When a building is defined as a “high-rise,” that triggers the need for better, more expensive, fire safety systems than a smaller building. State requirements include an automatic sprinkler system, a power generator, emergency communications systems, and pressurized staircases. These rules, although they add significant costs to building, are important to ensure occupants remain safe in case of emergency.
The question is the threshold at which the high-rise requirements kick in. By making the threshold needlessly low, Massachusetts is creating unnecessary hindrances to building housing. That should change.
The International Building Code, a model code commonly used in the United States, sets the high-rise threshold as 75 feet above ground, measured at the floor of the highest story. Typically, this translates to seven stories, with the high-rise requirements kicking in at eight.
Massachusetts’s building code, however, differs in some ways from the International Building Code. Massachusetts defines a high-rise as a building that’s 70 feet above ground, measured at the roof. Typically, this translates to six stories, with the high-rise requirements kicking in at seven.
That means one less story in which to build units that can be sold or rented — translating to less housing and less money to pay for the building. Sometimes, the difference between six and seven stories can be the difference between making a project work — or not.
Colin Booth, a principal at Stack + Co., an architectural and construction management firm, said the limit is why Boston-area buildings are often either 69 feet and 10 inches — or more than 100 feet, where the additional floors can cover the extra building costs.
Two Boston projects Booth is working on illustrate the impact. One project, at 2 Bowdoin Street in Dorchester, is slated to have seven stories, 22 apartments, and ground-floor restaurant or commercial space. Booth said an original design proposal was for a six-story building, but the finances didn’t work. He redesigned it using cross-laminated timber, a newer engineered wood product that allows for a shorter floor-to-ceiling height. That let the project proceed with seven stories, but still remain under the 70-foot high-rise limit.
However, not all projects can be redesigned. Even as the Dorchester project advances, Booth is drafting multiple feasibility studies for another Boston housing project, at 745 Hyde Park Avenue. There, he has yet to find a design that pencils out. Because of the site’s topography, a seventh story won’t fit even using cross-laminated timber. If it could be built up to 75 feet, a seventh story would be an option, and the project would be viable. “It does make it easier if you have more options on the table to make a project work,” Booth said.
The Massachusetts threshold stems from a state law stating that a building that rises 70 feet above ground level needs automatic sprinkler systems. That law passed in 1973, 27 years before the first International Building Code was published.
House and Senate journals from 1973 don’t record any discussion about the reason for the 70-foot limit.
John Nunnari, executive director of AIA Massachusetts, the state chapter of the American Institute of Architects, said the law’s origin appears to be that firefighters’ ladders in the 1970s could only extend to 70 feet.
But ladders today can extend more than 100 feet. And Brockton Fire Chief Brian Nardelli, second vice president of the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts, said ladder height matters less now because firefighters tend to operate by using the building’s own systems, hooking hoses into a standpipe system. The difference between 70 feet and 75 feet is “splitting hairs,” Nardelli said.
The state fire marshal’s office declined to comment, referring questions to the Board of Building Regulations and Standards. A board spokesperson said neither the state statute setting the limit nor the first edition of the building code, which became effective in 1975, provide any context as to why the heights differ between the Massachusetts Building Code and the International Building Code.
Steve Smith, executive director of the New York-based Center for Building in North America, said he’s not aware of any other state building code with a high-rise threshold below 75 feet. While some cities may impose lower limits, that is changing — the Santa Monica, Calif., City Council voted in September to raise that city’s 55-foot high-rise limit to 75 feet.
The limit may have made sense in 1973. The question is why the Legislature or Board of Building Regulations and Standards haven’t bothered updating it since then. Boston architect Sam Naylor submitted a proposal to the board requesting that the state change its building code to conform with the International Building Code on this issue, and Naylor said he expects the board to hold a hearing on his proposal in November.
With the state in a housing crisis, updating the high-rise threshold in Massachusetts’s building code so it’s in line with the International Building Code seems like basic common sense.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
