Unlocking Small Multifamily Housing Through Building Code Reform recap
July 14, 2026
On Tuesday, July 14, 2026, Boston Indicators hosted an author briefing on the new report, Unlocking Small Multifamily Housing Through Building Code Reform, in partnership with the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University and Nominal. The report highlights how current building codes limit the construction of small multifamily housing units and how common-sense changes could help address Massachusetts’ housing shortage.
Chris Herbert, managing director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, opened the briefing. He noted that while zoning reform has received significant attention, “building codes also play a significant role in determining what gets built, and only more recently has become a focus of policy discussions.”
Sam Naylor, founding partner at Nominal and lead author of the report, presented the key findings. He framed the report around the need to remove barriers to “missing middle” housing, buildings of roughly 3 to 24 units. He explained that while modest multifamily housing is increasingly being legalized through zoning reforms, “we are finding that they remain quite impractical to construct because of the building code.” He described small multifamily housing as “an orphaned building type” that faces many of the same regulatory requirements as much larger commercial buildings but without the economies of scale to absorb those costs.
Naylor noted the appeal of these smaller buildings, saying, “Small multifamily housing, like the triple-decker we started our family in, can offer homes to live meaningful lives in without compromising on the elements that make living delightful.” He argued these buildings provide “connection to daylight, nature, and small communities” while supporting “walkable and bikeable neighborhoods with local grocery stores and active parks.”
Naylor also highlighted two of the report’s primary recommendations: to expand the state’s capacity to research and amend building codes, and to create a dedicated section or appendix to the Massachusetts building code focused specifically on small multifamily housing. According to Naylor, this appendix would “allow a more targeted approach to various egress, accessibility, and fire protection rules that better match the scale and risk of smaller residential structures.”
Stephen Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, responded to the findings, placing Massachusetts’ challenges in a national and international context. He argued that U.S. building codes are unusually structured, observing that “the United States and Canada, but especially the United States, do things very differently than other countries.” He also noted that “the (U.S.) codes are generally much more friendly towards single-family development” than multifamily housing.
Boston Indicators Senior Fellow Amy Dain then led a question-and-answer session with Naylor and Smith.
Dain opened by asking why Massachusetts should invest in developing its own building code expertise rather than relying solely on national model codes. Naylor argued that because Massachusetts operates under a statewide building code administered by a volunteer board, meaningful reform must occur at the state level. He said the board lacks sufficient resources to address the billions of dollars in construction it oversees, and he called for greater investment in research and technical capacity. Smith agreed that national or international standards would be ideal, but said states are currently best positioned to pursue meaningful reforms.
Addressing questions about safety, Dain acknowledged that “changing codes that protect human safety just makes me nervous” and asked whether lowering construction costs inevitably requires compromising safety. Both speakers said many proposed reforms are intended to maintain equivalent levels of protection while eliminating unnecessary costs. Naylor argued that many code requirements could be “right-sized” to better reflect the actual risks of small multifamily buildings, while Smith said U.S. codes often prioritize fire safety without adequately considering other public safety issues.
The conversation concluded with a broader discussion of housing affordability. Dain asked how reducing construction costs ultimately translates into lower housing costs for residents. Naylor argued that while code reform alone will not solve the affordability crisis, lowering construction costs would enable more housing projects to move forward, increasing overall housing supply. He emphasized that building code reform should complement other strategies, including affordable housing production and alternative ownership models. Smith agreed that expanding supply remains essential. Lower development costs, he said, make more projects financially feasible and help improve housing affordability over time.
Amy Dain closed the event by inviting attendees to continue the conversation at Boston Indicators’ upcoming housing symposium in the fall, where additional research on permitting reform for small multifamily housing will be released, reinforcing the organization’s ongoing commitment to advancing practical solutions to Massachusetts’ housing shortage.
Chris Herbert, managing director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, opened the briefing. He noted that while zoning reform has received significant attention, “building codes also play a significant role in determining what gets built, and only more recently has become a focus of policy discussions.”
Sam Naylor, founding partner at Nominal and lead author of the report, presented the key findings. He framed the report around the need to remove barriers to “missing middle” housing, buildings of roughly 3 to 24 units. He explained that while modest multifamily housing is increasingly being legalized through zoning reforms, “we are finding that they remain quite impractical to construct because of the building code.” He described small multifamily housing as “an orphaned building type” that faces many of the same regulatory requirements as much larger commercial buildings but without the economies of scale to absorb those costs.
Naylor noted the appeal of these smaller buildings, saying, “Small multifamily housing, like the triple-decker we started our family in, can offer homes to live meaningful lives in without compromising on the elements that make living delightful.” He argued these buildings provide “connection to daylight, nature, and small communities” while supporting “walkable and bikeable neighborhoods with local grocery stores and active parks.”
Naylor also highlighted two of the report’s primary recommendations: to expand the state’s capacity to research and amend building codes, and to create a dedicated section or appendix to the Massachusetts building code focused specifically on small multifamily housing. According to Naylor, this appendix would “allow a more targeted approach to various egress, accessibility, and fire protection rules that better match the scale and risk of smaller residential structures.”
Stephen Smith, executive director of the Center for Building in North America, responded to the findings, placing Massachusetts’ challenges in a national and international context. He argued that U.S. building codes are unusually structured, observing that “the United States and Canada, but especially the United States, do things very differently than other countries.” He also noted that “the (U.S.) codes are generally much more friendly towards single-family development” than multifamily housing.
Boston Indicators Senior Fellow Amy Dain then led a question-and-answer session with Naylor and Smith.
Dain opened by asking why Massachusetts should invest in developing its own building code expertise rather than relying solely on national model codes. Naylor argued that because Massachusetts operates under a statewide building code administered by a volunteer board, meaningful reform must occur at the state level. He said the board lacks sufficient resources to address the billions of dollars in construction it oversees, and he called for greater investment in research and technical capacity. Smith agreed that national or international standards would be ideal, but said states are currently best positioned to pursue meaningful reforms.
Addressing questions about safety, Dain acknowledged that “changing codes that protect human safety just makes me nervous” and asked whether lowering construction costs inevitably requires compromising safety. Both speakers said many proposed reforms are intended to maintain equivalent levels of protection while eliminating unnecessary costs. Naylor argued that many code requirements could be “right-sized” to better reflect the actual risks of small multifamily buildings, while Smith said U.S. codes often prioritize fire safety without adequately considering other public safety issues.
The conversation concluded with a broader discussion of housing affordability. Dain asked how reducing construction costs ultimately translates into lower housing costs for residents. Naylor argued that while code reform alone will not solve the affordability crisis, lowering construction costs would enable more housing projects to move forward, increasing overall housing supply. He emphasized that building code reform should complement other strategies, including affordable housing production and alternative ownership models. Smith agreed that expanding supply remains essential. Lower development costs, he said, make more projects financially feasible and help improve housing affordability over time.
Amy Dain closed the event by inviting attendees to continue the conversation at Boston Indicators’ upcoming housing symposium in the fall, where additional research on permitting reform for small multifamily housing will be released, reinforcing the organization’s ongoing commitment to advancing practical solutions to Massachusetts’ housing shortage.
Agenda
Welcome & Introduction
Chris Herbert, Managing Director, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University
Author Briefing
Sam Naylor, Founding Partner, Nominal
Response
Stephen Smith, Executive Director, The Center for Building in North America
Audience Q&A
Moderator: Amy Dain, Senior Fellow, Boston Indicators