Almost every day, someone proposes a new idea to make our homes more energy-efficient, sustainable, and safe. Endless meetings, webinars, conferences, and committees are dedicated to discussing these ideas. Engineers, scientists, government officials, code enforcement officers, and environmental advocates all participate in moving the industry forward. On the surface, this is fantastic: who wouldn’t want safer, healthier, more efficient homes for everyone?
But underneath the good intentions lies a growing challenge: every time a new rule or regulation is introduced, it carries a cost. New standards aren’t implemented for free. Builders have to redesign plans, retrain crews, buy new materials, and invest in updated equipment. Every small adjustment inches the cost of a new home higher—and often, much higher. It’s a classic case of “death by a thousand cuts,” and for many first-time homebuyers, these cuts have turned the dream of owning a home into something just out of reach.
Recently, my neighbor came to me frustrated. He was helping his son and daughter-in-law buy a new home from a local builder—the same builder he used eight years ago. The sticker shock was real: the same style of home, built by the same builder, on similar land, was almost double the price he paid back then.
When he asked the builder why, the answer was simple but telling: “The biggest reason is price of materials but changes to the building codes are in second place.”
My neighbor’s next question hit me like a hammer:
“If these new building codes are so good, doesn’t that mean my house isn’t as good as my son’s? And what about your house, or the rest of the homes in our town? And how are people who can’t afford a new house supposed to do? Live in a trailer?”
The Intent vs. the Reality
The truth is, building codes are a good thing. They’ve saved lives, made homes more durable, improved energy efficiency, and created minimum standards that protect everyone—from the first buyer to the fifth. We don’t want to go back to the days when “builder-grade” meant barely up to par.
But the rapid pace and frequency of code updates—layered on top of each other without always considering the cumulative impact—has created a growing disconnect between what’s ideal and what’s affordable.
Each new regulation often adds hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars to the cost of construction. A better window requirement? That’s $1,500 more. An upgraded insulation mandate? Add another $2,000. Stricter blower door test standards? Another $3,000 when you factor in extra labor and materials. On it goes. And remember—these are not options for buyers to decline. They are mandated.
Multiply that across an entire home, and suddenly, a $275,000 starter home turns into a $400,000 entry-level house. The family that could have swung $275K now can’t even get a foot in the door.
So, we have to ask: when is good enough…enough?
Are Yesterday’s Homes Unsafe?
It’s easy to wonder if homes built under older codes are somehow “bad” or “unsafe” compared to brand-new ones. But that’s rarely the case.
Most homes built 10, 20, even 30 years ago were constructed to the best standards of their time—and the overwhelming majority remain perfectly safe and livable. They may not have triple-pane windows or net-zero energy certifications, but they are solid, functional homes that serve their purpose well.
Think about it this way: if we applied the same logic to cars, every car more than five years old would be considered unsafe and unusable. Yet millions of perfectly good vehicles are on the road every day, simply lacking the newest features like automatic braking or lane assist. The same is true for homes.
Older homes aren’t obsolete. They reflect the standards, materials, and knowledge of the time they were built. And just like older cars, older homes can be upgraded and maintained to meet the needs of their owners without being discarded or shamed.
The Missing Middle
There’s another consequence of this relentless code escalation: we are squeezing out the middle of the market.
Affordable new construction is disappearing. Builders often can’t afford to produce truly entry-level homes anymore—not because they don’t want to, but because regulations have made it nearly impossible to deliver a quality, code-compliant house at a price first-time buyers can handle.
That leaves families with tough choices: buy an older home and take on the maintenance and repairs, stretch their budgets to uncomfortable levels for a new one, or rent indefinitely. In some markets, mobile homes and manufactured homes are being promoted again as the “solution”—even though many people would prefer a modest stick-built or modular home if it were within reach.
Meanwhile, politicians and policymakers continue to introduce even more building mandates, often without fully understanding how these cumulative costs impact everyday buyers.
Striking a Smarter Balance
The point here isn’t to demonize building codes. They are necessary and have improved lives. But we have to start asking harder questions about the balance between advancement and affordability.
- Should every single code improvement be required for every single house, or should there be tiers based on intended homebuyer demographics?
- Can we prioritize certain upgrades based on real, demonstrated benefits versus theoretical or marginal improvements?
- Could we offer incentives for voluntary upgrades rather than mandates, allowing buyers to choose higher performance features if they can afford them?
- Should starter homes have a different, more attainable set of requirements than luxury homes?
Until we start having these conversations, the divide will only widen: those who can afford to comply will enjoy the benefits, and those who can’t will be shut out of new construction altogether.
So, When Is Good Enough…Enough?
Good enough doesn’t mean cutting corners or abandoning safety. It means recognizing that at some point, the cost of marginal improvements outweighs the real-world benefit for the average buyer.
It means understanding that a home built to the 2012 or 2015 codes may not be the ultimate in efficiency or resiliency—but it’s still a perfectly good, safe, comfortable place to live.
It means asking ourselves whether the pursuit of perfection is making it impossible for ordinary people to achieve the American (or Canadian) dream of homeownership.
And it means acknowledging that new isn’t always automatically better—especially if it prices out the very families who need housing the most.
In the end, maybe the goal shouldn’t be endless improvement at any cost. Maybe the goal should be sustainable progress—where we make homes better and keep them attainable for the people who need them most.
Because if we keep moving the goalposts without looking back, we may wake up one day and realize we’ve built a future that’s perfect on paper—but out of reach for far too many.
.
Gary Fleisher, The Modcoach, writes about the modular and offsite construction industry at Modular Home Source.
.
.
CLICK HERE to read the latest edition
Contact Gary Fleisher
