appearance between/among the digital codes, the on-line codes, and the printed books. And that "foolish consistency" doesn't make sense.

Although I understand the frustration, this is the direction things are going, and honestly, it’s for good reason. There are always mid-cycle errata and even full changes to the code. That’s why the online versions are more reliable. I’ve pulled a printed codebook off the shelf, read the language, and later found out it had been changed. That just happened to me on a CIPP job that was under scrutiny.

As convenient as paper is, relying on it means you risk being wrong, especially if you’re not cross-referencing the digital version. I get that not every job site has internet or cell coverage, but in those cases, bring the question back to the office, where you can verify it. That’s better than giving out a bad interpretation in the field based on outdated information.

I’ve also never liked having loose errata pages jammed into books. It’s clunky, messy, and easy to overlook. At least with the digital format, what you’re seeing is current.

 

[Sifu]

Back in my building days I worked in a state with its own code. We had the big books. Periodically (I can't remember if it was a set frequency or as needed) I would receive a packet of new pages (books were 3-ring binders). They were blue to highlight that they were replacements to the original text. By the time the 3 year cycle was over I would estimate 10% or more pages in the book were blue. It puzzled me then and continues today why seemingly so many errors and changes occurred. I get urgent needs for occasional errors, but I tend to think that if you have years to work on it you should largely have to live with it until next time. In their defense they used an amended ICC code as baseline (this was the first IRC, so I'll cut a little slack), so if ICC made errors then they projected, but also kind of seems like the state had a 2nd shot to check and edit before they published.

I personally liked the blue pages except when I had to insert 50 of them at a time. I could always tell when an inspector had a book if they weren't keeping up on the updates...of course the opposite held true as well. This was the old days, very few inspectors brought books. And of course, even fewer builders had them.

But back on topic, our workforce is changing, as well as the politicians, and they are as uncomfortable with paper as I am with a computer. It is a reality. Plus if we weren't all vacationing somewhere in the ether, we wouldn't have this forum. So I'll take what they give me until I can't take it anymore, then pass the torch to the nearest 12-year old.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Although I understand the frustration, this is the direction things are going, and honestly, it’s for good reason. There are always mid-cycle errata and even full changes to the code. That’s why the online versions are more reliable. I’ve pulled a printed codebook off the shelf, read the language, and later found out it had been changed. That just happened to me on a CIPP job that was under scrutiny.

Yes, and no. As I have commented previously, when this state adopts a new code, we adopt by statute a specific edition and printing of those I-Codes we adopt (we don't adopt everything the ICC spews out). That means errata have no force in this state unless subsequently adopted by the legislature by public act -- and that never happens. In fact, having the digital codes constantly updated is not a convenience for us, it's a land mine.

I wonder how many other jurisdictions adopt new codes by specific printing.

 

[Sifu]

Yes, and no. As I have commented previously, when this state adopts a new code, we adopt by statute a specific edition and printing of those I-Codes we adopt (we don't adopt everything the ICC spews out). That means errata have no force in this state unless subsequently adopted by the legislature by public act -- and that never happens. In fact, having the digital codes constantly updated is not a convenience for us, it's a land mine.

I wonder how many other jurisdictions adopt new codes by specific printing.

Most that I deal with adopt by edition, make a few amendments and call it a day. But I wonder if an errata once published then becomes de-facto part of the adopted edition. Several times I have found either myself or a DP citing or designing to a requirement that has been subsequently revised between editions.

 

[jar546]

Yes, and no. As I have commented previously, when this state adopts a new code, we adopt by statute a specific edition and printing of those I-Codes we adopt (we don't adopt everything the ICC spews out). That means errata have no force in this state unless subsequently adopted by the legislature by public act -- and that never happens. In fact, having the digital codes constantly updated is not a convenience for us, it's a land mine.

I wonder how many other jurisdictions adopt new codes by specific printing.

Let’s clear this up with the actual language from the Connecticut State Building Code:

“Pursuant to section 29‑252 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the following national model codes, as amended herein, are adopted…” (2022 Connecticut State Building Code)

That means Connecticut adopts the ICC codes with its own amendments, not a frozen version based on a specific ICC print date. The State publishes its own version, which already includes errata, like Errata 1 issued April 12, 2023. If your position were correct, that errata would be unenforceable, yet it was issued by the State for that very purpose. The State Building Inspector is authorized to interpret and correct the code under CGS section 29‑252, and does so regularly.

If you’re claiming that Connecticut enforces the code exactly as printed on a certain date, then you need to show where it says that. Because everything I’ve cited says the opposite. Connecticut doesn’t freeze the code in time. It maintains and corrects it as needed to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

 

[Joe.B]

Our state laws specify that a project is only required to comply with the codes in effect at the time of application. Do your laws have something similar?

When we get the state published (therefore required) supplements we still have to keep the original pages. If the project was applied for in the first half of the cycle, that's what they have to follow. We had some crazy mid-cycle amendments this time, mostly revolving around EVCS minimums.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Let’s clear this up with the actual language from the Connecticut State Building Code:


That means Connecticut adopts the ICC codes with its own amendments, not a frozen version based on a specific ICC print date. The State publishes its own version, which already includes errata, like Errata 1 issued April 12, 2023. If your position were correct, that errata would be unenforceable, yet it was issued by the State for that very purpose. The State Building Inspector is authorized to interpret and correct the code under CGS section 29‑252, and does so regularly.

If you’re claiming that Connecticut enforces the code exactly as printed on a certain date, then you need to show where it says that. Because everything I’ve cited says the opposite. Connecticut doesn’t freeze the code in time. It maintains and corrects it as needed to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

No.

I am intimately familiar with the code adoption process in Connecticut. I was a founding member and I am a former chair of the AIA Connecticut Building Codes and Regulations Commission. I follow the code adoption process closely. You are citing a code reference to the statute that basically says the Codes and Standards Committee (of the State, not the AIA Commission) shall adopt a code, yada, yada. What you are overlooking is that the adoption of a new code by the Codes and Standards Committee cannot proceed until the legislature has reviewed and approved the codes proposed for adoption -- with all amendments (Connecticut or ICC). Once approved, the code IS locked in time, unless and until Codes and Standards goes through a formal revision process and has the further amendments blessed by the Legislative Review Committee.

The official version of the IBC portion of the 2022 Connecticut State Building Code specifically includes Erratum No. 1 -- no other errata are in force in Connecticut.



The State Building Inspector periodically warns us about NOT using unauthorized code sources (such as UpCodes) or any other sources for code language when citing violations, because if there is any difference between an outside source and the official, printed Connecticut version -- the official version prevails. Going into court using any other source is likely to result in embarrassment. My former employer and I ran into this a number of years ago when researching a code issue. We came up with two versions of the same code section. Turned out that one of us had the first printing and one of us had the second (or third?) printing, and that section had been changed ("corrected"). Digging deeper, we found that the first printing was what had been approved by the Legislative Review Committee, so that was what we had to cite.

No errata have any force in Connecticut unless and until formally adopted by the Codes and Standards Committee, with approval from the Legislative Review Committee.