Reference

llllffilllN^i,,^ STAN ° & TECH

NBS

Publications

A11105 T77TS1

NBS TECHNICAL NOTE 998

Impact of Building Regulations

on Rehabilitation —

Status and Technical Needs

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/ National Bureau of Standards
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards 1 was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The

Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and

facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is performed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory,

and the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

Agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical

services to users in the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems in the public interest; conducts research in engineering and applied science

in support of objectives in these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary

disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes engineering standards and code changes; develops and

proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer

results of its research to the utlimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal Agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal Agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following divisions:

Systems and Software — Computer Systems Engineering — Information Technology.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

J Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, Colorado, 80303.

The National Bureau of Standards was reorganized, effective April 9, 1978.
Impact of Building Regulations on Rehabilitation

Status and Technical Needs

«ATK>»AL «!«*«

or »TAN»ABDS

James G. Gross um»an

James H. Pielert JUL 2 1981

Patrick W. Cooke

Clc

MS

Building Economics and Regulatory Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

^°F

*o.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Jordan J Baruch, Assistant Secretary tor Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued May 1979
National Bureau of Standards Technical Note 998

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Tech. Note. 998, 50 pages (May 1979) CODEN: NBTNAE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1979

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 003-003-02062-1 Price $2.30

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following

persons who contributed to the preparation of this report.

- Melvyn Green, a consulting engineer from El Segundo,

California, who provided background information on the

needs of the model building code organizations; and

- William Plouffe, an industry consultant and President of

Charleswater Associates, Inc., Clearwater, Florida, who

provided summary information on the experiences of State

and local regulatory agencies in dealing with building

rehabilitation projects.

The authors also wish to recognize the invaluable assistance of

Mrs. Mary M. Chaney for typing the manuscript.

111
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ±±±

ABSTRACT vi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Impact of Building Regulations on Rehabilitation .... 1

1.2 Regulations Relative to Building Construction and

Maintenance 5

1.3 Status of Previously Developed Building

Rehabilitation Codes 7

2. REVIEW OF SOME RECENT STUDIES RELATIVE TO THE IMPACT OF

BUILDING REGULATIONS ON REHABILITATION 9

2.1 "Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards

for Needs of Existing Buildings"

by Baird Smith 9

2.2 "Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation" ,

,

by Robert J. Kapsch

2.3 "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic

Structures"

by Melvyn Green and Patrick Cooke 14

2.4 "Urban Housing Rehabilitation in the United States"

by Nathaniel Rogg 16

2.5 "New Approaches to Urban Housing"

by U.S. League of Savings Associations 18

2.6 "An Investigation of Regulatory Barriers to the Re-Use

of Existing Buildings"

by Massachusetts Institute of Technology 19

2.7 "Assessment of Current Building Regulatory Methods As

Applied to the Needs of Historic Preservation Projects"

by National Trust for Historic Preservation 21

3. STUDY OF REGULATORY NEEDS FOR BUILDING REHABILITATION ... 23

3.1 Questions Addressed 23

3.2 Model Building Code Study 24

3.3 State and Major City Study 25

3.4 Snythesis of Study Results 29

iv
PAGE

4. REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 33

4.1 Technical Basis for Regulations and an Improved

Regulatory Process 33

4.2 Development of New Technology and Evaluation Tools ... 35

4.3 Development of Responsive and Cost-Ef f ective

Decision Tools 37

5. SUMMARY 38

REFERENCES 39

APPENDICES 41
Abstract

This report presents the results of a study of the ( impact of

regulations on building rehabilitation and includes a discussion of

the activities of the Building Rehabilitation Technology Group of the

Center for Building Technology. Particular activities discussed relative to existing buildings include: (a) development of the technical

bases for regulations and an improved regulatory process, (b) development of new technology and evaluation tools, and (c) development of

responsive and cost-effective decision tools. A new code concept is

outlined which could be a replacement for the "25-50 percent" rule

presently in codes for new construction. This rule often controls the

amount of work that may be required in the rehabilitation of existing

buildings. The status of existing code documents for building

rehabilitation is provided along with an overview of other publications

which discuss the impact of building regulations on rehabilitation.

Key Words: Building code; building research; code administration;

existing buildings; model codes; preservation; regulation;

rehabilitation; renovation.

VI
1 . Introduction

Throughout the United States, increasing concern is being expressed for

the need to more fully utilize the existing building stock. This concern is motivated by resource shortages and the increasing cost of

most materials and products used in the construction of new buildings.

Additionally, the costs of land, utilities and financing have added

significantly to these higher costs. In the aggregate, these costs

have risen much more rapidly than the general cost of living in recent

years. The effects contribute to the fact that the new construction

sector, even in good years, does not provide for the Nation's building

needs. Also, more than one-half of the 71 million homes in the United

States are 25 years old or older. As recently as 1973, 18 percent of

the dwelling units were identified as having one or more serious

deficiencies.

In the formulation of new national goals, President Carter and the

Congress have called for greatly increased emphasis on rehabilitation

of existing housing to rebuild the Nation's neighborhoods. Existing

buildings and neighborhoods are viewed as contributing unique amenities

that are not available through new construction. These amenities

include architectural features, site characteristics and other unifying

features which provide "roots" for an increasingly "rootless" America.

1.1 Impact of Building Regulations on Rehabilitation

There are many forces at work which potentially impede the full

utilization of existing buildings. Market forces, financial considerations, governmental policy, industry structure, and regulatory

activities are but a few. The main thrust of this report deals with a programmatic strategy for mitigating those adverse policies and

practices that are present in our building regulatory processes which

discriminate against the rehabilitation of existing buildings.

The prime regulatory avenue for assuring the minimum requirements for

public health and safety in new building construction is the building

code. However, building regulations specifically prepared to address

the upgrading of existing buildings to acceptable levels of health,

safety and serviceability currently do not exist. This is due, at

least to some degree, to a lack of technical data and knowledge relative

to existing buildings. Building codes and their enforcement have been

identified as sources of constraint by developers, building owners,

housing officials, and others, based on experience with projects

involving the recycling of entire neighborhoods as well as rehabilitation

of single buildings. The reasons cited include:
1. Inflexible requirements for compliance with current codes

increase costs . Most codes contain provisions, variously

worded, requiring that a building's conformance with the

requirements of a currently enforced building code for new construction should increase in relation to the dollar amount

of rehabilitation planned. An example is the requirement

generally known as the "25-50 percent rule." Appendix A

contains these provisions from the nationally recognized model

building codes and Figure 1 depicts the general application of

the rule. The application of these administrative provisions

is based on the following economic hierarchy, which is itself

awkward and difficult to enforce in actual practice:

o the alteration must be restored to at least its original

condition for a renovation which costs less than 25 percent

of the value 1 of the building, or

o the alteration must comply with the building code for new

structures when the cost is between 25 and 50 percent of

the building's value, or

o the entire building must comply with the building code for

new construction when alterations exceed 50 percent of the

building's value.

These provisions are difficult to enforce at the local level,

and may have negative effects on both public safety and the

quantity and quality of the building stock. This is because

there is a considerable period of time during which a building

is not worth the expense of rehabilitation under current codes

for new buildings but is not sufficiently hazardous to justify

condemnation and demolition. Application of such administrative provisions merely extends the life of many nonconforming

buildings in urban areas which then contribute to many of the

social and economic ills of our society. Moreover, building

deterioration is typically not confined to an individual

structure; it has an area-wide effect with accompanying social,

political, and economic problems, especially in cities.

^he definition of "value" is not standardized. It has been interpreted

as assessed value, market value, or replacement cost.
cdS _ CD

CD ZD

—l CO

en COo

CO

IS

CD CD

CD CD

CD CD B °

_J cc — CO

OQ LU ! i Lu m £

4JU CO CD

CQ <

LU ^

J—

—1

CD

CO 1—< Z o ^ CD

a)

CO

©

CD

CD CD

1— « *~ ^^ c CO

1—<

CC

LU

CD

LU

QC

CD

CD

DC

©

CD

CO <

CO

LU

GC

CO CO

CD

CD

CD *

^" o c o 03

a>u LO -a 0) CVJ +f* a. CO fflft o V ©

CO 3 mCVI S o

Z3

a—

+-» oc

as GO o

fc+N

w

CD CD o

4—i a

CO

CD

05 o a<

CO CD

i-

•4—

0)

v.3

as "co O) o > u. ^»as 4—o

LU CD CD

<X. CO

CQ
2

.

Present codes and standards may not address the types of

construction represented in many older buildings . Approved

construction assemblies may be dropped from a building code or reference standard, not because they are undesirable but because

they are no longer part of the current catalog of construction

materials and techniques. Construction elements of vintage

structures may, in fact, meet or even exceed performance levels

provided by current construction. Once a building assembly or construction technique is deleted from the code, it may be

disapproved for continued use in rehabilitation, even though

it meets the intent, but not the letter, of the code. This

situation occurs frequently in the area of fire resistance.

Fire testing of construction assemblies has been performed in

essentially the same way for many years. However, as materials

become obsolete (e.g., wood lath) they cease to be listed in

many new code editions. Unless such assemblies have deteriorated,

there is no reason to believe that they will not perform as previously rated and approved for use.

3. Building codes apply to new construction and are designed for

that purpose . The language and format of building codes for

new buildings tend to delineate and model the construction

process with appropriate regulatory controls; i.e., a synthesis

process, as contrasted to the analytic process needed in building

rehabilitation. These codes tend to be less effective, or even inappropriate, when applied to the analysis process required to

determine rehabilitation needs of existing structures.

4. Nature of current codes limits innovative solutions . Although

all the model building codes and most of the codified documents

based on these models contain a clause stating that alternate

materials and methods of construction are not excluded from

consideration, the majority of building officials hesitate to

approve innovative systems because they often lack a technical

basis upon which to make such decisions with regard to safety,

health, level of performance, etc. Consideration must be given

to the potential legal liability which building officials may

be assuming when innovative systems are approved without

adequate technical guidance or regulatory precedence of acceptance,

5. Code enforcement process for existing buildings differs from

that for new buildings . Some enforcement agencies have

established ad hoc processes to administer and enforce the code

requirements for new buildings to existing building additions

and alterations. Many local agencies attempt to force rehabilitation projects into a mold established for new building

construction, thus increasing the difficulty of developing

acceptable rehabilitation design solutions in the field.
These frequently imposed regulatory barriers make building rehabilitation

projects expensive, difficult, and in some cases impossible. This

study of needs and issues concerning building codes and rehabilitation

was initiated in order to identify the ways in which the National Bureau

of Standards' Center for Building Technology (CBT) can contribute to the

reduction or elimination of undesirable regulatory constraints to

building rehabilitation.

1.2 Regulations Relative to Building Construction and Maintenance

Governmental regulation of building construction is a consequence

arising from the experience of centuries, in all civilized lands, of

tragedies brought about by fire, collapse and panic. The primary intent

of building regulations is to provide reasonable controls for the

construction, use and occupancy of buildings. Properly written codes

contain provisions requiring that buildings and structures be designed,

erected and maintained in a manner which reduces risk to human life and

safety to an acceptable level.

While the United States Constitution gives the authority for building

regulation as one of the police powers to the States, the enactment,

administration, and enforcement of building codes and regulations

traditionally have been a function of local government. However, there

have been an increasing number of programs and activities at both the

State and Federal levels of government which have a direct impact on building codes and the regulation of various forms of building construction. These range from the adoption of various types of statewide

building regulatory programs in a number of States to the promulgation

of mandatory Federal Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards.

Despite developments at the State level toward code uniformity within

individual States and advances in the performance approach for establishing building requirements, the form and content of building

regulations, as well as the attendant administration and enforcement

activities, vary widely among municipalities and States. [1]

Today there are approximately 14,000 individual communities in the

United States issuing building permits on the basis of authorizing

construction within their defined boundaries. Many of these jurisdictions have rules and regulations related to buildings which may or may

not be comprehensive building codes covering all aspects of construction

and occupancy. Actually, some jurisdictions are using only a fire

prevention code to regulate building construction, while others have no codes at all.

^References are listed at the end of report.
The typical building code regulates the construction, alteration,

maintenance, repair and demolition of buildings and structures. It may

or may not regulate the installation and maintenance of mechanical

systems and equipment within or appurtenant to buildings and structures.

Many experts look upon the entire complex of regulatory codes, including

electrical, plumbing, heating, boilers, pressure vessels, air pollution,

air-conditioning, refrigeration, elevators, and flammable liquids as integral parts of the comprehensive building code.

Except for some of the large cities and a few States that develop their

own, drafting of building codes in the United States is generally

accomplished by the model code organizations. The National Building

Code [2] is prepared by engineers of the American Insurance Association

with assistance from many sources. Three other model code organizations

each have regional spheres of influence. Their membership is comprised

of local and State government code enforcement officials, industry

representatives, and construction and design professionals. These

three code making bodies are:

BOCA - Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.

Homewood, Illinois

(Basic Building Code [3])

ICBO - International Conference of Building Officials

Whittier, California

(Uniform Building Code [4])

SBCC - Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc,

Birmingham, Alabama

(Standard Building Code [5])

Basically, housing codes are maintenance codes which also regulate the

environmental factors of residential buildings and, in the case of

rental property, the facilities that must be supplied by the landlord.

They are distinct and separate from building and other construction

codes. These differences are not generally appreciated nor well

understood by many who use the terms "housing" and "building" code

synonymously. Such interpretations fail to recognize that the principal

purpose of a building code is to require buildings to be designed and

constructed in such a way as to safely sustain the loads expected from

a specific type of occupancy and to be reasonably safe for such occu- pancy against fire and similar hazards. In contrast, the primary

intent of a housing code is to establish minimum standards essential to

maintaining dwellings safe, sanitary, and fit for human habitation.

Housing codes are also different from building and other construction

codes in that the latter codes are enforced primarily through a system

of building permits. These permits are granted after plans and
specifications have been submitted and evaluated. Field inspections

of the work are conducted during construction and prior to occupancy.

A governmental agency has control of the process through its authority

to issue and withhold the required permits for construction and

occupancy.

Primarily building and construction codes regulate how people build;

housing codes regulate how people live. Building and construction codes

are basically technical standards, dealing with inanimate objects. On

the other hand, because housing codes regulate how people may live,

there are important social, economic, cultural, and psychological

aspects which pertain not only to the basic requirements, but also to

the administration and application of the provisions of the code.

The enforcement process for housing codes varies from city to city.

The process is generally not rigid and inspectors exercise judgment in

the process. The model building code organizations develop model

housing codes which are adopted by many jurisdictions. These include

the Uniform Housing Code [6], the Standard Housing Code [7], and the

Basic Property Maintenance Code [8]. The first model housing code was developed by the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health,

Education and Welfare (HEW) [9] and was used as a basis for those

which followed.

1.3 Status of Previously Developed Building Rehabilitation Codes

To date, there have been only limited attempts to formulate code

provisions peculiar to rehabilitation needs. The following is a brief

discussion of three such documents which address the subject in a somewhat restricted manner.

1.3.1 Guidelines for HUD Rehabilitation Projects

Guidelines setting forth basic objectives and provisions specifically

related to building rehabilitation have been issued by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Housing Administration (HUD-FHA) for use under various HUD-FHA mortgage insurance programs

dealing with property rehabilitation. These HUD guidelines [10] con- tained in Handbook 4940.4 entitled "Minimum Design Standards for

Rehabilitation for Residential Properties" were orginally issued in

September 1973. Several additions (e.g., provisions for handicapped,

elderly, lead-based paint hazards and earthquake hazards) and certain

changes (e.g. , to fire protection and life safety provisions) were made

to the Handbook and incorporated in later versions.

The guidelines apply to the physical rehabilitation of existing

residential properties, from single family dwellings to large multistory,

elevator-type apartment buildings, in all HUD field office jurisdictions.
The guidelines do not relieve the property owner, project sponsor, nor

the builder of responsibility for complying with local ordinances, codes,

and other building regulations that may also be applicable. This is

because HUD's minimum design standards are intended to cover design and

occupancy considerations of neglected and run-down properties and focus

primarily on mortgage insurance considerations (e.g., increased marketability) . They are not fully intended to serve in the context of a building code (i.e., primarily health and safety aspects). The structure and format of the guidelines is such that the "minimum" requirements

are stated mostly in performance terms, with supplementary guides to

good practice contained in accompanying, but separate, sections.

1.3.2 Rehabilitation Guidelines Developed by Model Code Organizations

In another endeavor, BOCA developed a set of rehabilitation provisions

and published them under the title "Code Enforcement Guidelines for

Residential Rehabilitation" (First Edition, 1975) [11]. The studies

that formed the basis for these guidelines were conducted under a contract with HUD. Although published by BOCA, the other three model

code organizations cooperated in their development.

These "code enforcement guidelines" have not been widely adopted by

State and local governmental jurisdictions. The guidelines are intended

for only residential buildings and specifically exclude hotels, motels,

and other housing for transients. Even though the stated purpose of

the guidelines is for the physical rehabilitation of older residential

buildings with respect to safety and habitability considerations, many

of the significant provisions contained in the guidelines consistently

refer to the building code for new construction for the specific

requirements. Even though the guidelines address some of the needs of

existing neglected, run-down or unsafe buildings that are basically

structurally sound, strict enforcement of the provisions would work an undue economic hardship on many owners, developers and builders.

1 .3.3 Department of the Interior "Standards for Rehabilitation"

The Department of the Interior has issued a publication entitled "The

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines

for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings" [12] as a means of determining

if a rehabilitation project qualifies as a "certified rehabilitation"

pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1976. The publication contains

guidelines which are designed to help individual property owners formulate plans for the rehabilitation, preservation, and continued use of

old buildings. The guidelines pertain to buildings of all occupancy

and construction types, sizes, and materials. The format of the guidelines is such that those techniques, treatments, and methods that are consistent with the Department's rehabilitation criteria are listed in

8
a "recommended" column, with an adjacent column containing a list of

"not recommended" items that may adversely affect a building's

architectural and historic qualities.

2. Review of Some Recent Studies Relative to the Impact of Building

Regulations on Rehabilitation

This section of the report contains a summary of relevant studies

which discuss the impact of building regulations on rehabilitation.

2.1 "Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards for Needs

of Existing Buildings," by Baird Smith

"Preservation, Rehabilitation and the Building Regulatory Process" was

the theme of one of the sessions at the first major national Conference

on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process 3

. Baird Smith, a preservation consultant, presented a paper [13] at this

Conference which reported on the results of a National Bureau of

Standards contract investigation on the structure and format of

building standards for existing buildings.

This investigation attempted to identify and analyze the problems which

existing buildings face in code compliance. It reported that code

compliance causes, from the viewpoint of preservationists, the needless

destruction of architecturally and aesthetically important building

features, the unnecessary replacement of serviceable building materials

and systems, and apparently increases the cost of preservation and

rehabilitation projects.

According to Smith, the effect of code compliance on existing buildings

seems to stem from the following eight characteristics of the model

building codes:

1. The performance levels which a building must meet have risen

throughout this century.

2. New performance attributes have been added for which there are new building code requirements.

3 The First NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Research and Innovation

in the Building Regulatory Process was held in Providence, Rhode

Island, on September 21-22, 1976, in conjunction with the Ninth

Annual Meeting of the National Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS)

.
3. As new performance attributes were added to the model codes,

problems resulted.

4. The decision process of the model codes is applicable only to

new construction and does not lend itself to projects in

existing buildings.

5. The various prescriptive standards of the codes are based on modern materials and do not include information about older

materials

6. The various prescriptive standards are based on what might be

called standard modern building configurations.

7. Reference standards make it difficult to determine exactly what

is required.

8. Information which is included about older materials, specifically

fire endurance ratings, may not be an accurate indication of the

performance of the material.

With these problem areas and cause-effect relationships in mind, the

paper presented a concept, structure, and decision process for a possible new code or standard for use with existing buildings.

The decision process of the suggested new code judges the building

for its performance in eight performance attributes, not according to

the rigid prescriptive requirements of the existing model codes.

The process was conceived to relate directly to the conditions present

with existing buildings, conditions which differ markedly from those

present in new construction.

The suggested approach calls for a fully accurate evaluation of all

existing materials and systems through numerous standard on-site test

methods and through the inclusion of extensive information about the

physical properties of and performance data for old materials. This

evaluation would hopefully eliminate the needless replacement of

serviceable materials and, at the same time, provide an accurate picture

of the actual performance capabilities of existing buildings.

This evaluation procedure identifies a spin-off value of the suggested

new code. Just as the model codes aid designers in the design of new

buildings by fixing building size, configuration and structural

systems, the new code would provide a method for the designer to

accurately assess the condition of an existing building and determine

the amount of remedial work necessary to bring the building up to the

required performance levels.

10
Finally, the new code called for by Mr. Smith in his paper would

include sound, recognized methods for identifying and improving

deficient attribute performance. This improvement would be achieved

through remedial work, or the addition of technical trade-offs and

operational controls. These trade-offs would increase attribute

performance which would allow certain physical entities within the

attribute to be retained; for instance, an architecturally important

open wooden stair.

The entire decision process and concept presented in Mr. Smith's paper

is illustrated in Figure 2 of this report. The process includes

four stages. In the first stage, the designer chooses the occupancy

classification and varies the performance attributes and the physical

parameters of each. In the second stage, each of the physical parameters are identified, measured, and evaluated with the results carried

into the third stage. There the performance levels of the eight

performance attributes are determined by tabulating the values of the

individual parameters. In the fourth stage, through remedial work,

or the addition of technical trade-offs or operational controls,

deficient attribute performance can be improved. The intended results

are for all performance attributes to meet the required levels of

performance.

2.2 "Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation,"

by Robert J. Kapsch

In another paper [14] presented at the research conference,

Robert Kapsch, of the National Bureau of Standards' Center for

Building Technology, summarized the considerable growth of interest

in existing buildings and the difficulties such projects pose for the

building regulatory system. The paper undertook to clarify the

definitional problems with such related, but significantly different,

terms as "preservation," "restoration," "rehabilitation," and

"recycling/adaptive reuse" with respect to the actions and uses they

each imply for existing buildings.

In reporting the building regulatory response to the growing trend

toward the reuse, rehabilitation, and preservation of existing buildings, the paper traces the identified need for a building standard

specifically for existing building projects starting with the recom- mendations made by the Douglas Commission back in 1968 [15]. That

Commission recommended that model standards be developed for incorporation into local building codes with special reference to

rehabilitation. The Commission reported:

"There is widespread recognition among code experts

that current code standards, which are intended for new construction, should not be applied literally to

the alteration of existing buildings."

11
1Hi

III <-.2 B > a. QlUui u.-'o E O

ui < O<

a.

5UI2

0!"=:

u. -1 Ul c o

Ul

K

n1

1-

ALW

-OFF

TIONA OLS

a ui <oc 7 £ S££ uj a. 0.0

•^ « ri <azoo

111 CO

I-o S J 2

ina1W5 MiS 2 < r di (•)

V)

(10)5

ui >-; >i5

^asr

UiO<

cc

Ui - t5D III c

CDc

'5UJ

0) ooO

a>

Q>

to

to

a>ooco

35

"5

a> Q

CM

a>3 A ^tK. A jl tttk. ul fu.

12
The paper goes on to find that, although this recommendation was made

in 1968, little work has been done in this area, largely due to a lack of applicable building research and technical information. Among

the more recent developments addressed in this paper has been the

addition of historic preservation waiver clauses to the model building

codes. However, the existence of such waiver provisions may not be a feasible approach for the resolution of the complex problems presented.

The Kapsch paper makes other observations and conclusions:

o No final or definitive answer has yet been developed for the

problem of achieving contemporary levels of safety and health

in existing buildings.

o The general upgrading of building codes in the United States

continues today and includes the adoption of new code provisions

and standards for areas such as fire safety, structural safety,

physical safety and security, energy conservation, and others.

Although these new and generally higher levels of building regulation provide more safety and health for the building user, they

also provide a larger impact on preservation, restoration,

rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects.

o Modern building regulations are primarily written for new construction projects. These regulations contain prescriptive and

performance statements. Prescriptive statements specify the

allowable materials, combinations of materials, components,

assemblies, or configurations and dimensions that can be included

in the construction of that new building. These prescriptive

statements thus prescribe building solutions and are relatively

easy to meet in new construction projects since none of the building is yet existing. Yet for preservation and rehabilitation

projects, the building is existing and thus not amenable to the

application of prescriptive statements—although it may have to be

minimally or substantially modified to meet building code requirements. These same prescriptive statements, when thoughtlessly

applied to existing buildings, can needlessly add additional

project costs and destroy many of the essential architectural

features of the buildings. For example, the building code

prohibition, [16] "(on) the use of winders or circular stairways...

in stairways serving as required exits," and the related building

code requirement , "The minimum width of any stair serving as a means of egress shall not be less than forty-four (44) inches,

except that stairs serving an occupancy load for less than fifty

(50) people may be thirty-six (36) inches in width," may have a tremendous impact on the large number of old buildings that use circular stairways primarily or exclusively. In fact, what

usually has to be done in such buildings is to construct a new

13
structure adjacent to the existing building to house a new stairway

or to create a space within the existing building for the required

stairway.

2.3 "Survey of Building Code Provisions for Historic Structures,"

by Melvyn Green and Patrick Cooke

In order to better understand the conflicts between health and safety

objectives and historic preservation objectives, the National Bureau

of Standards sponsored a study in 1976 to determine what actions

regulatory bodies were taking with respect to preservation projects [17]

Responses for this study were solicited from:

o Delegates to the National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS)

o State Historic Preservation Officers

o Regulatory officials of the member cities of the Association of

Major City Building Officials (AMCBO)

o Model Building Codes (Basic Building Code, Standard Building

Code, Uniform Building Code)

o Other interested jurisdictions and organizations

This study revealed a growing adoption and use of:

o Historic preservation waiver clauses in building codes

o Administrative regulations included in historic district

legislation and similar regulations containing similar

provisions as the building code waiver clauses

Of the 47 State responses, 11 reported special code provisions in

effect, and five reported special administrative regulations. This

is particularly significant as 23 States now have mandatory or voluntary statewide building codes [1]

.

Of the 16 States reporting special code provisions or administrative

regulations for preservation, nine reported special boards to

regulate preservation. On many of these boards, the State Historic

Preservation Officer was represented. It is also significant to

note that the first such provision was adopted in 1971 by the State

of Alaska.

14
The survey indicated that, of the 24 Association of Major City

Building Officials city responses, seven reported special

code provisions in effect and eight reported special administrative

regulations

.

Perhaps most significantly, the survey also indicated that two of the

model building codes had adopted historic preservation building code

provisions, the Uniform Building Code and the Basic Building Code and

the third, the Standard Building Code, had a similar provision under

consideration. A fourth model building code, the National Building

Code, just recently added special provisions for existing buildings.

These model code survey results are significant as these model codes

serve as the technical basis for many, if not most, of the building

codes used in the United States. New provisions in the model building

codes are usually adopted by State and local jurisdictions.

The results of this study revealed the need for additional research

to resolve various technical problems and conflicts between preservation objectives and building codes. Among the areas considered

appropriate for further research were:

Implication of Legal Liability for Designers/Regulators :

o In the case of the codes, it is necessary to evaluate the

significance of individual code provisions since provisions for

life safety, structural safety, sanitation, electrical standards,

fire districts, and many others exist side-by-side without reference to individual necessity or importance. Some of these

provisions are absolutely essential to the safe operation of a building, others represent desirable levels of amenity which would

not endanger public health or safety if abrogated in special cases,

Where code provisions are abrogated, serious questions concerning

the designer's liability may arise. Further study of this problem

is necessary.

Historic Preservation Clauses :

o The effectiveness of existing historic preservation clauses and

codes should be evaluated in terms of their ability to facilitate

historic preservation and to provide an acceptable degree of

safety to the building's users.

Risk Analysis : Further research is needed to enable designers

and building officials to establish an accurate evaluation of

risk for a particular building.

Technical Trade-offs : This system is used in New York State,

where the building official is allowed to make determinations

of acceptable alternate fire safety measures for restored

15
buildings. Design alternatives for use in technical trade-offs

and code compliance should be developed.

A Historic Preservation and Building Code Solution Catalog ;

o This would provide a vehicle for communicating goal-oriented

solutions to designers and building officials.

Alternate Provisions for Handicapped Access to Historic Buildings :

o The only State reporting specific consideration of access for the

handicapped was North Carolina, where the code provides exemption

for historic buildings. However, further research may be done on providing access without disruption of the historical integrity

of the building.

Operational Control for Historic Building Use :

o This method was being used in Indiana, where the Building Official

may grant exemptions from building code provisions for historic

buildings, provided signs are posted to warn users that the building

does not meet normal safety standards. A limitation may also be

placed on number of occupants.

Occupancy Modification :

o A historic building might be subjected to control of occupancy to

reduce fire hazard; or a special occupancy class for historic

structures might be developed to permit greater flexibility in

administering building code provisions.

2.4 "Urban Housing Rehabilitation in the United States,"

by Nathaniel Rogg

In 1977, the United States League of Savings Association [18]

commissioned Nathaniel H. Rogg, the retired Executive Vice President

of the National Association of Home Builders, to examine activities

connected with urban rehabilitation and to draft a program aimed at

expanding the housing rehabilitation industry. The U.S. Leagues'

interests in such a program would presumably include the promotion

of increased or new lending opportunities in city neighborhoods. To

find out what is actually happening and what the problems are with

urban rehabilitation, Rogg visited a number of U.S. cities during the

spring and summer of 1977. The cities visited were Baltimore, Boston,

Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Oakland, Pittsburgh,

St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. The focus was primarily on single-family

housing. In his report to the U.S. League, [19] Mr. Rogg identified

building codes as one of the serious public constraints which

adversely affects the volume of rehabilitation activity [20].

16
An accompanying and related constraint in the public sector was finding

that many local governments are not properly equipped to promote

rehabilitation. The report states:

"They lack public policy or the appropriate organization, or both. In almost all cases, the process of regulatory standards,

clearances, licenses, permits, and so on discourages both the

entrepreneur and the homeowner." [21]

The report cites instances of builders complaining about the time

consuming difficulty of doing business with big city building departments and, in some cases, about extra taxes and the multiplicity of

permits required.

The report makes general recommendations relevant to the constraints

Mr. Rogg observed which are caused by building codes and the regulatory

process

o The housing industry should work with cities to develop

rehabilitation codes which are less rigorous than codes for new

structures

o The private construction industry should work closely with local

government officials in developing local housing policies and

programs implementing those policies. Private sector groups

must participate in supplying a practical aspect to such matters as local housing assistance plans, the use of community development

block grant funds, codes and zoning, and local capital improvements. This is imperative if local revitalization efforts are to

have maximum results. The local construction industry, in all of

its aspects, must become informed in and a contributor to the

development of the appropriate policies in its own locality.

Among the specific recommendations directed at local governments were:

o Make sensitive and flexible housing code enforcement a vital part

of neighborhood rehabilitation.

A code enforcement program by itself is not enough. It must be

tied in both with a solid basis for determining what needs to be

done to improve the house and with advice and counseling for

residents to help them find financing and contractor services.

A multi-tiered enforcement strategy should be explored with due concern for the differences between owner-occupied and rental

housing. Such a code enforcement strategy should be aimed at

the goals of aiding families in the neighborhood to achieve

adequate housing as well as protecting the neighborhood and its

housing supply from deterioration. In connection with code

enforcement, there is need for a detailed work write-up or

17
specification sheet, on which a contractor can bid and on which

a lender can lend. Good examples are the worksheets developed

in Boston and by the Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) for

use in many areas, notably Pittsburgh.

o Develop rehabilitation codes on a less stringent basis than codes

for new construction.

Rehabilitation codes should not result in discrimination against

older housing built in a different day and to different standards.

There was an effort in the 1960's to develop such a code at the Federal

Housing Administration. This effort should be reviewed with an eye

to giving cities a model rehabilitation code.

o Examine the possibility of making zoning changes to strengthen

neighborhoods by encouraging homeowner sh ip

.

For example, zoning could be changed from multifamily to single-family.

o Streamline building permit and inspection service procedures.

The process of obtaining permits and inspections should not in itself

discourage rehabilitation. Because of excessive paperwork and delays, some builder-developers now generally find it easier to work in the

suburbs with smaller bureaucracies.

2.5 "New Approaches to Urban Housing," by United States League of

Savings Associations"

In another report, prepared by the Urban Affairs Executive Committee

of the United States League of Savings Association, [22] the mitigating

aspects of local building codes and the process of enforcement with

respect to rehabilitation efforts are further discussed. The report

finds that:

"... Much housing policy is formulated ai the local government

level. Zoning ordinances, housing, and building codes, and tax

assessments are functions through which local governments exercise

substantial control over land use within their boundaries. Buildim

and housing codes must be brought up to date and reformulated in

terms of the performance criteria necessary to allow for new construction materials and processes. Rehabilitation codes are needed that avoid requirements which may be suitable for new

construction, but are unnecessary and costly for rehabilitation . Administration of codes and inspections must be improved to avoid

unnecessary obstacles to rehabilitation that drive up costs. "

18
In a series of general recommendations concerning the development of

a "housing rehabilitation industry," the report advises:

"... The government could make another major contribution by

promoting nationwide housing and building code enforcement and

flexibility. The problem at one extreme is lax code enforcement

that contributes to decay and at the other extreme the existence

of codes so stringent, inflexible and ill adapted to rehabilitation

that they make rehabilitation difficult or the cost prohibitive."

Rehabilitation codes should be developed which will maintain adequate

health and safety standards for older buildings, without imposing

unrealistic and costly new construction requirements.

2.6 "An Investigation of Regulatory Barriers to the Re- Use of

Existing Buildings," by Massachusetts Institute of Technology

During 1977, the NBS Center for Building Technology provided a research

grant to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for a team

study to examine the nature and scope of applying building codes to

existing buildings. The research objective of the MIT team was to

further define the various problems involved with the building regulatory system and to develop a strategy for measuring the impact of

these problem areas. The investigation was based on selected

Massachusetts case studies to illustrate problems and solutions in

building code applications.

Based on their investigation, the team concludes that existing

buildings pose a significant problem for code interpretation and

enforcement [23]. Problems develop primarily from prescriptive code

requirements where technical provisions require identical compliance

from both new construction and existing buildings. While in general,

code problems are manifest technically, the recommended solutions

extend beyond technical change to political, social, educational,

and administrative change.

The research agenda, based on team perceptions and collected data,

suggests that further investigations in a variety of areas will be

necessary before a code can be developed which responds clearly to

existing buildings.

-The MIT Consortia includes, in addition to researchers from MIT

Department of Architecture, the professional architecture office of

Perry, Dean, Stahl and Rogers, Inc., Architects and Planners, along

with experienced building officials and code administrators from

selected municipal building departments in Massachusetts.

19
The team identified six agenda areas: historical, behavioral,

technical, educational, administrative, and social. In its report,

the team recommended that inquiry in all of these areas is necessary

for long-range solution of code-rehab problems and that all six areas

bear on the establishment and administration of a firm technical base.

The specific recommendations for the six areas as presented in the

preliminary report are:

1. Historical Issues

Intent : To identify and evaluate the operative technical bases

of all sections of the codes.

Investigation : Based on the team's perceptions that codes are not

up-to-date or based on current research, the team recommends

investigation of the origins of code provisions. Comparison

between these origins and current research should reveal technical

discrepancies in the code.

2. Behaviorial Issues

Intent: To establish the importance of behavioral information to

the technical base by examining how research on behavior can be

related to code standards.

Investigation : The team recognized the need to examine behavioral

research in order to establish a sound technical base for code

provisions. Compiled research might include information on mobility in different environments, windowless environments,

motivations and fear as factors in building evacuation. Such a research effort would involve behavioral scientists examining

the codes for their implications to current research.

3. Technical Issues

Intent : To develop sound technical models for relative safety

and health, and position existing buildings within these models.

Investigation : The team recognized that existing systems and new

systems must be measured against standards of safety and health.

The team recommends the investigation of safety levels for

existing buildings based on use type, construction type, occupancy

levels, and configuration. The team recommends that research on safety or hazard levels include some testing of building types,

and much modeling based on test results. An administrative model

for trade-offs and compliance over time and an incentive model for owner compliance would aid in code enforcement.

20
4. Educational Issues

Intent : To provide a more capable corps of code inspection

officials

.

Investigation : The team recommends that minimum educational

requirements and qualifications for code officals be investigated

based on the work scope suggested by the code-rehab issues.

A training program, based on issues, risks, technical systems and

evaluation of existing buildings, should be developed.

5. Administrative Issues

Intent : To simplify the code administration bureaucracy.

Investigation : The team recommends an examination of code

bureaucracies with the intent to simplify administrative processes.

6. Social Issues

Intent : (a) To determine the social vs. economic cost/benefit of

codes.

(b) To identify values implicit in current code provisions.

Investigation : (a) The team recommends examination of the informal

sector to weigh the effects of code compliance

on availability of housing and relative safety

of housing.

(b) An examination of the social implications of

code provisions would reveal the underlying

social bases of the code. By determining the

social values implicit in a code one can establish how the code reflects current lifestyles and value systems, and the extent of

the role regulatory processes play in establishing types of social environments.

2.7 "Assessment of Current Building Regulatory Methods as Applied to the Needs of Historic Preservation Projects," by National Trust

for Historic Preservation

The NBS CBT also sponsored a project, in conjunction with the

National Trust for Historic Preservation, to detail specific regulatory

problems encountered by those engaged in preservation of historic

structures as well as general rehabilitation of buildings. The project

was based on assessing the experience from several case studies and

21
focused primarily on those issues dealing with the needs for technology

and standards development. Specifically, the objectives of the study were to:

o Identify, evaluate and propose historic preservation categorical

definitions as applied to buildings

o Develop performance objectives, requirements, criteria and tests

for each definition category

o Identify and assess those current methods most commonly used by

regulatory jurisdictions to mitigate adverse impacts on building

preservation projects

In its report [24] on the project, the National Trust identified the

following as the four most common building regulatory problems which

adversely impact preservation projects.

o The accommodation of a change in the principal use and the

accommodation of mixed use

o Having existing stairways and exits meet requirements, including access for the handicapped, and/or integrating new ones which

do not violate the aesthetic/historic character of the building

o Providing fire rate egress routes while maintaining the character

of the existing materials

o Changing existing and/or adding new electrical, mechanical,

ventilation and fire detection/protection systems which do not

violate the aesthetic/historic character of the building

The report also indicated that the most commonly dealt with historic

building types were residential, commercial and institutional, in that

order of frequency.

The building uses which presented the most commonly encountered

problems were public assembly, commercial and residential, in that

order.

With regard to those methods that have been used successfully to

mitigate adverse building regulatory requirements on historic building

preservation projects, the study identified:

o Face-to-face negotiation process with local building regulatory

representatives throughout the building preservation process to

meet the code requirements and to minimize adverse impact on building

22
o Specific historic building provisions in the code which permit

the granting of variations from the code for historic buildings

o The existence of a special appeal board process for requirements

as applied to historic buildings

o The proposal of code revision provisions to alleviate the most

objectionable of the existing requirements

3. Study of Regulatory Needs for Building Rehabilitation

3. 1 Questions Addressed

A study was outlined by the Center for Building Technology to

determine the needs of model building code organizations, and selected

State and major city building regulatory agencies, in regard to

rehabilitation of existing buildings. The National Conference of

States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS) 5 collected the

data under contract to CBT.

The major questions addressed by the study were:

1. Is a regulatory document for rehabilitation of existing buildings

needed?

2. If so, what should be the intent and coverage of such a document

and what should be the form (code provisions, standards, guidelines, etc.) in regard to the following:

a. Occupancies and building types to be covered

b. Building systems to be included (e.g., structural, plumbing,

electrical, mechanical, etc.)

c. Revision or elimination of the "25-50 percent" rule

d. Preferred format and method of expression (performance,

prescriptive, or some combination)

e. Philosphy and methodology for the selection of requirements

and compliance levels

f. Guidelines for determining and applying alternate solutions

to prescriptive code requirements

^NCSBCS serves a broad national membership of State-appointed delegates

representatives of the model code groups, State and local building

regulatory groups, national standards making organizations, industry, consumers and other individuals affected in the development and

enforcement of construction codes and standards.

23
3. What are the technical needs in regard to building

rehabilitation?

4. How does the current regulatory process, with respect to code

administration and enforcement, affect rehabilitation?

3.2 Model Building Code Study

The three organizations included in this study were the Building

Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., Southern Building

Code Congress International, Inc., and International Conference of

Building Officials.

The following summary conclusions resulted:

1. The provisions of current codes do not reflect the possible

constructions and configurations which occur in existing buildings.

Model code provisions are needed for building rehabilitation

written in such a manner that no solution consistent with acceptable public protection is eliminated from consideration. They

should apply to most building types and provide a systems

approach that considers the building in its entirety with respect

to each of the health, safety and welfare attributes regulated.

The format developed should be complementary to existing model

codes, and provide a structured technical basis for decisions in

place of current ad hoc judgment techniques. The specific format

developed should pattern the rehabilitation process (i.e.,

analysis) , rather than current codes which model the design process

for new buildings (i.e., synthesis). These model provisions should

be sufficient to serve either as an element or chapter of an existing building code, or as a separate standard to be adopted by

reference.

2. Research will be necessary to provide the technical basis for

rehabilitation decision making. An aspect of this research may

be historical, documenting past performance of particular materials, assemblies, constructions, etc. In order to avoid

repetitive generation of similar data, technical solutions, once developed, should be incorporated into manuals of practice which

illustrate specific solutions to common problems. The function

of these manuals would be to maximize accessibility to technical

information for the designer, building official and others involved

in rehabilitation.

3. A model process for administering rehabilitation projects by

local regulatory agencies should be developed to properly provide

for the unique aspects associated with the analysis and design of

24
such buildings. Consideration should be given to the numerous

ad hoc methods currently in use by local enforcement agencies in

the development of this process.

3.3 State and Major City Study

Another aspect of the NCSBCS project was a study of State and major

city regulatory agencies as well as interviews with knowledgeable non- regulatory personnel (developers, builders, etc.) involved in building

rehabilitation. The representative States included were Florida,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and

Wisconsin. The cities were Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati,

New Orleans, and Seattle. Highlights of the study results follow:

1. Need for a Regulatory Document - The perceived need for such a document was not unanimous, and some negative reactions were

voiced. The need for a rehabilitation standard or code provisions

was questioned by many building regulatory officials. There was agreement that guidelines or some other documentation is needed

which would be legally defensible to guide building officials

in the use of judgment with regard to health and safety performance of alternative solutions. It was acknowledged that any

such document may be helpful with certain qualifications:

a. It should not add still more prescriptive requirements

b. It should increase the flexibility of the building officials

by assisting in making interpretations

c. It should promote the concept of "equivalent protection" by

allowing alternate solutions for prescriptive requirements

and provide specific examples

d. It should provide the technical basis for decision making

2. Technical Issues - Even though a rigorous analysis of technical

issues having the most impact on rehabilitation was not attempted,

some technical issues were identified during the study. On major

rehabilitation, "fire protection" problems were most prevalent.

Egress issues included the number, location and dimensions of

exits, with the specific problem of open stairways. Other

problems identified included fire rating requirements of materials

used for walls, floors, ceilings; fire district locational factors,

particularly for adaptive reuse of large structures; area and

height requirements, particularly for heavy timber construction;

and mechanical and electrical provisions for venting, air changes, new electrical wiring, service and outlet requirements.

25
Philosophy of Regulatory Document - The majority of building

regulatory agency respondents who are involved with both existing

buildings and new construction stated the had difficulty accepting a concept with dual levels of compliance. On the other hand,

personnel of agencies only involved with rehabilitation of existing buildings had little difficulty in accepting dual levels

within reasonable limitations.

However, it was quite apparent, from discussions, that many of

those opposed to dual levels were allowing variances from new

construction requirements for building rehabilitation. The terms

"judgment," "trade-off," "equivalent," "experience," "as close as possible," and "deemed to satisfy" were often used. Most respondents were not able to describe a reasonable analytical procedure

or technical basis upon which to base their reported judgmental

decisions on variances. This indicated that a rational framework

is required if uniform, consistent interpretations of safety,

health and general welfare principles are to be achieved in

building rehabilitation efforts. The philosophy of "equivalent

protection" was quite acceptable to all respondents, with the

decision of alternate solutions based upon the technical judgment

of competent, experienced personnel or appeals boards.

The term "performance" approach concerned many respondents since

they felt they did not have the ability or experience to make the

required decisions. The ability to adequately define code provisions in performance terms, which would result in buildings being

as safe as current prescriptive approaches, was also questioned.

Other concerns were the lack of technical data required to make

decisions relative to performance and the ability to enforce such

provisions given the current building regulatory system.

Legal Implications - One major issue which surfaced was the

apparent removal or lessening of the legal shield for building

officials and inspectors when codes are not enforced to the letter

of prescriptive requirements. It was reported that over the past

few years several court decisions have assessed damages against

individual building officials in cases where "judgment" had been

used in code enforcement, and later injury or loss of life

resulted in a rehabilitated structure. A rehabilitation document

which provides rational technical justification for "judgmental"

decisions would be welcomed.

Procedures and Processes In Building Code Administration - The

study indicated that certain procedural elements in building

code administration contributed to successful building

rehabilitation programs in various jurisdictions.

26
It is the policy of the Baltimore Building Department to have

extensive discussions with developers, architects, engineers

and/or owners concerning rehabilitation projects—often before

a developer will purchase property considered for rehabilitation.

In these discussions, all aspects of the proposed project are discussed and evaluated, including technical and economic issues.

The results are a pre-permit agreement which defines the design

solutions which will be acceptable to the Building Department.

Other govenmental agencies are often involved in this agreement.

For example, when a situation exists with regard to fire protection where strict compliance with the building code for new construction is not a viable solution, appropriate fire department

personnel participate in the agreement on alternate solutions.

The Cincinnati Field Inspection Division reviews plans of all

rehabilitation projects in addition to the Zoning and Plan Review

Sections. The Division also conducts a pre-permit inspection for

code conformity and existing defects. This technique has reportedly

assisted in reducing field inspection problems when the work

begins. A similar technique of pre-permit discussions is required

in Seattle, but only for high-rise rehabilitation. It is called

a design conference and involves the developer, building and fire

departments

Wisconsin utilizes a procedure called "Petition for Modification"

in which any design, either for new construction or for rehabilitation, is completely laid out, alternate solutions considered

and rationalized, and decisions completely documented. In this

manner, a series of precedents are established which tend to

govern the kinds of alternate solutions which would be accepted

under the code.

The appeals procedure in Chicago is from the inspector to the

Building Commissioner, then directly to the courts—there is no formal appeals board. Several respondents felt strongly that

an appeals board outside of the building department would ease code problems in their city (both for new and existing buildings)

Application of "25-50 Percent" Rule - Most jurisdictions have some version of this rule in effect. However, it is interesting to

note that California has legislatively abolished the rule and

Baltimore has never used the rule. It was pointed out by respondents that, in some jurisdictions where the rule exists, it is

ignored or not enforced. Others, however, indicate that the rule

is enforced to the degree that it adversely affects rehabilitation

efforts.

Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the determination

of the cost basis for application of the rule. Some suggested

approaches were:

27
a. Exclude cost of meeting subsystem requirements (e.g.,

electrical, plumbing, mechanical)

b. Use base assessed valuation after, rather than before,

rehabilitation

c. Include only costs of meeting minimum requirements and not

amenities in excess of minimum

d. Use another parameter instead of dollar value, e.g., a physical parameter such as area of the building

e. Base actions on a hazard analysis with no arbitrary parameters,

either dollar or physical

7. Occupancies and Building Types to be Covered - Respondents

generally stated that all occupancies and building types should

be covered by any new regulatory document for building rehabilitation. It was quite apparent in discussions, however, that

residential and commercial rehabilitation were most prominent in

their thinking. The building regulatory personnel appeared to

feel that they had few problems in the 1-4 family residential

building, but had much greater problems in the larger structure

both residential and commercial. The reporting of few problems

in the 1-4 family category appeared to be based on: (1) a perception that this is one of the least hazardous occupancies,

and (2) code enforcement was generally to minimum requirements of

the housing code, with the implication that codes for new

construction contain greater than minimum requirements by including

many amenities.

8. Building Subsystems to be Included - There was general agreement

that all building subsystems (structural, plumbing, electrical,

mechanical, etc.) should be considered in any new document. It was recognized that work on these subsystems in existing buildings

could involve up to 50 percent or more of the cost of rehabilitation; hence, should be included. Also, the degree of risk to

public health, safety and welfare, and other imminent dangers

resulting from subsystems problems must be considered in any

overall rehabilitation document

.

9. Philosophy and Methodology for Selecting Compliance Levels - Many

respondents had difficulty with this issue since it was interpreted

as allowing differing levels of performance—not only between

existing and new buildings—but perhaps also between existing

buildings for reasons other than health and safety. Some comments

on this issue included:

28
a. Distinguish between soundly based minimum safety requirements

and requirements representing more modern materials and

technologies that may be considered amenities

b. Perhaps accept any system of an existing building which does

not conform to the current code for new construction as long

as it conforms with the codes in effect at the time of its

construction

c. A maintenance code for commercial and other occupanices

similar to a housing code may be needed

3.4 Synthesis of Study Results

Two meetings were held at NBS in December 1977, and February 1978,

involving representatives from CBT, NCSBCS and the model building code

organizations (BOCA, ICBO, SBCC)

These were working meetings structured to define programmatic and

technical needs for regulation of building rehabilitation. Various

NBS activities relative to rehabilitation were reviewed including

development of technical criteria, retrofitting for energy conservation,

economic analyses, historic preservation and restoration, and technical

constraints to effective rehabilitation. Substantial discussion centered

around the Fire Safety Evaluation System for Health Care Facilities

developed by the NBS Center for Fire Research (CFR) and the application

of this system to general rehabilitation [25], A summary of the NCSBCS

study was then presented and the significance of the results discussed

as they relate to overall program development. The initial framework

for discussion of the issues resulted in the development of a matrix

shown in Table 1 which identifies: (a) regulatory problems impacting

on each participant, (b) technical input needed to alleviate the problem,

and (c) the participant in the rehabilitation process (e.g., owner,

developer, code official, etc.).

This analytical process, utilizing a diverse group, resulted in defining

nine major participants, thirteen building rehabilitation regulatory

problems, and eight technical inputs required to alleviate the problems.

The eight technical inputs required are:

1. Validation of technical constraints in current codes for various

occupancies

2". Technical basis for elimination or modification of the "25-50

percent" rule

3. Performance requirements for existing buildings

4. Catalog of building systems no longer in use

29
TJ tu C cu « Z m rH

cfl 0) O

iH •H 43 c O X M

Cm <u H C

l-i

H •H

4J (1)

cfl 43

i-i

H

HH XJ

•H

B

43 cfl 01 X CO

(U CO cd CUo o cm u

co <u rH 43 3 4J aoo 3

Ctf -H

u

cu ^^

M

H CU

u iH o

CU VI

a #» •> 3

CU

MH aH -I r-l rH rH cfl 3 cu cfl 3 cfl cfl cfl cfl cfl C

•H -H

H CO •H

HH •H •H •H rH 60 H CJ CJ a CJ O CJ p£| CO

cd 3 cm •H CO •H -H •H •H •H CJ •H W a. 14-1 -I CM CM CM CM CM - -H

CJ >>. 3 M-l cfl CM CM IM CM CM

U CJ •H 4-I 1 CO O CU H o o o O O CJ 3

>4-l

O CJ

M •rl CU

14-1 CU. CO CU

C cu CU CU cu CU CU <-( 60 o 4-1 rH TJ Cfl 4J T3 •a T3 TJ TJ cm <; •H Cfl O M Cfl O o O O O cm

cu 4= -H CJ 3 a CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 3 4J TJ CJ H CO oo 3 O M CU - s « r. •« •* * * o

4-1 CJ < u rl

M

M

uu >-l

u

M

M CDg 3 Cfl CU -». CU cu cu cu cu CU CU rH 3

n)

n - S CU cu CU CU -H cu cu CU cu CO S-i

a

M

u

u 3 a 3 C

H 3 3 3 3 •rl CU •H cu cu 01 - •rl 3 •H •h eu •H H H •H u >

CJ Cm

a cm .-1 60 cfl 60 60 cm 60 60 60 60 CJ o

•H o o O cfl 3 3 G

a 3 3 3 3 3 4J CJ

u i-H rH

H -HW vHWW COwW

W

W Cfl

1-j CU CU CU CJ --. Cu ^^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ S -

CtJ > > > -rl 4-1 4J 4-1 CO 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 p>. CJ cm CU CU CU M-l O - O O iH o CJ o U 4-1 - CJ p p P M-l CU rl CU CU cfl cu <u cu u cu H U 3 — o 4-1 CU 4-1 4J -H 4J 4-1 4J CU 4-1 3 O cfl

1-1

M

U

H 13 •H •HMH •H rl TJ •H 3 TJ

U

cu CU CU CU 43

H 4= 4= <U 43 43 43 rH 43

u

g rH 3

riH 3 -a

O T-t o O 4J CJ CJ CJ -HO cu

g •rl CD 2 2 § o U 3 M U cfl M Vj l-i 3 M CO o 3 3 o o cj < (O <c < s < <C < to <C p CJ 09 M

TJ

i)

g

TJ 1)

<1) rH

CJ 42 Z O

P3 3

cm cu o O M cfl •H

rH > W

W

w 33

cfl cu CJ iH

•rl t-H

w Cu P PS p" p"33 fe Pm 3 <! 43O O < CQ o p c_> o <: CJ Pm CJ CJ CJ CJ

cu 4-1 H

g CO o CU 1 3 m M cu o

CO M-l 60O

M •H s 3

cu 3 e a. co CD CU o

•H CO c •H 3 •H 3 •H

CJ 4J •H 4J

n CM o CJ 4-1 3 3 CD CU O t4 CU 3 cfl

tfl cu

C •H

M 4J TJ CU >

a.

g

OX

O CU cfl cu

u 3 CU H ,-v cu IM O rH rH IS CJ

CJm 4J CU cu ^> 3 3 cfl 4-1 CO o •H tA T3 3 M CO cfl 60 CJ cu CJ o 3 -o O •H cu 3 g cu •H 43 1-1

g CU cr

C cj 43

O

uu 3 a

cu !-i rH cu o CO 4J -H o CO 43 P^ 4-1 iH O 3 U CJ O c CU 4-1 CM 3 CO CJ 4-1 1^ CJ 43 4-1 !-J 4-1 o 3 •» Cfl M M CU CU CJ 4J •H O 43 CO 60 •H •H T3 CJ CU CU a 4-1 >M CO •rl r-f Vj CO s-« co 3 c c 4-1 rH CU -H cm x) o Cfl 60 3 CM

cm 3 o •H

O •H

O cfl CUM ^H o J-l

M CO 3 3 3 o LO rH -H 4J -H > T3 •H a cu g cm O •H g O

>, •rl 1 42 4-1 CO 4-1

O •H 3 g 4-1 CM CM TJ E a

U 4J LO cfl 3 H cfl

a 3 cr o cfl o >. o rH

O

Oa OJ 4J rH

X r-l c 60 CU CJ rH 4-)

M CD •H CJ TJ

4J o CO

O CU CU •H

u CU

O CJ CO 3 3

cd hh CU CO

M 4J T3

M CO 4J CD rH 43 CM cfl

H 3 o CM

O

C 4-1 3 3 CO cfl CJ

O 3 o o cu O C 4-1 CU 3 cfl O 60 r-f 43 > 60

C

60

a 4J > •H 4-1 OJ --^ 4-1 tJ. 3 CJ 3 3 O

CU 3 o •H

C ^ 4-1 3 g CO 60 CU •-{ •rl o •H

cd o •H 4-1 4J o 3 H 60 >, >N CU CU 4J 4-1 •H 4J •H 4-1 h cm •H 60 CU na 4-i 4-1 TJ M Cfl CJ CO 4-1 Cfl 4-1 cfl 3 -H 4-i a B CM 3 -H •H 3 rH •H CJ 3

CO o CJ

U cfl -H •H

O •1-1 r-l •H 3 CJ cr 43

X 3 •H

4-1 •H •H CJ 3 -d T3 CO •H •H

W

O cu Cfl CJ

u TJ

H

H CM CO ^ ^H CU ^L CU CU 43 43 CU 43 TJ •H 4-1 rl 6 cm CM CU cfl -H P. CJ T3 ^J Cfl cfl -a CO U TJ CO O

•rl ex •H

M > 3 g cfl

OO -rH 3 O TJ 3 cfl 3 43 o J < P cm W 43 M hJ O 2 rM H g < MO >

rH

cfl o

CM o

en

rH C-J ro <r in \D r^ oo ON rH rH rH rH

43

COu3

TJM^

CO 4-i e CJ CJ M-l 4J Cfl CO CO >.

CO MHO

TJ3 CO

cfl CU

CU CO >

rH 4-1 0) 3 3 rH

1-1 CU3 „ CO B*« o CD CO O cm 01 CU 0J

CD u~i

g CD

a CJ

4-1 1 o 3 rH o C m o rH M

•rl CM 3 CU em

Cfl

A rl TJ

u CU ID

H

M

4-1 43 rH

u 3 o

CO

M CO 0) 60 3 •rl 60 s—

TJ o M-l 1-1 3 C o CU O CO CO cfl M rH TJ 4-1 rH 3 cfl Q 3 CO

cflO

g o 43

92

J-i CJ H 3

4-1

g 3

rl 4J

H

CUg

cu CU 3 cfl O CD CD 4-1 g

43 3 M-l

g CD Cfl 0) CJ rl CU cu 01 M M

CJ

g CO 4-1 > CJ co •rl

4-1

H 4-1 COH o 3

rH 3 >* 4-1

M 4-1 cr

cu QJ cu CO cfl cm 3 0J O g 3 CJ u u 01 60 rH r"> 4-1 >-, o u a cfl U 3 cu 4J M-l tH H > o rl rH

•M 3 TJ 0) 4-1 43 TJ CD CTrH cfl cu rl

rl CJ CJ •H CJ rH TJ CO rH CO l-i 3 > 3 O 3

cfl cfl 43 •H 00 o CU > 43 a) 4-1 0) M-l o CM o 1-1 CU CU 43 rH 3 O 3 > TJ

CO CO coH T) •H

•rl CJ

g 60 m> 0) 4-1 r"* rH •M M O CO > •H rH

43 3 O rH a) o a ^

cd 43 C4H CO TJ

M •H cfl 4-1 U 1-1 4-1 3 cm mh 00

CO CU Cfl

O S 0) CU

wH cm o Z H

p Hi I I I I I I I I <;pqOQW6iU3

30
5. Destructive and nondestructive in-situ evaluation methods

6. Improved regulatory process for existing buildings

7. A definitive code statement which explicitly spells out the

intent of the code in regard to building performance

8. Legally defensible code requirements and enforcement process

Further discussion resulted in a consensus on four issues relative to

the development of a regulatory document for building rehabilitation:

1. A document is needed which will encompass all occupancy building

types, including mixed and multiple occupancies. The problems

encountered in residential, business, mercantile, mixed and

multiple occupancies should be given priority.

2. A system approach should be utilized covering the building as a whole, including all subsystems (e.g., structural, plumbing,

electrical, mechanical, etc.).

3. The "25-50 percent" rule does not appear to be a workable solution

in regard to the application of regulations for new construction

to existing structures. The conceptual approach to be explored

is illustrated in Figure 3 and is based upon the concept to allow

repairs, alterations and additions to existing buildings without

meeting all new construction requirements under the following

general conditions:

a. All high hazardous conditions must be corrected

b. The building must be occupiable under current requriements

c. The existing building becomes the minimum performance

requirement

d. The performance level of the building after rehabilitation

must not be below that existing before the change

e. Additions would be required to meet code requirements for

new construction or equivalent

f

.

Compliance with the building code for new construction or its

equivalent may be required when the change in use is to a more hazardous occupancy or use group.

It is recognized that many technical judgments will be required

by building officials to implement such a regulatory concept, as compared to the current situation where compliance with the code

for new construction is often required. These judgments can be

supported by technical data and determined by application of

equivalency methods such as those developed by Nelson [25]

.

31
Q

O

uj w»

<£>

GO<

CD z i—

=d DC

ZD hCD 00

LU LU I LL. S O

CD

O

CD CJ o

OujO S «-?«-> tz

LJ ^^J *, ^> ^^J ae 00 z oc O — —

CD<

DC

CD

»— o <_>

OUL» cdoo

I.I. Il Q>

CD

CD

•^ o o u

X

— 

<_> XttO 3 •— O ae «-> z: «*t <-> ^ x re o O X ^ uuO O <

CD ^

<E3

lu ZD

DC CQ

CD CD

°2

—

LU CQ

O)

(Ac

.05

•a<

«AC

•S.E c — |m< to , c

k. (A "5 "x a lu » ».

BE

O

O (A

a- c

a) i o (A O o) O c O -a 2S

CO

to

32
4. Technical evaluation manuals should be developed to provide a basis for rehabilitation decision making.

4. Rehabilitation Technology Program

A program structured to respond to the needs identified in this report

has been formulated by CBT and includes the following elements:

1. Development of the Technical Basis for Regulations and an Improved Regulatory Process

2. Development of New Technology and Evaluation Tools

3. Development of Responsive and Cost-Ef f ective Decision Tools

This approach is designed to support on-going national activities for

building rehabilitation. Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, describe each

program element.

4.1 Technical Basis for Regulations and an Improved Regulatory Process

4.1.1 Introduction

The study discussed in Section 3 pointed out the need for an improved

technical basis of regulations and a regulatory process which is designed

to address the specific needs of rehabilitation of existing buildings.

This conclusion is supported by a report by the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology, [23] which recommends "investigation of the origins of

code provisions and the comparison between these origins and current

research should reveal technical discrepancies in the code." The same

report recommends "an examination of code bureaucracies with the intent

to simplify administrative processes." At hearings of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, chaired by Senator Proxmire, on March 24, 1978, [26] Frederick Stahl recommended the Federal Government

"emphasize research, testing and methods development" and "training of

regulatory personnel for review and technical assistance, and for

inspection and public relations." In the same report, Durwin Ursery

states that problems with code administration for existing buildings

"range from field inspection judgment, plan review staff assignments,

reevaluation by field inspectors for occupancy permits and unclear and

ambiguous procedures for approval of plans and issuance of building

permits .

4.1.2 Massachusetts Pilot Project

On March 4, 1978, Governor Dukakis of the State of Massachusetts

initiated a pilot project to develop an interim building rehabilitation

33
code for the State. NBS, through the Center for Building Technology,

was invited to provide technical support to a team of building regulatory organizations including NCSBCS, BOCA, ICBO, SBCC, the Association

of Major City Building Officials (AMCBO) , the National Association

of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) , and the National

Academy of Code Administration (NACA) . The final draft of the interim

code provisions and the supporting technical reference standards were

completed in August 1978 and forwarded to the members of the

Massachusetts State Building Code Commission for review and comment.

These comments were received by the project team and were incorporated

into the draft Article 22 of the Massachusetts State Building Code

entitled "Repair, Alteration, Additions and Change in Use of Existing

Buildings [27]." This article was adopted for implementation in

the State in early 1979. The provisions developed incorporate the

code concept presented in Section 3.4 of this report as a replacement for

the "25-50 percent" rule. This Massachusetts Pilot Project was discussed

at the National Conference on Regulatory Aspects of Building Rehabilitation held at NBS on October 30, 1978. The proceedings of this

conference will be published in early 1979.

4.1.3 Technical Bases of Regulations

The regulatory strategy developed in the Massachusetts Pilot Project

calls for the levels of performance that may be less than those for

new construction as long as minimum life-safety and health levels are maintained. In order to determine these levels, it will be necessary

to study the technical bases of regulations and to carry out needed

research. This will provide a methodology for the development of

performance criteria for existing buildings as well as guides for

selection of compliance levels for various building types and occupancies.

This activity was initiated in FY78 with a comparative analysis of the

technical provisions of regulatory documents affecting existing buildings,

including housing codes [6, 7, 8, 9] and rehabilitation guidelines [10,

11] . This analysis will assist in identifying current levels of performance for existing buildings and will provide a basis for selection of

revised levels by regulatory authorities, if necessary. It will also

assist in the identification of research study areas relative to the

technical bases of regulations and the development of priorities.

4.1.4 Regulatory Process for Existing Buildings

The current regulatory process has been identified as impeding the full

utilization of existing buildings. Difficulties result when rehabilitation projects are forced into a model established for new construction.

A study has been initiated to determine specific aspects of the regulatory process relative to building rehabilitation used in the thirty

largest cities in the United States, which are members of AMCBO. These

data will include documentation requirements in regard to design

analysis and approval, plan evaluation, permit process and field

34
inspection; regulatory personnel qualifications, including educational

and training requirements; intragovernmental relations; legal aspects

of enforcement; and appeals and waiver processes. These data will be

utilized to develop a draft model enforcement process for existing

buildings in FY79. Such a system would typically include: (1) model

documents for submittal and compliance procedures; (2) pre-construction

meetings of owner, designer and building official; (3) interaction

between various government agencies; (4) mechanism for building

owner/designer to appeal decisions of building officials; and (5) availability of technical resources. The model process developed should

be sufficiently flexible to be used with minor modifications by the

majority of building code enforcement agencies. Where possible, the

proposed model enforcement process will be evaluated on a trial basis

in cooperation with local and State jurisdictions which face different

types of rehabilitation activity.

4.2 Development of New Technology and Evaluation Tools

4.2.1 Introduction

As pointed out previously, the building code for new construction, with

its generally prescriptive format, is the existing regulatory basis for

building rehabilitation. This presents difficulties since these codes:

(1) may not address the types of construction present in many older

buildings, (2) they are structured to follow the new construction

process (design) as compared to the actual case (analysis) for existing

buildings, and (3) they limit innovative solutions. Additionally,

those involved with rehabilitation face a lack of information or a lack of awareness of the availability of information on technical

matters required to make the best decisions in evaluating the existing

structure and in selecting appropriate materials, systems, and application techniques. This conclusion is supported by Stahl, [26] who states

that what is needed "is a reliable set of analytical methods by which

the performance of a building and building components which already

exist can be rapidly, readily and effectively assessed."

4.2.2 Technical Manuals for Rehabilitation Decision Making

As discussed in Section 3.4, the need for a series of technical manuals

containing state-of-the-art listings of technical data for building

components and specific health, safety and general welfare attributes,

shown in Figure 4, was identified. These manuals would include:

(1) test methods for destructive and nondestructive evaluation of existing construction, (2) methods of analysis to predict the performance of

existing construction, (3) field inspection and evaluation methodologies,

and (4) data on the performance of outdated systems. A manual is

35
4sfevo

«*i

*°'M

w$

m^

< 99

DC

CO

oo

CD

Q_

CD

CD

LU

CC

1—

CD

=D

CC

»—OO

ENCLOSURE

AND

SPACE

MECHANICAL

(HVAC,

ELEVATORS,

ETC.)

CD

CO

_J

CL.

ELECTRICAL

DISTRIBUTION,

LIGHTING,

COMMUNICATION

w

COg»(O c

. w

8 s

IIo <o

a> o 11'5 w

N =

C .Q

(0 (0 D)£

O oc

a>3

O)

36
needed for each attribute and would include, where available, data on structure, enclosure and division of space; mechanical systems; plumbing

systems; and electrical distribution systems. This format would provide

a basis for application of alternative solutions within attributes.

As an example, within the health and sanitation attribute, a rehabilitated building, which could not be made to comply with natural ventialtion

provisions of the code, could utilize mechanical ventilation as an alternate solution. There will also be potential interrelationships between

the various attributes which should be covered in the manual. As an example, the fire safety and security attributes may have conflicting

technical aspects (security vs. rapid egress).

Outlines of technical manuals for the strength and stability, health

and sanitation, and accident safety attributes are under development.

These outlines, as well as general guidelines for application of performance-based code provisions for existing buildings, will be included in an NBS report. This includes a discussion of equivalency, application

of alternate solutions, and the use of evaluation tools. A technical

manual for strength and stability is now under development based on this outline.

4.2.3 Research Agenda for Building Rehabilitation

The rehabilitation of existing buildings frequently requires data on materials, components and techniques that differ significantly from

those used in new construction. The initial research effort will be

to identify the technological needs and to establish priorities. This

research agenda will utilize information collected from regulatory

officials and will be expanded to include other segments of the building

community including builders, materials manufacturers, designers, etc.

Specific areas to be considered include: (1) materials, components

and systems; (2) application and installation procedures; (3) test

methods and evaluation techniques; and (4) performance criteria. It

is also anticipated that CBT will perform research on test methods as applied to the evaluation of existing construction. This work will

include: (1) identification and evaluation of existing test methods,

(2) modification of existing test methods, and (3) development of new

test procedures.

4.3 Development of Responsive and Cost- Effective Decision Tools

4.3.1 Introduction

In many cases, those involved with building rehabilitation have limited awareness of, and access to, information needed to assure socially

responsive and cost-effective decisions. Information is needed to

37
address: (1) user need aspects of a building which relate to the

security of the occupants, safety features including means of access

and egress, and "life style" considerations including comfort,

convenience, privacy and aesthetics; (2) economic aspects including

financial methods, cost estimation procedures, government incentives,

effects of rehabilitation activity on the future value of the building,

the neighborhood, etc.; (3) adaptability of a building for new uses and

functions to more fully meet the current and future needs of the neighborhood; and (4) effects of rehabilitation on the neighborhood. It is

necessary to consider the impacts of these factors on building occupants

and users, community groups, designers, builders, investors, and

financial and insurance institutions.

4.3.2 Economic Studies

It is apparent that a significant increase in the number of housing

units being rehabilitated will be required if the Nation's housing

needs are to be satisfied. Since costs play a vital role in all

investment decisions, any significant change in current housing investment trends calls for a reduction in the uncertainty associated with

the extreme cost variability of residential rehabilitation activities.

A study is underway on the major cost considerations implicit in

residential rehabilitation. This study will (1) assess existing cost

estimating procedures and how they relate to the residential rehabilitation problem, (2) identify areas where more detailed cost information

is needed, and (3) identify statistical and economic techniques which

have the potential for significantly reducing the uncertainty associated

with predicting the costs of residential rehabilitation.

5. Summary

The studies that form the basis of this report have provided evidence

that modern building codes and standards for new building construction

often cause problems when applied to rehabilitation projects for

existing buildings. One such problem is an increase in rehabilitation

costs, which can have the following consequences: (1) it may be more

cost-effective to demolish the building and convert the land to some other use, therefore decreasing the Nation's building stock; (2) the owner may decide to do nothing and allow further deterioration of the

building and the resulting detrimental effect on the neighborhood; or

(3) the rehabilitation could be carried out, but the displaced occupants

could no longer afford the increased rentals which must be charged to cover the financial investment.

In response to the need to support the goal of conserving the Nation's

neighborhoods by encouraging the continued use of existing buildings,

the Center for Building Technology is carrying out a Building Rehabilitation Technology Program. The thrusts of this program are the development of technical bases for regulations and an improved regulatory process,

new technology and evaluation tools, and cost-effective decision methods.

38
REFERENCES

1. Patrick W. Cooke and Robert M. Eisenhard, "A Preliminary

Examination of Building Regulations Adopted By the States and

Major Cities," NBSIR 77-1390, November 1977.

2. "National Building Code," American Insurance Association, New York,

New York, 1976 Edition.

3. "Basic Building Code," Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1978 Edition.

4. "Uniform Building Code," International Conference of Building

Officials, Whittier, California, 1976 Edition.

5. "Standard Building Code," Southern Building Code Congress

International, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama, 1976 Edition with

1977 Revisions.

6. "Uniform Housing Code," International Conference of Building

Officials, Whittier, California, 1976 Edition.

7. "Standard Housing Code," Southern Building Code Congress

International, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama, 1976 Edition.

8. "The BOCA Basic Property Maintenance Code," Building Officials

and Code Administrators International, Inc., Homewood, Illinois,

1978 Edition.

9. "APHA-PHS Recommended Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance,"

Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, 1969.

10. "Minimum Design Standards for Rehabilitation for Residential

Properties," HUD Circular 4940.4, February 1978 (revised

August 22, 1978), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

11. "Code Enforcement Guidelines for Residential Rehabilitation,"

Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.,

Homewood, Illinois, 1975. (Also printed as Appendix B in the

"BOCA Basic Property Maintenance Code," 1978 Edition.)

12. "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating

Historic Buildings," U.S. Department of the Interior,

February 1978.

13. Baird Smith, "Information Structure of Building Codes and Standards

for the Needs of Existing Buildings," NBS Special Publication 473

(pp. 453-489), June 1977.

14. Robert J. Kapsch, "Building Codes: Preservation and Rehabilitation,"

NBS Special Publication 473 (pp. 437-452), June 1977.

39
15. Douglas Commission, "Building the American City: Report of the

National Commission on Urban Problems," House Document No. 91-23,

91st Congress, 1st Session, December 12, 1968.

16. "Standard Building Code," Southern Building Code Congress

International, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama, Section 1115.3 (C)

,

1976 Edition.

17. Melvyn Green and Patrick W. Cooke, "Survey of Building Code

Provisions for Historic Structures," NBS Technical Note 918,

September 1976.

18. The United States League of Savings Association, 111 E. Wacker

Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

19. Nathaniel H. Rogg, "Urban Housing Rehabilitation in the United

States," United States League of Savings Association,

Chicago, 1977.

20. On page 11 of his report, Rogg reports: "In many of the cities,

I found real problems because building codes were designed for mew

construction, not rehabilitation. In Chicago for example, the

electrical code requires an outlet every 12 feet, even for rehab

work. In most rehabilitated apartments, this meant putting in new

circuits—at a cost of $1,000 to $1,200 per unit."

21. Ibid, page 13.

22. "New Approaches to Urban Housing," United States League of Savings

Association, Chicago, October 1977.

23. N. John Habraken, et al, "An Investigation of Regulatory Barriers

to the Re-Use of Existing Buildings," NBS GCR 78-139, National

Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., January 1978.

24. National Trust for Historic Preservation, "Assessment of Current

Building Regulatory Methods as Applied to the Needs of Historic

Preservation Projects," NBS Special Publication 524, October 1978.

25. Harold E. Nelson, "Directions to Improve Application of Systems

Approach to Fire Protection Requirements for Buildings," NBSIR 77-1273,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., July 1977.

26. "Impact of Building Codes on Housing Rehabilitation," Hearings

Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs - United States Senate, March 24, 1978.

27. "Recommended Provisions - Article 22 - Repair, Alteration., Additions

and Change in Use of Existing Buildings," Massachusetts State

Building Code, October 23, 1978.

40
APPENDIX A

SELECTED PROVISIONS IN MODEL

CODES RELATIVE TO EXISTING BUILDINGS

41
o

H

n

u

a

H

SS2 £ OT3. = » £ § >. S S -S 'S E •= I

"

2 2 _ S ^ E

•- - -a . u = " - — « 3 ~ 1 §1« Etrt MS s Ji

3i8 I!

3 a-u

s £ 3 s

° — u. 3

• S °° K

2

c ** «£2-

S-5'5 o * *f.B

«« if x o I^BO

2 ° " Z r c u 2 <.2j» E

« 2 > x»

_ g e~2. E £ K'S g l-||II| •

£ a « s b .E 2 .a 2 8 g S c 8 2 H 5

Sls s e'--2g.

« 8 '5 S"^ >• o « co.be- &•- j. 2 5 S »s » = -o °-g,

be — c 2 ° ° w o o 5 8 " 00 E >,£ < g S g § | S I

-a ^•a'slul fas

°- «> 3 C 2 °

w O ut C 3 2

ft- g 2 * I u a

in '2 >* _ 2: -°

c T3 ° O.T3 -3 k 2 SH g o s ,•»; = "L -a •= s a & o a c 2 " -

g

w o o = e .2 = 211211

M

- ; c 2 «»

•: s

c h j= "5 — u *> _o:.:a2 o fj 5 j; - £ -° c - < ,0 5 o £ "3 * 3=5 a J Z £"§

w tS > £ 75 E

I

"8 8

c ~

•-

.s -o

K-8 S

3 ai = - " —

b. M E «0;

! < - -

J

X) J

3

<; r ^ b *

8-5Z lis

5 S

= ° 6 g SI-*-* ?i E E

l-.E OS

; o i 5 •=,

I og s

O 3 U

© ji j; wi

« »- -a -s -3

: « .S -a S ssl.=

u Hit

pda

H

S.£ i £

•II 1

o 3 ° .r >.2E

^2- [i .£ » S

£ e--3-si

*-* oj " §

*° * 5b

W*

£ K c c * «

13 Vj *i 3

2 P. Sb5 £ £•??

e g £ a??

11*

83. .1 »

fe 5 O 3 .

o E be 1" w

3«.i-oS ("Utjj., -

S -H 1i — Ja — OioiO+'cc,

E."a *.

I S • - T3 •=

= 3 C — " B * * 3! •£,.« * g-g- i£^ts b.B.^5

*5 B.S

E &-1 "3 — *i

j w o.«w "3 C*.- n. S «""*«.

1 -g - a"5 " "s ; s ~ § §• g I o _ „5 " 1

3 — 2 .£ « E 3 ^ jj — -3 E £ „

E -B > B.'C '

e e o : ° "S M ;

a jz 3 .! C o.S-5 E9

Repai of

thi

ige

or

of

this

ing

n

mater e

than

11

ber

oof

COI

r

new u £ si

F

t

»-. Xi feslSlS-Egg

= o -S

si"

S-8|

W (A u "73 * i c a o s«l; "" u O

2s. =

a -a S. lis ^ So

8 Js

h E O =•2 5 il-s

o .5 >; £ * S 5*1!

JUS.

•£ O log

M O w

III xi E g <^ 8 i

s

Sill i".2E y -o - o

:- 1 1

fill

||

«

g

2 1

g.8 B

1 g>6

•S 2 8

1-1 H 0,0.8

It (L» <U S3

pq u h S U CA .. -0 » M

<

056 Us<1 s

CQ »H U*,2 2 3 8

"Si

01 3

.3 "S °* S^K ^

k 5 o

6 E 8

^ c

c — .2 O M)J= C c "

S'-S «r |8l

flgjH

SI'S--

M1 * "n x:

.S >*; o »> O ° -S (/,

5 >^^ ^

1? So > 2 c £ |

gnoses.

bo*- "5

rt y O

si's,

8+* £L

8 ?!'

"S s-s s

E §« n . o Q Sa

E S-ET-5 8

•33* G

If! I OS o 2 §1 °-o £S|i "-' o> 5 £ ~ * o ° b

g >.j= -a 3

8

u S% «1J g

n- £ 2 «"

o c o o i

"> J! ? " S

1. 5 « 2 O

Tl! *?sSs:OS

-a .2 S 111 § 8 a tS» a £ £ E -g „

•5 c _ 2 ~

- 8 « S T

1. -S "o -

8 II §1

7= C» §|rf

8 Es

s i". "Sss

•S E -3 2 S g mij *&?

.2 o-, c § c .g ^

2 •- S j3

.2-5

•5 g 1115-8*1

a *.«5

"3 ~

c E o a-2 ! 2-S

o o Is §

"S *pVS

o-q -« Sv O (U &,i

a Cii o .S " H c I « ci* =

i| ~ O i 5 5tJ >

60 cr < O — O) P a s-o ^ d ?

« <b > •£• &. > bfiti O

» E = 2 ^ i

>° a -a a " "9 o s

S g

„- 8

•j g

S £ j3 b

S J- u o ° ^•8 It's

11 . Jl| •8 g M 3 3 C "is a

i? *

S 5

"- * **e3 $> o x

'S Jc « c S

8. as'

HpO o »

^,^s

O R, o

a a,

"a'S

,S 06

"3.3 S „-•£ 8 'Co

** k. c C

o, S

.. sill 3 !

3 '5 60.5 *^ _. J « 9 c &<

• a e oj^'S oj E So»*t|*8 |So8|^2

S 8 a £ g fjl

•a I

o C ti B.| 8 •5ji|

60^-. o

= 3

c % £ "St ..Kb lis

__ O 01 £5£

O J3 .2 —1 CU O

42
APPENDIX B PUBLISHERS OF NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED MODEL CODES

Following is a list of major organizations and the model codes that each organization publishes.

This does not constitute a complete list. Only the codes that are most widely used throughout the Nation are included.

"American Insurance Association (AIA) 85 John Street New York, New York 10038

(212) 433-4400

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 5360 South Workman Mill Road Whittier, California 90601

(213) 699-0541

Publishes:

National Building Code

'Building Officials and Code Administrators,

International (BOCA) 17926 South Halsted

Homewood, Illinois 60430

(312) 799-2300

Publishes:

- Uniform Building Code

- Uniform Building Code Standards

- Uniform Mechanical Code (published jointly with

IAPMO)

- Uniform Fire Code

- Uniform Sign Code

- Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous

Buildings Analysis of Revisions

- Uniform Housing Code 'National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 470 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02210

(617) 482-8755

Publishes:

Publishes:

Basic Building Code

Basic Mechanical Code

Basic Fire Prevention Code Basic Property Maintenance Code Basic Industrialized Dwelling Code

Basic Energy Conservation Code

Code Enforcement Guidelines for Residential Rehabilitation

Basic Plumbing Code

National Electrical Code Electric Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings

"Council of American Building Officials (CABO) 560 Georgetown Building

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007

(202) 333-3791

Publishes:

- MCSC List of Model Code Standards

- One and Two Family Dwelling Code

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) 5032 Alhambra Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90032

(213) 223-1471

Publishes:

- Uniform Plumbing Code

- Uniform Solar Energy Code

- Uniform Mechanical Code (published jointly

with ICBO)

"Southern Building Code Congress, International (SBCC) 900 Montclair Road

Birmingham, Alabama 35213

(205) 591-1853

Publishes:

- Standard Building Code

- Standard Mechanical Code

- Standard Plumbing Code

- Standard Fire Prevention Code

- Standard Gas Code

- Standard Housing Code

"National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling

Contractors

1016 - 20th Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 331-7675

Publishes:

- National Standard Plumbing Code (co-sponsored

by the American Society of Plumbing Engineers)

43

NBS-114A (REV. 9-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS TN 998

,2. Gov't Accession Ho.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Impact of Building Regulations on Rehabilitation — Status

and Technical Needs

3* ffeeijatfettt* a Accession No.

7. AUTHOR(S) James G. Gross, James H. Pielert,

and Patrick W. Cooke

5. Publication Date May 1979

$.J*erf0raing Organization Code

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

«. f^f«<a/T«sfc/Woi* Unit No. 7443112

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP) 13. Type of Report & Period Covered

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

|

| Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

I 16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. It document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here,) This report presents the results of a study of the impact of regulations on building

rehabilitation and includes a discussion of the activities of the Building

Rehabilitation Technology Program of the Center for Building Technology. Particular

activities discussed relative to existing buildings include: (a) development of the

technical bases for regulations and an improved regulatory process, (b) development

of new technology and evaluation tools, and (c) development of responsive and costeffective decision tools. A new code concept is outlined which could be a replacement

for the "25-50 percent" rule presently in codes for new construction. This rule often

controls the amount of work that may be required in the rehabilitation of existing

buildings. The status of existing code documents for building rehabilitation is

provided along with an overview of other publications which discuss the impact of

building regulations on rehabilitation.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons) Building code; building research; code administration; existing buildings; model codes:

preservation; regulation; rehabilitation; renovation.

18. AVAILABILITY [xl Unlimited

I | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

£l] Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003- 0206 2-1

I | Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

50

22. Price $2.30

b U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 979 O-281-067 (113) USCOMM-DC

There's

anew

look

to...

p | / ... the monthly / >^L ^^V J / magazine of the Nation-

' j^

^

/ a ' Bureau of Standards.

f ^^^, / Still featured are special ar- ^^^^0^^Y^/ tides of general interest on \^^^ ^j / current topics such as consum- \v// er product safety and building ^^

technology. In addition, new sections are designed to . . . PROVIDE

SCIENTISTS with illustrated discussions

of recent technical developments and

work in progress . . . INFORM INDUSTRIAL

MANAGERS of technology transfer activities in Federal and private labs. . . DESCRIBE TO MANUFACTURERS advances in the field of voluntary and

mandatory standards. The new DIMENSIONS/NBS also

carries complete listings of upcoming conferences to be

held at NBS and reports on all the latest NBS publications,

with information on how to order. Finally, each issue carries a page of News Briefs, aimed at keeping scientist and consumalike up to date on major developments at the Nation's physical sciences and measurement laboratory.

(please detach here) SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

Enter my Subscription To DIMENSIONS/NBS at S11.00. Add S2.75 for foreign mailing. No additional postage is required for mailing within the United States or its possessions. Domestic remittances should be made either by postal money order, express money order, or check. Foreign remittances should be made either by international money order, draft on an American bank, or by UNESCO

coupons. Send Subscription to: NAME-FIRST, LAST

Remittance Enclosed (Make checks payable

to Superintendent of Documents)

O Charge to my Deposit Account No.

COMPANY NAME OR ADDITIONAL ADDRESS LINE

STREET ADDRESS

1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I II 1 1

CITY

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ill

STATE

1

ZIP CODE

1 1 1 1

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402

PLEASE PRINT



NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research

of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and development in those disciplines of the physical and

engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These

include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and

computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology, and

the basic technology underlying standardization. Also in- cluded from time to time are survey articles on topics closely

related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As

a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent NBS publications in NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 domestic;

$3.75 foreign. Note: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS

This monthly magazine is published to inform scientists, engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers, students, and

consumers of the latest advances in science and technology,

with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution

abatement, health and safety, and consumer product per- formance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau pro- grams in measurement standards and techniques, properties

of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and automatic data processing.

Annual subscription: Domestic, $11.00; Foreign $13.75

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special

publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers,

chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers,

and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide program co- ordinated by NBS. Program under authority of National

Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements

available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St. N.W., Wash., D.C.

20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research

results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the

structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose

of the standards is to establish nationally recognized require- ments for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supple- ment to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and

illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402. Order following NBS publications—NBSlR's and FIPS from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register.

Register serves as the official source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717

(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government).

In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor;

public distribution is by the National Technical Information

Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibli- ographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A litera- ture survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $25.00; Foreign, $30.00.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly.

Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey

issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $30.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic

services to National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data

Center (275.02) Boulder, Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-215

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK