Across the United States, building codes apply the latest standards
and technologies to requirements for the construction of homes, office
buildings, factories and warehouses, and retail and commercial
structures. Building codes have evolved over the years as new issues
have arisen (e.g., the need to provide greater access to handicapped
people).
Historically, requirements covering rehabilitation of existing
structures have been tied to the standards for new buildings. The
larger the cost of a project, the greater the burden on the developer
to meet the requirements of modern codes. Meeting modern standards in
old buildings is difficult and expensive, and often impossible. Meeting
those standards often produces little or no benefit from the standpoint
of safety, access, and utility. When code requirements impose excessive
costs and other burdens, developers often walk away from projects. The
impact can be devastating for cities with old building stocks that are
trying to compete with suburban areas for development.
For new and old buildings, code standards cover a myriad of issues:
main entrances, emergency exits, width of doors and stairways,
placement of stairwells and elevators, treads and risers of stairs,
building materials, plumbing and electrical systems, window size and
placement, building setbacks, building materials, floor “sag,” ceiling
heights, toilet and kitchen facilities, roofing, and siding.
Regulations establish “ideal” design for these components of buildings.
Realizing these standards might indeed be beneficial, all things being
equal; but realizing these standards might not be reasonable when they
add great costs to rehabilitation and add few benefits in terms of the
safety or usefulness of the structure.
After years of frustration with the rehabilitation standards, the
state legislature in 1995 passed a bill instructing the Department of
Community Affairs to revise the subcode. A state senator from Trenton,
where relief from the regulations was rarely granted and where old
buildings were falling into disuse and disrepair at an alarming rate,
introduced the legislation. The Department instructed the Division of
Codes and Standards (C&S) to develop a new rehabilitation subcode.
The C&S team commissioned a survey of New Jersey properties by the
Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. That survey
documented numerous instances in which stringent and arbitrate
rehabilitation standards frustrated efforts to save and improve old
buildings.
Under the direction of its director, William M. Connolly, C&S
created an in-house team of eight professionals with a wide range of
expertise, as well as a 30-member advisory committee that included
representation from construction, labor, environment, housing, local
government, historic preservation, and other groups. The C&S team
examined the building code section by section and created a whole new
code. The new code incorporates all of the definitions and language
used for years in New Jersey and across the nation, but uses them in a
unique way.
The code establishes six categories of rehabilitation – (1) repair,
(2) renovation, (3) alternation, (4) reconstruction, (5) change of use,
and (6) additions. Each type of work entails specific requirements
concerning materials, structural strength, new building elements, the
extent of the renovation, and other aspects of construction. The major
principle underlying the Rehabilitation Subcode is that code
requirements should be based on the work needed to produce a safe
building, not those required for a new building. Unlike 25/50, which
based code requirements on the dollar value of the structure and
rehabilitation costs, the Rehabilitation Subcode sets code requirements
that are designed to address specific issues such as fire safety and
accessibility. In its focus on specific issues, the Rehabilitation
Subcode delineates specific alternatives to meet the requirements and
specific conditions under which requirements can be waived. The
underlying rule of thumb is Hippocratic: all buildings should be as
safe after the project is undertaken as before the project is
undertaken. In other words, do no harm. By saving and rehabilitating
buildings that have stood the test of time, the state will do more to
protect its people that reams of regulations that attempt to force
round pegs into square holes.
It is often said that the new subcode allows for “greater
flexibility.” That is a fair statement in some cases, but not true in
other cases. The rehab subcode is more flexible in allowing developers
to choose from several options in meeting basic standards for safety
and structural integrity. The ability to install a sprinkler system to
avoid building a new exit is the most frequently cited example. But the
rehab subcode also allows less flexibility. Because standards for
rehabilitation are less arbitrary, there are fewer opportunities for
developers to negotiate variances with local officials. This reduced
flexibility saves time and money for all concerned, improves fairness
across the state, nearly eliminates arbitrary enforcement of rules, and
reduces the possibility of corrupt application of the code.
The new rehab code makes it easier for construction firms to
initiate municipal review. Because project review entails less
negotiation over small details, firms and agencies are confident that
they can determine the feasibility of a project long before it reaches
a full process of design. Developers can spend less money on uncertain
projects, which leaves more money for actual projects.
The new subcode also avoids narrow interpretations of the
characteristics of buildings that are irrelevant to the structure’s
safety and structural soundness. Determining whether an old structure
with an attic has two and one half stories or three stories could cause
extended negotiations under the old code. Under the new code, the
question is irrelevant. If the building meets or exceeds its previous
record of safety, it does not matter how public officials count the
floors.
Another innovation is the presentation of the rehab subcode. State
officials liken the subcode to a cookbook. Users are given complete
“recipes” for whatever they want to “cook.” Someone seeking to renovate
an industrial building gets one recipe; someone seeking to redevelop
residential structures gets another recipe. All of the ingredients are
spelled out. This contrasts with the typical mode of delineating code
requirements, which organize those requirements according to the
element being addressed (e.g., windows, stairs, ceilings, plumbing,
electrical systems). The cookbook format produces some redundancies –
requirements are restated fully for each kind of structure – but that
also makes the code easier to use. Users do not need to jump around
several documents to determine the standards for their project. All the
requirements are in one place.
The rehab subcode recognizes that simple statements of requirements
are not always better. The rehabilitation subcode recognizes that
explicit documentation of regulations is usually preferable to general
standards. One state official commented that the old 25/50 rule is just
one paragraph long, “but it leaves you nowhere. It looks simple, but it
triggers 1,300 pages of regulations that are hard to find.”
In one year, the code has contributed to a dramatic increase in
rehabilitation work in cities and towns across the state. It is
difficult if not impossible to determine the rehabilitation code’s
impact statistically, but the scant statistics we have are revealing.
In Newark, total rehabilitation spending rose from $68.1 million in
1997 to $108.5 million in 1998, the first year of the code’s
implementation, an increase of 59.2 percent. In Jersey City,
rehabilitation spending rose from $48.5 million to $89 million, an
increase of 83.5 percent. In Trenton, rehabilitation spending rose from
$21 million to $29.4 million, an increase of 40.1 percent. As a point
of comparison, statewide spending on rehabilitation rose from $3.79
billion to $4.08 billion, an increase of 7.7 percent. In the previous
year, before the code’s implementation, spending on rehabilitation had
actually declined in Jersey City (by 5.7 percent) and Trenton (35.6
percent), while increasing more modestly in Newark (16.4 percent).
Developers and state and municipal officials also state that the
rehab subcode shaves at least 10 percent off the cost of redeveloping
old buildings – and in some cases as much as 40 percent. One developer
said that his project saved $500,000 alone by allowing floors in his
structure to have twice the “sag” allowed new buildings; the building’s
long history and impressive structural integrity obviated the need to
reinforce the floors. Avoiding a requirement to replace stairs saved at
least another $75,000, and the ability to use an old door saved
$15,000. Many projects that would require replacement or redesign of
windows also saved thousands of dollars.
What the statistics do not reveal, the experiences of members of the
construction industry do. A well-known developer of artist lofts,
Carmie Bee, said he would never undertake to rehabilitate a Jersey City
warehouse into almost 100 units of live/work space under the old code.
James Landon, the developer of a Jersey City day care/elderly housing
complex, said the same. In a separate interview, the executive director
of Isles, a nonprofit housing development organization in Trenton, said
the rehab subcode could dramatically increase the production of
affordable housing in the inner city.
The experiences of municipal officials are also revealing. Len
Pucciatti, a construction official with the City of Trenton, indicated
that the program had dramatically streamlined the review process for
rehabilitation projects. Because the subcode does not require complex
wrangling over the extent of renovation and the type of changes needed
to bring a building up to code, developers can present local officials
with less detailed preliminary plans – making their planning process
simpler and less expensive. Ray Meyer, a construction official in
Jersey City, argued that the rehab subcode encouraged dozens of
projects that might not have been possible under the old system.
Another benefit of the subcode is the aesthetic enhancement of
buildings and city spaces. Previous code standards on door widths would
have disallowed the use of a beautiful copper door at the front
entrance of a structure for day care and elderly housing in Jersey
City. One of the most striking projects made possible by the rehab
subcode is the conversion of an old auto garage into housing in
Trenton. Under the old code, the windows facing an alley would have
been filled in because of requirements that windows not be located
directly at the property line. Losing the windows would have destroyed
the livability of the building and cut off a beautiful structure from
its historic community. Even if it had been rehabbed under the old
system – a doubtful proposition – it would not have fit into its
context as well.
Urban design improvements and protections are also possible under
the subcode. The so-called “New Urbanism” movement has underscored the
desirability of locating buildings right up to the property line; a
lack of setbacks helps to create an attractive and functional “street
wall.” But new buildings require a setback that would damage the
continuity of the street. Old buildings, which have grown into the
“fabric” of the community, also enhance the historic character of
neighborhoods.