• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Is the Increasing Complexity of Building Codes Making Construction Safer or Just More Expensive?

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
11,055
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
On one hand, there are arguments that modern building codes have significantly improved safety and resilience, reducing the risks from fires, natural disasters, and structural failures. On the other hand, some contend that these regulations contribute to skyrocketing construction costs, which can have downstream impacts like higher housing prices.
 
What is the value of a human life? Building codes implicitly assign a value to human life and other societal goals.

I do not believe that building codes are the primary driver of increased cost.

In the context of these "complex" codes you can often design a code compliant building that does not make use of most of the complexity. On the other hand this "complexity" can often be used to create a code compliant building while producing a design that avoids the simplifying decisions associated with the supposedly simpler design.
 
Modern meaning the last 100 years yes....modern meaning the last 20...Enh...Most of the stuff was already there, we are just detailing it more or enforcing it more...With the exception being the NEC...
 
I agree with that statement.
In a direct sense...yes, it is not the code...The wrinkle comes in when a code item is wrong on the plans, and gets missed on review, and the contractor doesn't catch it in the field, at some point it gets real expensive to fix and it is a "code" issue.....It is the lack of the people that should "know the code" that really makes it expensive....Case in point, I just heard about a brand new funeral home in CT that got built and CO'd without the sprinklers it should have had and now someone is making an issue out of it....What is that going to cost?
 
In my opinion and contrary to popular belief, the rising cost of new construction isn't primarily driven by evolving building codes, but rather by increases in contractor profit margins, labor, and material costs. Blaming building codes serves as a convenient scapegoat for the homebuilder community, allowing them to lobby for relaxed regulations. While this may increase their profits, it rarely translates to more affordable housing for consumers
 
While it's easy to point fingers at building codes for escalating construction costs, it's crucial to recognize the influence of consumer preferences. Homebuyers are increasingly demanding oversized homes and luxurious amenities—from marble floors and countertops to home gyms and high-end, imported fixtures. These extravagances significantly drive up costs. It's disingenuous to criticize an $800 investment in AFCI breakers, designed to enhance safety, while overlooking a $12,000 expenditure on a lavish kitchen island.
 
but rather by increases in contractor profit margins, labor, and material costs.
From the raw land sale, plus the lot sale to the contractor, plus the sale of the home to the new homeowner, when you add all the realtor fees it will be about 20% added to the price of the sale to the homeowner. Same as with all products, if you can't eliminate the middleman to get your product to the market then their fees are built into the final retail price of the product.

When we started taking credit cards, we added 3% to the existing permit fees to offset the cost of using credit cards.

It does not matter what the cost of the home is to build, it will sell for what the market says people are willing to pay to buy it.
 
On one hand, there are arguments that modern building codes have significantly improved safety and resilience, reducing the risks from fires, natural disasters, and structural failures. On the other hand, some contend that these regulations contribute to skyrocketing construction costs, which can have downstream impacts like higher housing prices.
I would say yes to both increased safety, and cost. But buildings are safer than ever before.

Building codes are a part of it, but the larger reason for cost increases is consumer demand. Huge houses full of fancy things are expensive.

Material costs right now are out of control as well.
 
It's disingenuous to criticize an $800 investment in AFCI breakers, designed to enhance safety, while overlooking a $12,000 expenditure on a lavish kitchen island.
While I certainly agree with you to an extent do many of the new code requirements like the one you mentioned actually effect safety or are they just lining manufacturers pockets? There are certainly many places where GFICs and AFCI devices are helpful the never ending increasing places they are Req is getting ridiculous. I don't think anyone can defend all of the places they are not Req and I from a belief that some of the places that are being debated for their requirement in the next code cycle such as refrigerators etc. are terrible ideas.
 
Last edited:
Thinking on the original post, I’m wondering if there’s an analogy to the medical profession, where there were game-changing pharmaceuticals and medical procedures developed in the last century, but the more recent drugs have become insanely expensive to develop with only marginal improvements in outcomes.
 
Last edited:
I heard contractors/developers say that codes are making housing unaffordable for people for years. My response was that I will believe when I stop seeing high end finishes in almost every house I inspect.

From my perspective, housing became unaffordable when people started to believe that they NEEDED the high end finishes they see on TV.
 
We skipped the 2015 code cycle adoption, so we were under the 2012 for over 7 years. We have master plans for SFR's and within 9 months we saw the same model house valuation listed on the permit application rise over $32,000.00 with no code changes.
 
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-building-housing-series/

There are multiple dimensions to the costs of development, many of which have been rising in recent years:

Land Values: From 2000 to 2016, land pricing in the United States climbed by 76 percent—almost twice the rate of inflation. Increases were even steeper in coastal California metro areas, with prices more than doubling in San Francisco and almost tripling in Los Angeles over that same period.

Construction Costs: Over the course of 2017 alone, the national single-family and multifamily construction price indexes increased by 5.6 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively, compared to an average annual increase of 2.7 percent between 1990 and 2000. In that year, New York, San Francisco, San Jose/Silicon Valley, and Oakland ranked among the most expensive construction markets.

Materials and Labor: Core elements driving construction costs include the price of materials and the cost of labor, both of which have also risen in recent years. In 2017, construction materials saw a 4.4 percent price increase, due in large part to escalating cement, steel, and lumber costs. At the same time, wages among construction workers increased 2.6 percent. Relatively low unemployment among construction workers (5.3 percent), may have also contributed to a national construction backlog that reached nine months total in 2017, up four percent since 2016. The western region of the United States saw the largest increase in the construction backlog (13 percent) over the past year.

Development Fees: Development fees refer to the wide range of costs that cities have the authority to charge new housing construction projects throughout the planning and building process. Cities often rely on development fees to fund the provision of city services specific to the building of new housing, like the staff time spent on permitting, inspections, and utility connections. A city may also choose to charge “impact” fees to offset the costs of new development borne by the broader community (e.g., the need for infrastructure expansions to support additional traffic or increased use of water and sewer lines) or to pay for other public benefits (e.g., park access or set asides for new affordable housing development).

These fees, especially impact fees, can be substantial, and they are particularly high in California. In 2015, average impact fees in the state were $23,455 for a single-family home and $19,558 for a multifamily unit—almost three times the national average. Because of how significantly they affect the overall cost of a project, these fees are often passed along to buyers in the form of higher home prices, especially in high demand markets, or can increase the amount of subsidy needed to build affordable housing units. Jurisdictions may also extract additional project-specific fees or requirements on top of codified development fees, which can also add significant additional costs.

Permitting and Development Timelines: The permitting and entitlement process, which is particularly complex in California, can extend development timelines, often unpredictably. Delays in processing or approval timelines can greatly increase the cost of development. The role of processing delays in driving up housing costs has garnered attention at the national level. The Obama Administration identified the negative impact of lengthy bureaucratic procedures on housing costs, recommending streamlining processes and allowing by-right development on priority projects to limit costs.

Regulatory Requirements: Local land use regulations—such as environmental regulations or minimum parking requirements—can also drive up the costs of development and lead to higher house prices. Green building standards in Los Angeles, for example, have increased construction costs by 10.8 percent. While many of these regulations promote public benefits—such as decreased energy use or water consumption—they are often layered on top of one another without a detailed analysis of their impact on the affordability of housing.

Affordable Housing Costs: The cost of building a 100-unit affordable project in California increased from $265,000 per unit in 2000 to almost $425,000 in 2016. The same trends that increase costs for market-rate housing (such as land pricing, construction costs, and regulation) impact affordable housing. In addition, affordable projects are often subject to increased local scrutiny, further inflating costs. A 2014 study found that local government design requirements for affordable housing added an average of seven percent in total costs, and that community opposition (measured by holding four or more community meetings) increased expenses by five percent.

It is clear that not just one element of the development process, but each step along the way influences the cost of building housing, especially in high-demand markets with the steepest affordability challenges. Yet it is not always so clear what is driving the growing expenses within each cost component. Nor are the costs and the benefits of layering additional public policy goals onto housing always explicitly weighed or understood. We need better data to understand and effectively respond to the complex dynamics that affect the costs and feasibility of building housing, especially when it comes to using scarce public subsidy to build affordable units.
 
Land Values: From 2000 to 2016, land pricing in the United States climbed by 76 percent—almost twice the rate of inflation. Increases were even steeper in coastal California metro areas, with prices more than doubling in San Francisco and almost tripling in Los Angeles over that same period.
When it comes to the price of property, I hear a similar complaint from developers that engineering/planning requirements are to blame for the costs of lots increasing. I often wonder how much the costs are increasing due to increasing requirements, and how much is just the market influence.
 
When it comes to the price of property, I hear a similar complaint from developers that engineering/planning requirements are to blame for the costs of lots increasing. I often wonder how much the costs are increasing due to increasing requirements, and how much is just the market influence.
As many municipalities grow, the residential areas expand into more marginal land. Riparian, steep slope, wildfire interface, poor soils, etc. which can require engineering.

Also, as houses get larger and more open, spans and loads increase, often triggering the requirement for engineering.
 
When it comes to the price of property, I hear a similar complaint from developers that engineering/planning requirements are to blame for the costs of lots increasing. I often wonder how much the costs are increasing due to increasing requirements, and how much is just the market influence.
The full series on housing production costs is here:
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/the-cost-of-building-housing-series/

Development fees alone account for at least 18% of the cost of a dwelling in some California cities:

1695158890539.png
 
Every apartment I've ever lived in: one bathroom, laundry was a coin operated community laundry or go to a laundromat.
Or first house: 900 SF split foyer, one bathroom with the kitchen plumbing in the same wall, all utilities in the lower level right below it, single straight roofline, single stall garage, very basic finishes.

Every new apartment I inspect today: Laundry in each apartment, if there's two or more bedrooms there's two bathrooms.
Every "starter" home I inspect today: 1100 or more SF, sometimes (rare) two, usually three stall garage. Almost all custom rooflines with multiple ridges and valleys. Two bathrooms is the rule, only one is the very rare exception.

So what's driving up the cost of affordable housing???
 
Ah, my dear friends, it appears we've taken an intriguing detour down a labyrinthine rabbit hole, wouldn't you say? You see, we started this conversation aiming to dissect the intricacies of building codes, a subject as essential to contractors as a concerto is to a virtuoso. Yet, here we find ourselves, neck-deep in talk of impact fees and development fees—worthy subjects, no doubt, but entirely misplaced in our current tête-à-tête.

You see, these fees are the purview of separate departments, often presided over by the county, not the quaint confines of the municipality. It's akin to discussing Bordeaux wine in a summit on geopolitics—entertaining but not precisely on point.

If your desire is to erect a gleaming suburban paradise in the pastoral expanses outside our city's limits, be prepared to pay the piper when it comes to infrastructure. Ah, but that's a topic for another time, another place, perhaps another thread altogether—one more attuned to questions of urban density and the architectural alchemy of building skyward, rather than sprawling outward like a metastasizing parking lot. Shall we redirect our focus, then?
 
Top