This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We\'ll assume you\'re ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Read More
Summary
The session “How Architects Can Take Advantage of New Colorado Housing Policies” explored two groundbreaking legislative measures in Colorado: House Bill 25-1273: Residential Building Stair Modernization and House Bill 25- 1272: Construction Defects & Middle Market Housing. Led by AIA Nikolaus Remus, AIA, Sean Jursnick, AIA, and John Glenn, AIA, the session provided architects with actionable insights into adapting their practices to take advantage of these policies.
AIA Colorado’s Housing Committee and Government Affairs Committee played key roles in advocating for these bills, with AIA Colorado’s lobbyist Jerry Johnson leading efforts at the Capitol. The Architects’ Advocacy Day at the Capitol was highlighted as a crucial initiative for engaging legislators and promoting the architecture profession.
HB25-1273 seeks to increase housing density by allowing single-stair residential buildings up to five stories in cities with populations exceeding 100,000. Local jurisdictions must adopt these provisions by December 2027. Denver is leading the way with its own additional safety measures, including allowances for Type III construction, signage requirements for fire fighters, and emergency escape openings for each unit instead of per floor. The bill excludes Type V construction due to fire safety concerns raised during stakeholder discussions, including input from fire marshals, fire chiefs, and firefighter unions. The session also showcased examples from Seattle, where single-stair housing has successfully provided affordable, mid-scale options in urban areas.
House Bill 25-1272 addresses Colorado’s condominium shortage through an opt-in program that requires third-party inspections during construction and establishes warranty periods for workmanship of one year, plumbing and electrical systems of two years, and structural components of six years. The program aims to reduce construction defects, improve liability protections for architects and engineers, and encourage more condominium projects. Colorado’s statute of repose of six years plus two years remains intact, with the program providing additional liability protection for construction professionals.
Speakers emphasized the importance of collaboration among architects, contractors, and policymakers to navigate these new opportunities effectively. Architects were encouraged to integrate these policies into their practices, from contract negotiations to construction administration, while considering the implications of third-party inspections and warranty requirements.
The session concluded with a call to support the Architects of Colorado Political Committee (ARCpac), which funds campaign contributions to candidates who share the values of the architecture profession. Attendees were urged to share feedback on their experiences with these policies to inform future improvements and ensure their successful implementation across Colorado.
Takeaways
Colorado is part of a broader national movement with states including Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Idaho, and Wisconsin proposing or passing single-stair legislation. Each state has taken different approaches—Texas created an opt-in model for local jurisdictions, while Minnesota formed a study group. Seattle has successfully built hundreds of single-stair projects over decades.
“It’s a broad movement that’s happening around the country, where legislators and policy makers are applying scrutiny to the building code and looking at ways to improve housing options through modifying the building code in ways that they feel appropriate for their states and their locations.”
While state law restricts single-stair buildings to certain construction types, architects can advocate at the local level for jurisdictions to allow Type V and Type III construction, just as Denver allowed Type III even though the state bill didn’t require it. Colorado is a home rule state, meaning local jurisdictions can adopt more permissive building codes.
“Right now, our greatest potential is to engage at the local level with jurisdictions that will adopt this code, advocate for them to allow Type V and Type III construction. There’s lots of safe precedent to build on, allowing Type V construction for this type of housing makes a lot of sense.”
Denver became the first Colorado city to adopt single-stair provisions, going beyond state requirements by allowing Type III construction in addition to Types I, II, and IV. Denver also requires emergency escape openings at each unit (not just each floor), building signage indicating single-stair design, and limits of no more than two single-stair buildings per site.
“In addition to allowing types I, II, and IV construction type for single-stair buildings of 5 stories, they also allow Type III as well. They felt that was appropriate to allow a very common construction type used all over the city for apartments.”
Type V wood frame construction was excluded from the single-stair bill due to strong opposition from fire marshals, fire chiefs, and the firefighters union. A 2024 version of the bill failed because fire marshals weren’t included in stakeholder discussions. In 2025, they drew a firm line against Type V construction, limiting the affordability potential of these buildings.
“They really put their foot down and said, we do not trust Type V construction, whether those assemblies are protected or not. That was basically a line in the sand they drew. We’re stuck with that because that’s what got the bill passed.”
Colorado cities with populations above 100,000 must modify their building codes to allow 5-story single-stair residential projects by December 2027. Smaller jurisdictions are not required to adopt these provisions but can opt in voluntarily through their typical code adoption process since Colorado is a home rule state.
“Not every city in the State is going to be required to allow these taller single stair buildings. The scope of the bill directs jurisdictions with populations of cities with populations above 100,000 people. And they have until December 1st of 2027 to create their codes.”
The Multifamily Construction Incentive Program applies to any for-sale multifamily residential project with two or more attached units, including duplexes, townhomes, row homes, and high-rise condos. The key requirement is that units share building components like walls, ceilings, or floors. Detached units on the same property would not be enrolled.
“This project does technically allow any project of two or more units to qualify, so it can be a duplex, it can be townhomes or row homes, it can be a high-rise condo building. So that’s a pretty broad scope, as long as it is a for-sale project.”
HB25-1272 creates an opt-in program intended to spur more condominium construction in Colorado by providing better protection against construction defect lawsuits in exchange for third-party inspections and warranties. No other state has attempted anything like this program, making Colorado’s implementation uncharted territory.
“No one else in the country is doing anything like this. We are in uncharted territory. There were over 100 stakeholder meetings with the sponsors of this bill, so there was a lot of people with a lot of opinions and input.”
Architects should discuss the construction defect program with clients before entering contracts, spell out that they are designing to 1272 standards, and ensure the owner agrees to require the general contractor to enroll in the program. Consultant contracts should also address the program and potential corrective action requirements.
“When negotiating your contract, you want to spell out that you are, as the architect, designing to these 1272 standards. Both parties agree that we want, collectively, we want the general contractor to enroll in this program and do the inspections.”
For projects enrolled in the program, owners must find an independent architect or engineer to specifically identify design negligence before naming architects in lawsuits. This is a significant improvement over current practice where it’s very easy to name architects in construction defect lawsuits with minimal evidence.
“For projects that do end up enrolled in this program, the owner who’s suffering from a defect actually has to find a consultant to evaluate whether or not they think that there is architects or engineers negligence, and they have to be specific about what that negligence is.”
Since the general contractor registers the project and enrollment happens late in the construction process, architects cannot control whether a project ultimately gets enrolled. Architects should document projects thoroughly regardless of program intentions, alert clients if inspections aren’t taking place, and assume standard liability risks apply.
“You still need to probably have a Plan B just in case the GC doesn’t follow through with these inspections. If they’re not, you still want to cover yourself and document the project thoroughly like normally, so down the road, if the GC does choose not to enroll, at least you still have that protection.”