Building codes have evolved over the years in response to the emergence, and wider adoption, of new materials and construction methods. At the same time, catastrophes have become bigger, stronger, and more devastating due to the ever-changing climate.
Some of these events have approached the level of apocalyptic, but they have provided engineers, scientists, and experts the opportunity to learn from what worked and what did not, and experts have used that knowledge to elevate minimum design and construction standards to prevent history from repeating itself. The difference now? The baseline keeps moving.
Previously Low-Risk Regions
In 1992, Hurricane Andrew swept through south Florida and destroyed approximately 63,000 homes, damaging an additional 100,000. Andrew was a Category 5 storm with 165 mph winds. It drove an overhaul of the Florida Building Code along the peninsula.
However, since Andrew, multiple hurricanes with winds on the order of 150 mph have made landfall, and even areas that had historically been at lower risk for hurricanes found themselves in the path of destructive storms. Consider the likes of Hurricane Ike—impacting Texas causing over $50 billion in damage in 2008—and Hurricane Harvey, nine years later, which caused over $130 billion in damage.
Though Texas, historically, has certainly been in play during the Atlantic hurricane season, the New England area was generally not at high risk. However, within two years, the New York City metro area was impacted by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy. Sandy alone caused over $75 billion in damage to the area.
While hurricanes result in massive damage in terms of area and cost, they are not the only form of destruction. The 2018 Camp and Woolsey Fires in California caused over $14 billion in damages, while Texas’ deep freeze of 2021 reportedly had an impact north of $200 billion.
Often associated with hurricanes, flooding is the most frequent severe weather threat and one of the costliest natural disasters facing the nation, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Moreover, FEMA says 25% of flood insurance claims originate in areas that are moderate-to-low risk.
It would appear the writing is on the wall: Destruction is waiting around the corner in one form or another, and we must find ways to mitigate the risks and avoid the cycle of rebuilding damaged buildings and structures to standards that are insufficient in the face of the new caliber of catastrophes we are seeing.
In June 2022, leaders within the Biden administration took initial steps when they announced the National Initiative to Advance Building Codes, with the intent to “help state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments adopt the latest, current building codes and standards, enabling communities to be more resilient to hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, and other extreme weather events that are intensifying due to climate change,” according to a White House statement. It continues, “Communities that have adopted modern building codes are already saving an estimated $1.6 billion a year in avoided damage from major hazards, with projected cumulative savings of $132 billion through 2040—a figure that will become much higher if more communities adopt modern codes.”
FEMA publishes Building Code Adoption Tracking (BCAT) fact sheets that provide overviews of hazard-resistant building code adoption statuses in each state and territory within a FEMA region, by jurisdiction (i.e., state, county, city). Based on the 2022 BCAT tracking, 39 states fell into the “Lower Resistance” category. Additionally, just over one-third (35%) of jurisdictions within the U.S. have the latest model codes in place. Clearly, there is a wide variance of adopted building codes across the country.
Navigating Building
Code Requirements
The purpose of building codes is to ensure minimum standards for the construction of new buildings, as well as for repairs to existing buildings following property damage, including from catastrophes such as fires, floods, and hurricanes. Building codes serve a valuable purpose and use the knowledge of past events to look forward in safeguarding life and property. However, navigating building code requirements can be challenging because they are extensive and complex, and also there are inherent issues in interpretation and application.
Model codes include requirements and suggested practices or recommendations regarding the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures. Model codes, though, are not enforceable until adopted by the authority having jurisdiction. Adopted codes are enforceable by law—they are building codes that have been accepted, modified, and/or developed by a jurisdiction and they define the minimum standard that must be adhered to. Additionally, adopted building codes can be different at both the state, county, and city levels, creating confusion for many. These inherent issues increase the potential for misinterpretations or misconceptions that can lead to insufficient designs as well as an inaccurate approach to repairing damage.
FEMA’s analysis indicates that model building codes and design standards, such as the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC) have low adoption rates of the newest standards. According to FEMA, between 75% and 100% of jurisdictions in Florida and California, which have state-based codes, are highly resistant to hazards based on their current building codes.
Florida has adopted the Florida Building Code (FBC), which was developed in conjunction with national model building codes and national consensus standards that have been amended specifically for the state. California has adopted the California Building Standards Code, which was developed as a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins: national model building codes, California-specific adaptations to the national model building codes, and building standards authorized by California’s legislature (not covered by national model codes). Both states are highly prone to disasters from fire, flood, wind, and/or earthquake.
As an example of differences in building code adoptions between state and city levels, the 2015 IBC and IRC is adopted by the State of Texas, whereas the City of Austin has adopted the 2021 editions of both IBC and IRC. Referenced design standards between the 2015 and 2021 editions vary, specifically as they relate to load provisions and bolstering the existing code requirements following catastrophes and advancing construction methods. The City of Houston, which remains with the 2015 IBC and IRC, voted to require all new construction in the city’s floodplains to be built two feet above the 500-year floodplain. This amendment, similar to the codes in place in California and Florida, exhibit the forward-thinking mindset necessary to combat the more frequent and damaging natural catastrophes.
Adopting Hazard-Resistant Designs
By the financial numbers alone, many industries—including engineering, construction, and insurance—surely must take notice of the White House’s claims of billions of dollars to be saved annually through adopting current building codes. Taking this approach even further would be the development and adoption of more substantial hazard-resistant or performance-based engineered designs, coupled with the use of new materials and systems designed to resist damage by water, wind, fire, or earthquake.
Examples of re-thinking conventional construction in terms of hazard-resistant or performance-based construction, in conjunction with advancing building codes, has shown mixed results so far. One successful example is a house built in Mexico Beach, Florida, known as the “Sand Palace,” that was widely photographed in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael. The single-family vacation home built in 2017 remained largely undamaged from Michael, which made landfall with 160 mph winds and measured storm surge of nearly 16 feet. The home was elevated on reinforced concrete pilings to allow rising water to travel below the residence, and was reportedly constructed to withstand wind speeds up to 240 or 250 mph. The owners indicated the performance-based design, which was above and beyond minimum code requirements, added approximately 20% to the cost of construction.
Contrary to the success of the Sand Palace, a cluster of homes was constructed in 2016 in Ventura, California to be more fire-resistant, and in compliance with strict fire codes introduced in California in 2008. These homes serve as a reminder that the current “strict” codes are not perfect. The homes were in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” and did not survive the Thomas Fire in 2017. They were designed to resist igniting, specifically through the use of fire-resistant roofing and cladding materials, fine mesh screens at attic vents, heat-resistant windows, and exterior living areas built with non-flammable materials.
Still, although this cluster of homes was destroyed, researchers with the University of California, San Diego and the University of British Columbia in Canada determined that California’s bolstered building codes (for fire-resistant construction) reduced the average risk of structural loss in a wildfire by approximately 40% for homes built in 2008 and later compared to homes built approximately 20 years earlier.
New Construction and
Existing Buildings
This discussion can extend beyond new construction and to existing buildings, whether such buildings are retrofitted or modified to adopt elements of modern building codes. Homeowners and business owners may be hesitant to voluntarily complete upgrades to their buildings to meet current code requirements, or perhaps even elements of current codes, due to fear of unknown risks and/or insurance implications. Similarly, the cost of retrofitting older buildings and structures may be prohibitive, or perhaps not possible.
As evidenced by the Sand Palace, constructing beyond the minimum standards of the building code came at a premium. One concern with implementing stricter building code requirements following a loss will be tied directly to insurable limits and coverages; specifically, whether code upgrade coverage will be sufficient to properly upgrade a structure to a hazard-resistant level. With inflation at record highs and construction costs in the U.S. up 20% year-over-year, adding an additional 20% to the cost of building a more hazard-resistant or performance-based design may become a financial breaking point. Similarly, paying out-of-pocket to fortify an existing structure is likely cost-prohibitive for most.
Regardless of how requirements for hazard-resistant standards are pushed forward, there needs to be universal advocacy for change to prevent future damage and loss of life. Beyond the obvious advocates for designing and constructing more fortified buildings and structures, the insurance industry is intimately involved in following catastrophes of all sorts. The insurance industry bears the brunt of the damage when there is an insurable loss. Incentivizing designers, contractors, and homeowners to build to stricter, more hazard-resistant standards would lead to less loss when a structure is exposed to a catastrophe later on. Incentivizing homeowners and building owners to retrofit and fortify their existing buildings pre-loss or post-loss could prevent a future- or repeat-loss event.
The examples of hazard-resistant or performance-based designs being effective are clear with the Sand Palace. Fire-resistant construction in California represents how advancing building codes can mitigate property damage and loss of life. Embracing a forward-thinking approach to modernizing building codes will in turn reduce the emergence of more apocalyptic-type images we have unfortunately become accustomed to following catastrophic events.