• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Adoption of 1927 UBC?

J

james245

REGISTERED
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
18
Location
Florida
I am working on a paper that discusses (in part) certain historic building codes, and was trying to find some additional information re: adoption of the 1927 UBC. If possible, it would be great to have an idea of the total number of cities/jurisdictions that had adopted it within say five to ten years of it being published. I don't really need anything more specific than that.

I was able to find the following information, but was hoping to maybe find one source with a more general statement:

- Livermore, CA (1928) - http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/6075/
- Tucson, AZ (1928) - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/codes-ordinances/CODES_HISTORY.pdf
- San Jose, CA (1928) - http://www.sanjoseca.gov/documentcenter/view/831
- Tustin, CA (1929) - http://econnect.tustinca.org/Weblink8/0/doc/148036/Page21.aspx
- Portland/Eugene/Salem, OR (1927) - http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/projects/rvs/ofr-o-07-02-snaa-onscreen.pdf

For example, if you look at a source such as this (http://buildingcoderesourcelibrary.com/Fire-Protection-History-Part-187.00.pdf), it reports that, as of May 1918, The National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU) estimated that only “about eight or nine” cities had “actually adopted the… building code” (that is, the 1905 NBFU).

For what it's worth, I did also send an email to ICC awhile back but never did receive a response from them, not that I expected to.

Thanks in advance for your help. It is appreciated.
 
Just a bit of building code irony, the first UBC was enacted during the ICBO conference held in Phoenix, Arizona in October 1927, but the City of Phoenix did not adopt the UBC until over 70 years later when they finally adopted the 1997 edition. Up until then then they used their own home-grown building code.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and this was true of many cities. I'm looking at my 1901 City of LA copy. LA County didn't have a code until 1956!
James, you should also note that the SBC and the other regional code were predominate east of the Mississippi.
 
Yeah... I am aware of the different regional codes that existed prior to the IBC.

Even to this day, when looking at the latest ICC codes, you still have a hodgepodge of adoptions throughout the US. ICC appears to tout how widespread their code is, even referring to it as an "international" code, when it is still far from what is implied by the name. Collectively, it is hardly a "national" code, let alone an "international" code. The name is more of an aspiration than a reality.

The adoption maps here (https://cdn-web.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/Code_Adoption_Maps.pdf) make no mention of what edition/version of the code a given state is using (many use older versions), and actually even imply that they are referring to the latest edition of the codes (note the picture of the cover of the code book in question, to the left of each of the maps). This matrix (https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/State-Local-Code-Charts.pdf) gives a better picture of the real story. Note first the number of white blanks and second, even when a blank is filled in, how many of them are actually the latest edition of the code?

Even for the blanks that are filled in, note how many "L"s there are. These are not statewide adoptions; rather, they represent "local government" adoptions. Limitations on adoption are another key point that is not typically emphasized. For example, while 2012 IBC may be "effective statewide" in Florida (yep... we're not using the latest version either), compare the individual chapters of the state code to their counterparts in the corresponding IBC code. Chapter 1 of the Florida code contains many sections that are "reserved" (http://floridabuilding2.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/2014_Florida/Building Code/Chapter 1.html), or basically portions of the model IBC document that are not incorporated. This is the case in many other chapters as well. So, yeah... we're using the 2012 IBC. It's just not the same 2012 IBC that others may be using.
 
Actually, versions of the IBC are adopted internationally. For example, Saudi Arabia has adopted the 2003 IBC with amendments.

With states' rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution, there will never be a truly national building code, let alone an international building code. The intent is to have a model code that can serve jurisdictions internationally, which, as I have shown, has occurred.

Although various editions are adopted across the country, it is still much easier to design projects in New York, Los Angeles, and Miami when the adopted codes are based on the IBC rather than the NBC, UBC, and SBC, respectively. Prior to the publication of the IBC and the creation of the ICC, the model code organizations at the time agreed to restructure their respective codes in the early 1990s so that the chapters were consistent from one code to the next, even though the content within the chapters varied from model code to model code.
 
Sorry I didn't see this thread until now.
The city of Pasadena, CA adopted the 1927 UBC and called it the "Pasadena Building Code". I once saw a copy of it at the Pasadena Public Library.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top