Testimony of Richard T. Anderson, President New York Building Congress before New York City Council Committee on Housing and Bui
Published on Nov 30, 2004 by
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed changes to the New York City Building Code.
The Building Congress is a broad coalition of the design, construction and real estate industry. Our members represent all aspects of construction, from the architects that draw plans for buildings to the construction companies that raise the structures to the organizations that manage the finished product. We commend the NYC Department of Buildings and the Housing and Buildings Committee for exploring ways to streamline the building code and bolster the building community. The New York City Building Code has not gone under a significant revision since 1968 in spite of advances in the building industry. This hearing is timely and a welcome first step.
There are currently two competing codes before the Council’s consideration, the NFPA 5000 and the International Building Code. The NFPA 5000 is the inferior proposal of the two and its implementation would be detrimental to our industry. The NFPA is a new code and, to date, only one suburb of Houston and a small town in Maine have adopted it. In fact, NFPA was rejected by Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix when they recently considered updating their codes. The NFPA has no past experience with a complete model code. New York City, with its unique building density, height and security needs, should not adopt a code whose efficiency and success has not been tested. NFPA is not coordinated, meaning that the different sections like structures, building materials, and administration are not well integrated into the overall code. This would create a quagmire of issues for the design and construction industry. We urge you to oppose the NFPA 5000 code.
The second proposal is the International Building Code. It is based on three national codes that have been in effect for decades, and therefore has a wealth of experience and history behind it. The International Code Council, the organization that wrote the INC, has extensive experience in writing codes, and it has at our disposal a superb information support system. Currently, 44 states, including New York, have implemented the IBC as the base for their building codes. We know it works and works well. It is coordinated, comprehensive and undergoes regular reviews and updates.
Under the leadership of Building’s Commissioner Patricia Lancaster, the Department of Buildings has implemented an in-depth review of the IBC in which the design, construction and real estate industry has actively participated. This continuing dialogue is allowing the best provisions of the City’s building code to be merged with the IBC, particularly in regard to the City’s stringent safety and high-density building standards. Unlike the NFPA, the IBC code would be tailored to New York City’s needs.
Intro. 478, the IBC Blueprint Bill, mandates that the new Building Code be reviewed and updated every three years. New York City will be assured that its code is proactive and shaped in collaboration with the organizations that are governed by it. Although the final Building Code has yet to be completed and reviewed, the Blueprint Bill is an important step in carrying forward the discussion and the Building Congress encourages you to recommend adoption by the full City Council.
On November 30, 2004, I testified before this committee in support of Intro. 478, the blueprint bill for the International Building Code (IBC). This bill sets forth a process for reviewing the IBC, amending it to reflect NYC’s particular needs, and then incorporating it into a final NYC Code. The Building Congress continues to support the IBC and encourages this Committee to endorse this important legislation.
The Building Congress is a leadership coalition of the design, construction and real estate industry. Our members represent all aspects of construction, from the architects that draw plans for buildings to the construction companies that raise the structures to the organizations that manage the finished product.
The New York City Building Code has not undergone a significant revision since 1968 in spite of advances in the building industry. Adoption of the IBC would not only modernize the building code and bring it into conformity with the codes of 44 states; it will set up mechanisms for future review and revision every three years. This will ensure that the City’s building code remains on the cutting edge of building technology.
Members of the Council are aware of a competing code before the Council’s consideration, the NFPA 5000. We believe the NFPA 5000 is an inferior code and its implementation would be detrimental to our industry. The NFPA 5000 is a new code. Few localities have adopted it, and it was rejected by Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix when they considered updating their codes. The NFPA has no past experience with a complete model code. As we stated in our November 30 testimony, New York City, with its unique building density, height and security needs, should not adopt a code whose efficiency and success has not been tested.
Conversely, the IBC is based on three national codes that have been in effect for decades, and therefore, has a wealth of experience and history behind it. The International Code Council, the organization that wrote the IBC, has extensive experience in writing codes, and it offers a superb information support system. The IBC is coordinated, comprehensive and undergoes regular reviews and updates.
Under the leadership of Building’s Commissioner Patricia Lancaster, the design, construction and real estate industry worked closely with the City to modify the IBC to fit New York’s unique building environment. This continuing dialogue is allowing the best provisions of the City’s building code to be merged with the IBC, particularly in regard to the City’s stringent safety and high-density building standards. Unlike the NFPA, the IBC code has been tailored to New York City’s needs. In tailoring the IBC to the City’s needs, it was recognized that the one area where the NFPA excelled was in regard to fire protection. Accordingly, the NFPA’s fire protection guidelines were integrated into the IBC.
By voting in favor of the IBC, the City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings is ensuring that New York City will adopt a building code that is proactive and shaped in collaboration with the organizations that are governed by it.
On November 30, 2004, I testified before this committee in support of Intro. 478, the blueprint bill for the International Building Code (IBC). This bill sets forth a process for reviewing the IBC, amending it to reflect NYC’s particular needs, and then incorporating it into a final NYC Code. The Building Congress continues to support the IBC and encourages this Committee to endorse this important legislation.
The Building Congress is a leadership coalition of the design, construction and real estate industry. Our members represent all aspects of construction, from the architects that draw plans for buildings to the construction companies that raise the structures to the organizations that manage the finished product.
The New York City Building Code has not undergone a significant revision since 1968 in spite of advances in the building industry. Adoption of the IBC would not only modernize the building code and bring it into conformity with the codes of 44 states; it will set up mechanisms for future review and revision every three years. This will ensure that the City’s building code remains on the cutting edge of building technology.
Members of the Council are aware of a competing code before the Council’s consideration, the NFPA 5000. We believe the NFPA 5000 is an inferior code and its implementation would be detrimental to our industry. The NFPA 5000 is a new code. Few localities have adopted it, and it was rejected by Dallas, Denver, and Phoenix when they considered updating their codes. The NFPA has no past experience with a complete model code. As we stated in our November 30 testimony, New York City, with its unique building density, height and security needs, should not adopt a code whose efficiency and success has not been tested.
Conversely, the IBC is based on three national codes that have been in effect for decades, and therefore, has a wealth of experience and history behind it. The International Code Council, the organization that wrote the IBC, has extensive experience in writing codes, and it offers a superb information support system. The IBC is coordinated, comprehensive and undergoes regular reviews and updates.
Under the leadership of Building’s Commissioner Patricia Lancaster, the design, construction and real estate industry worked closely with the City to modify the IBC to fit New York’s unique building environment. This continuing dialogue is allowing the best provisions of the City’s building code to be merged with the IBC, particularly in regard to the City’s stringent safety and high-density building standards. Unlike the NFPA, the IBC code has been tailored to New York City’s needs. In tailoring the IBC to the City’s needs, it was recognized that the one area where the NFPA excelled was in regard to fire protection. Accordingly, the NFPA’s fire protection guidelines were integrated into the IBC.
By voting in favor of the IBC, the City Council Committee on Housing and Buildings is ensuring that New York City will adopt a building code that is proactive and shaped in collaboration with the organizations that are governed by it.