Selected as an “idea of merit” by FAS and published here in February 2024.
In summer ‘23 I submitted this idea to the Federation of American Scientists’ Housing Supply Ideas Challenge , an initiative to crowdsource policy ideas for how the federal government can increase housing supply. State and local government officials generally have more ways to promote Housing Affordability, but the federal government can play a role too.
Mass timber can help with housing abundance
Compared to concrete and steel, mass timber buildings are faster and cheaper to construct, just as or safer in fires, and result in fewer CO2 emissions (and are renewable if the wood is sustainably forested). Single- and multi-family housing using mass timber, especially modular components, could put a significant dent in the 3.8M shortfall of housing units (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber, https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/could-mass-timber-solve-the-us-housing-crisis, https://www.woodworks.org/why-wood/sustainability/)
Use of mass timber is growing. But building codes — slowly catching up to the technology and the latest research — have limited the impact. Only in 2021 did amendments to the International Building Code enable the construction of mass timber buildings taller than 6 stories (up to 18). (https://www.structuremag.org/?p=19075, https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-technical/tall-mass-timber-provisions-represent-historic-new-building-code-requirements/)
Building codes are often slow to keep up
State and local government adoption of building codes lags even further. As of 2023, only 18 states have adopted the IBC 2021. Building codes will continue to update — for example, change proposals for 2024 include increasing the allowable area of exposed timber ceilings to 100%, from 20%, which would further decrease construction costs. (https://up.codes/code/international-building-code-ibc-2021#, https://www.structuremag.org/?p=19075)
Evidently there’s not a strong incentive for state & local governments to adopt IBC 2021 or further amendments. Eventually the market incentive for developers might prove strong enough to lobby governments to catch up — but for now, there’s no reason for developers in many states to even consider mass timber when it’s so restricted.
USDA could incentivize the adoption of the latest IBC
My idea is a federal grant-making program to state & local governments that implicitly requires the latest IBC codes to participate. An RFP for 8+ story mass-timber buildings would only be possible in locations where IBC 2021 is in effect (or the mass timber related amendments).
USDA would be an interesting department to house the program. USDA has policy interest in both the timber industry (Forest Service) and housing (Rural Development). In fact, since 2015 the Wood Innovations Grant Program has invested in proposals that support the wood products economy — including institutional and multifamily buildings. In FY 2023 USDA has more than $43M to invest in this program due to the Inflation Reduction Act (much more in a year than previously; since 2015 $93M in grants have been awarded) (https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/energy-forest-products/wood-innovation/grants, https://www.fs.usda.gov/news/releases/usda-announces-43-million-investment-advance-innovation-in-wood-products)
To unlock the adoption of innovative mass timber construction, USDA should consider these actions:
- Significantly expand the FS Wood Innovations Grant Program or model a new program within RD after it
- Focus a large portion of available funding around multi- and single- family housing
- Write RFP requirements that necessitate the latest IBC mass timber amendments This incentivizes state & local governments to adopt, and developers to push for adoption of, the latest amendments.
If all states adopted IBC 2021 (and then 2024 and further mass timber related amendments), then more and more developers would try mass timber materials.
Full adoption could lead to rapidly falling cost of construction and therefore increased productivity in the industry. One of the tallest buildings using cross-laminated timber components (not fully mass timber) was completed in 2022 in Milwaukee and the superstructure took about 50% less time compared to traditional construction techniques. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber, https://www.fastmarkets.com/insights/could-mass-timber-solve-the-us-housing-crisis, https://www.cdsmith.com/ascent#woodworks-video)
If existing mass timber components and construction processes are 4X faster, then further productivity improvements, learning rates, and innovation would push the full impact even further.