It's important for architects to help shape building codes. Here's why.

Over the last 100 years, there's been an enormous uptick in the number of building codes and construction regulations. The built environment has matured significantly, and it’s essential for architects to understand not only the codes and standards adopted within their jurisdictions, but also the code development process.  

The process can take years, from the introduction of a proposal to final inclusion within the code and standard, to ultimate adaptation within a local jurisdiction.  

In states like North Carolina, recent natural disasters like Hurricane Helene illustrate the need for up-to-date building codes that address the increased risk of extreme weather due to climate change. Because North Carolina still relies on 2015 international standards that were put in place in 2018 due to a three-year cycle for adopting new standards, it missed out on $70 million in FEMA disaster relief funds that would have helped the state prepare for such an event. 

Deirdre Leclair, AIA, senior associate at SSOE Group, based in Atlanta, Georgia, is chair of the AIA Codes & Standards Committee, and AIA’s representative of the International Code Council’s (ICC) Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC).  

Leclair, along with other AIA members and AIA's CEO Lakisha Ann Woods, will be participating and testifying at this week’s ICC Committee Action Hearings (CAH) at the 2024 ICC Conference Expo in Long Beach, California. Two groups of codes—Group A and Group B—are under discussion during the 2024-2026 code cycle.  

We spoke with LeClair about her role and what she’ll be tackling this week for AIA. 

What's your job at ICC this week? 

Every three years, ICC has a target to publish new codes and updated versions of codes based on hearings. This new cycle is looking at change proposals submitted late last year and the beginning of this year. We had the first group of hearings in Orlando in April.  

In Long Beach, we are basically responding to modifications and comments from the April hearings. If anything from that first hearing wasn’t automatically approved — which would have sent it to consensus vote — we’re working with the people who were opposed to find a middle ground. We’re responding to comments and making modifications that weren’t already approved at the cycle.  

I’m on the fire action committee, which is made up of a group of building and fire officials, home builders, and other industry stakeholders like AIA. We at AIA want to have a seat at that table when it comes to developing code changes. 

What issues will you be focusing on?

We’re still working on the single-stair reform or single point access proposal [from the previous hearings], which I, along with Ron Geren, AIA, RLGA Technical Services, and Brendan Smith, AIA, of CannonDesign, testified on previously.

Here’s some background: Single point access was the norm in Europe and the United States. But in the 19th century, U.S. building codes began to mandate multiple egress from multifamily buildings. This led to the ubiquitous double-loaded corridor style of apartment buildings. In recent years, several states have re-legalized single-stair buildings, and many other states are considering doing so, the argument being that single stair buildings can be a more sustainable building option and help relieve current housing affordability issues. 

By design, single-stair buildings are built around a single stair or atrium. They can have narrower, more efficient floor plates—which means less embodied carbon. And because they can have windows on opposite sides of a unit, they can have better cross-ventilation and deliver as much light and air as that of a single family detached structure. On larger lots, single-stair buildings can include a courtyard or open space.  

Because single-stair buildings are often situated on infill lots and are smaller-scale designs, they can be a part of the affordable housing solution.  

There are detractors who say that having only one point of access could make a building less safe. However, European fire death statistics show that when built with the right fire safe materials these types of buildings are no less safe than those with double egress.

AIA’s Codes and Standards Committee has considered the issue from all sides and isn’t opposed to the idea of the single stair/single point of access; however, the committee was opposed to the proposed code change provided at the ICC Group A Code Action Hearing #1 in Orlando this past April 2024. 

The proposal was going to increase the number of floors in an apartment building, for example, increase the number of units per floor, and go from two stairs to one stair. One of the proposals went even further to take out the stretcher requirement of the elevators, which allow fire fighters to take a stretcher up to all of those stories. They'd have to take it up a stair or they'd have to use special equipment to get someone down.  

The way the change was written wasn't appropriate. As architects, we should be able to figure out a better design solution to this problem than what was proposed. We must look at the health, safety and welfare of the buildings we’re creating. That proposal needed work.  

Currently, we’re not 100 percent sure of our testimony language because the advocate for the proposal has not solidified what they are changing – if anything. They’ve told us that they are currently planning on changing the language to include in an appendix versus in the code itself (which would then be an option as opposed to being mandatory). They also stated that they are considering lowering the height of the building, and they also stated that they may withdraw that change and make a different modification.  

We also will be defending or modifying the proposals we made for the performance code, most of which were denied. However, one proposed plumbing code change was approved as submitted. It regarded the minimum number of required plumbing fixtures. The ICC Code Development Committee stated the change added needed clarity to the code. 

What is happening regarding the Group B efforts?

The language in the code section says you have to provide natural light or artificial light. Most of us would think, “Why wouldn’t you want natural light in sleeping rooms?” But when the code [includes the word] “or” it makes a huge difference to how a code is applied. We would like “and.” You need the artificial light, for example, at night and for egress. But you want natural light if the power goes out and also for the health and welfare of the occupants. It’s crucial for well-being.  

Several cities, including New York, San Francisco, Chicago, have revised their building codes to address this issue. AIA Austin advocated for an amendment to the IBC to ensure natural light in bedrooms, maintaining a balance between design flexibility and affordability, in alignment with the city’s housing priorities. The AIA Codes and Standards Committee created a subgroup to focus on drafting and creating the language for this proposal. 

Personally, my specialty is K-12. I'm always trying to provide natural lighting, but I can't do that with every classroom and make the building affordable. 

As we make this code proposal change, we have to think how it could affect our own practices. When we look at code changes, we have to decide how pinpointed the code change will be — is it only for this or that kind of building use?

And there is the question of whether codes should control your design. Sometimes that's why things get put into the code — so that bad design decisions aren't being made. But no, code should not always be how we solve a design problem. There's always going to be challenges. A code can’t address every situation; there are exceptions.  

What are you anticipating at this week's hearing? 

In my experience, things come up at the committee, and we need to respond. People can submit modifications even as they’re walking up to the mic. If we hear something heading in a direction that we don’t agree with, one or two or three of us will race up there to speak. Sometimes we’re a “me too” wave so we [those who are testifying] don’t repeat what others are saying. I’m working with AIA staff because when I speak, I’m speaking for the entire membership. We want to make sure what I’m going to say is what our stance is.  

What's the process for code changes and updates? 

The hearings starting on October 23, 2024, are broken up by code topic. We’ll hear all the fire codes, then any building codes and then mechanical and plumbing. I will be there for hearings on fire and building codes. I’ll be there for the International Wildland Urban Interface Code (aka, IWUI) as part of the Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC). AIA hasn’t taken a stance on some of the other code items as they impact engineers more so. 

The code cycle is three years. There’s so much to do and so many codes. Ultimately, codes change so much that states might not adopt them for six years. And the codes are not a requirement for states; adopting them is voluntary. As a practitioner, I have to be aware of what the adoptions are for where my projects are located.  

Once we’re done with the hearings, the ICC staff processes comments and make sure that in the draft they publish we can see all the official comments. We can’t interject new information, and we must stay with what was discussed at the previous hearing and respond to those comments. ICC staff themselves go through a lot to get us from point A to point B.  

But this process of code adoption brings everyone to the table and gives everyone a voice. Would we like to see all jurisdictions adopting the new codes every three years as they come out? I think there is an argument for it, but also there are arguments that [recognize the time and cost it takes] to go through the process of reviewing those codes, making sure that everything in it applies to our state and training everybody up on it. There are thousands of building and fire officials that have got to learn it.  

Michele Mihelic, senior director of codes and standards advocacy and policy at AIA, contributed expertise. 

Stacey Freed is a freelance writer based in New York state.