 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
lug-nut
Architect
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Black, Unmarked Helicopter |
| Posts: | 12382 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | private messages disabled. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:00 pm |
|
Costly New Mandate Calls for Fire Sprinklers in New Homes
(CNSNews.com) - Members of the International Code Council (ICC), an association that writes building codes, voted last Sunday in Minneapolis, Minn., to mandate fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and townhouses, which could add an estimated $3,000 to the cost of the average home.
Both supporters and opponents agree the new mandate will mean higher costs for new homes. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), which opposed the new requirement, sees a multibillion-dollar boon for fire-sprinkler manufacturers.
MORE AT LINK
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:33 pm |
|
You can thank the AIA.
They were instrumental in creating the ICC and getting its codes adopted everywhere.
|
unique1
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Little Rock, Arkansas USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Exams Taken: | GS, LF, BD/MM, CD | | Exams Passed: | LF, BD/MM, CD | | Describes Me: | Waited too long |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:46 pm |
|
Thanks for the post.
The article didn't mention when this would go into affect. Any idea? Maybe the next IRC code? One of my clients has already cut back on the building they do because the IBC 2006 mandates that all buildings not classified R-1 and R-2, over 2 stories be sprinklered. They do alot of condos and multifamily work (well, they did).
Anyone think this will hurt an already sagging housing economy? Not only will it raise the cost of the home, but the builder will add cost to handle the extra coordination, the Architect will add a cost to coordinate with the sprinkler heads, etc.....
Just my thoughts.
|
lug-nut
Architect
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Black, Unmarked Helicopter |
| Posts: | 12382 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | private messages disabled. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:55 pm |
|
unique1 wrote: Thanks for the post.
The article didn't mention when this would go into affect. Any idea? Maybe the next IRC code? One of my clients has already cut back on the building they do because the IBC 2006 mandates that all buildings not classified R-1 and R-2, over 2 stories be sprinklered. They do alot of condos and multifamily work (well, they did).
Anyone think this will hurt an already sagging housing economy? Not only will it raise the cost of the home, but the builder will add cost to handle the extra coordination, the Architect will add a cost to coordinate with the sprinkler heads, etc.....
Just my thoughts.
It will be in the 2009 edition. It will go into effect as local jurisdictions adopt it. Some of them may add exemptions to this new part of the code.
|
unique1
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Little Rock, Arkansas USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Exams Taken: | GS, LF, BD/MM, CD | | Exams Passed: | LF, BD/MM, CD | | Describes Me: | Waited too long |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
| Thanks.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 03:19 pm |
|
MA currently requires them on a case by case basis depending on how far away the home if from the the closest fire station as well as the availability of hydrants.
It may mean higher home costs...but theoretically it means lower insurance costs. The system would pay for itself in a matter of years.
It is pretty hard to argue against the added safety factor....but it is going a be an added PIA for residential architects.
|
archiboywunder
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
wograr wrote: MA currently requires them on a case by case basis depending on how far away the home if from the the closest fire station as well as the availability of hydrants.
It may mean higher home costs...but theoretically it means lower insurance costs. The system would pay for itself in a matter of years.
It is pretty hard to argue against the added safety factor....but it is going a be an added PIA for residential architects.
The idea of "lower insurance costs" may be used to garner general acceptance of this requirement but I guarantee you that you will never see your premiums drop as a result. Further, I would argue that it is existing older non-code-compliant multi-family type residences that really need sprinklers, not so much new construction built to current code.
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
Many of the small and mid-sized cities I work in already have this as an ordinance for new construction.
Most of the states I work in don't use IRC - even though most have adopted IBC - and the ones that do use IRC have many addenda and deletions. At the state level I'd expect to see this modified to include various exceptions - if not deleted altogether - so that it remains largely a municipal decision.
As for insurance premiums: most homeowners' policies do already have available discounts for home sprinkler systems - they're similar to the discounts that are applied for having hardwired smokes/CO detectors, or a burglar alarm system that communicates offsite.
For sprinkler systems the discount is generally in the 5% to 12% range.Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 05:30 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
dottie
Architect
| Joined: | Fri Sep 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Wasilla, Alaska USA |
| Posts: | 1001 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | Taking Northern Design Course & passed the LEED test |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 04:17 pm |
|
Huge cost here in Alaska! We have many communities out in the Bush. Most of the state, except in Anchorage and a couple of towns, are on wells. The added cost is supplying a water storage tank within the structure, added equipment and square footage. It is just not feasible, space or cost. I know the fire departments love them, but there is no way home owners can afford them in the villages, not to mention the up keep.
It is really suprising, but Wasilla is kind of at the end of the road. I sat in a community meeting next to a senior lady(looks like your typical grandma) who volunteered to keep notes, but pointed out she didn't have a computer. I told her the school district was selling some used ones for $20 might be good for typing up a few notes. She said, "I can't have one, I don't have electricity or plumbing". Wow! There are many folks who live here with no power and no electricity just right up the road here.
This community was just the next one past Wasilla, not in the Bush. Water storage is very difficult in the Bush because nothing can go underground in the tundra and anything above ground must be heated so it doesn't freeze. Fire sprinklers in homes, just too much. Some of the villages may have code reviewers, but I doubt for single family residences, so I am sure they just built whatever they want.
Just passing on interesting information. Even here in my town, where electricity is available, most everyone are on wells, fire sprinklers are just not very feasible.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 04:27 pm |
|
wograr wrote: It is pretty hard to argue against the added safety factor
That's the problem with the ICC.
It's a theoretical position rather than one based on experience.
Locally it may make sense to require sprinklers in areas with limited fire service. That's not the same as mandating it across the board.
In 2007 about 2400 people died from fires in one and two family dwellings (including mobile homes).
About 1/2 the number killed on the job.
About 1/10th the number of documented civilian deaths in Iraq.
About 1/15 the number of people killed in car wrecks.
About 1/200 the morbidity associated with smoking.
Incidently, 24% of domestic fire fatalities are caused by smoking.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 04:30 pm |
|
dottie wrote: Huge cost here in Alaska! We have many communities out in the Bush. Most of the state, except in Anchorage and a couple of towns, are on wells. The added cost is supplying a water storage tank within the structure, added equipment and square footage. It is just not feasible, space or cost. I know the fire departments love them, but there is no way home owners can afford them in the villages, not to mention the up keep.
It is really suprising, but Wasilla is kind of at the end of the road. I sat in a community meeting next to a senior lady(looks like your typical grandma) who volunteered to keep notes, but pointed out she didn't have a computer. I told her the school district was selling some used ones for $20 might be good for typing up a few notes. She said, "I can't have one, I don't have electricity or plumbing". Wow! There are many folks who live here with no power and no electricity just right up the road here.
This community was just the next one past Wasilla, not in the Bush. Water storage is very difficult in the Bush because nothing can go underground in the tundra and anything above ground must be heated so it doesn't freeze. Fire sprinklers in homes, just too much. Some of the villages may have code reviewers, but I doubt for single family residences, so I am sure they just built whatever they want.
Just passing on interesting information. Even here in my town, where electricity is available, most everyone are on wells, fire sprinklers are just not very feasible.
Single family residentail occupancies can be protected by NFPA13d systems.
They can be run off of domestic water supplies.
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 04:30 pm |
|
Residential sprinkler systems for average sized homes don't need nearly the water storage capacity of a commercial system. Ordinarily they can draw from the same dug or artesian well that supplies the household plumbing. In new construction it costs an extra $1.25 to $1.60 to install a sprinkler system, and takes the plumber only an extra 2 or 3 days. Retrofitting an existing home can be a bigger project...
There are certainly some limitations - very cold climates pose some problems (as they do with plumbing in general), as do sites with very limited water supply - but it's really not the same scope of project as a sprinkler system for a school or even an office building. There usually isn't any need for dedicated water storage cisterns or separate wells for a residential system.Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 05:32 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
golfernut78
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Euless, Texas |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | licensed architect - texas |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 05:49 pm |
|
why does a single residence need this?
living in a townhouse, i think this is good and bad. while it could save neighbors from fire damage quicker than waiting for the fire department, i've seen many cases in apartments where someone damaged a sprinkler head or set one off from a candle or something stupid like that and flooded the place. also, does this mean each townhouse unit has its own riser or is there a building riser and then who maintains it and maintains the system?
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: wograr wrote: It is pretty hard to argue against the added safety factor
That's the problem with the ICC.
It's a theoretical position rather than one based on experience.
Locally it may make sense to require sprinklers in areas with limited fire service. That's not the same as mandating it across the board.
In 2007 about 2400 people died from fires in one and two family dwellings (including mobile homes).
About 1/2 the number killed on the job.
About 1/10th the number of documented civilian deaths in Iraq.
About 1/15 the number of people killed in car wrecks.
About 1/200 the morbidity associated with smoking.
Incidently, 24% of domestic fire fatalities are caused by smoking.
If that number could be reduced to 2399, it would be worth doing. You sound like a car company that would rather risk people llives due to a product defect because it is cheaper to settle after the fact than to recall and repair all of the cars.
I would definitely sleep a little better at night knowing that my house was sprinklered and that my valuables and nostalgic property were better protected.
Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 06:32 pm by wograr
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 06:30 pm |
|
why does a single residence need this?
there are 2000-3500 deaths per year in residential fires, most in single-family homes (varies from year to year, but general trend has been downward.)
there are also about 15,000 fire injuries per year
and hundreds of thousands of structure fires resulting in billions in losses...
does this mean each townhouse unit has its own riser or is there a building riser and then who maintains it and maintains the system?
I've seen that done both ways - it's more likely to be a shared system unless code prevents it, as it does in some places. A shared system is usually maintained by an association, similar to the way that shared decks and garages and such are maintained. The association's bylaws dictate how and by whom various systems and building and site elements may be maintained and funded.Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 06:32 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
KnittingQueen
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
hey there,
This might help. It is a link to a list fire protection services and contractors.
http://www.myprimebuyersguide.com/ca/santa-rosa-fire-protection-contractors.html
It may help answer your questions about the fire protection rules and fire protection contracting services. Good Luck.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
wograr wrote:
If that number could be reduced to 2399, it would be worth doing. You sound like a car company that would rather risk people llives due to a product defect because it is cheaper to settle after the fact than to recall and repair all of the cars.
I would definitely sleep a little better at night knowing that my house was sprinklered and that my valuables and nostalgic property were better protected.
Since six times as many people over 65 die from falls and 40 times as many people over 65 are injured as the total number killed and injured in domestic fires, it would make more sense to eliminate stairs and thresholds.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/adultfalls.htm
Protecting your "nostalgic" crap is hardly a reason to require $3 billion a year in home sprinklers.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 07:18 pm |
|
FinitoCompleto wrote: why does a single residence need this?
there are 2000-3500 deaths per year in residential fires, most in single-family homes (varies from year to year, but general trend has been downward.)
there are also about 15,000 fire injuries per year
and hundreds of thousands of structure fires resulting in billions in losses...
Fire deaths have roughly haved in the last 30 years and nearly parallels a 50% decrease in the smoking rate. http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=953&itemID=23858&URL=Research%20&%20Reports/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem 2007 saw $6.1 billion in losses from domestic fires. There were 1,046,000 one and two family home starts (without counting mobile homes included in the fire stats). At $3000 per home sprinklers would cost more than 50% of the total property loss ($3.14 billion) while only protecting a tiny fraction of homes. NFPA 13d (and NFPA 13r) sprinklers are not designed for property protection. They are solely intended for life safety. Since water damage is a major souce of property damage and sprinkler systems put water all over the house, expect insurance rates to rise (unless your kids don't know how to kick a soccer ball).
does this mean each townhouse unit has its own riser or is there a building riser and then who maintains it and maintains the system?
I've seen that done both ways - it's more likely to be a shared system unless code prevents it, as it does in some places. A shared system is usually maintained by an association, similar to the way that shared decks and garages and such are maintained. The association's bylaws dictate how and by whom various systems and building and site elements may be maintained and funded.
Townhouses are single family dwellings on their own lots and each requires its own utilities.
A condominum, coop or other similar subdivision may have shared utilities, but then it would not be a townhouse.
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
I'm working on a project that has 5 condos and 25 pairs of townhouses (not a condo ownership situation. individual townhouses, with their own property lines,to be sold as such.)
Note: to get technical about this, "townhouse" refers to a type of structure, not a type of ownership. Condo refers to a type of ownership, not a type of structure.
What I'm referring to as townhouses are individually owned homes, with property lines, and the owners own the land on which the townhouse sits and the airspace above it - which is not the case with ownership of condos.
Despite individual land ownership, townhouses often share water and sewer, managed by an association. Shared sprinklers are a logical extension of that.
For this project the city mandates sprinklers, and they allow shared risers in pairs of connected townhouses (or in some configurations shared by 3 or 4 homes), to be maintained by the association. This is the fourth project we've done where that was allowed in this city.
Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 08:31 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
golfernut78
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Euless, Texas |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | licensed architect - texas |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: FinitoCompleto wrote: why does a single residence need this?
there are 2000-3500 deaths per year in residential fires, most in single-family homes (varies from year to year, but general trend has been downward.)
there are also about 15,000 fire injuries per year
and hundreds of thousands of structure fires resulting in billions in losses...
Fire deaths have roughly haved in the last 30 years and nearly parallels a 50% decrease in the smoking rate. http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=953&itemID=23858&URL=Research%20&%20Reports/Fire%20statistics/The%20U.S.%20fire%20problem 2007 saw $6.1 billion in losses from domestic fires. There were 1,046,000 one and two family home starts (without counting mobile homes included in the fire stats). At $3000 per home sprinklers would cost more than 50% of the total property loss ($3.14 billion) while only protecting a tiny fraction of homes. NFPA 13d (and NFPA 13r) sprinklers are not designed for property protection. They are solely intended for life safety. Since water damage is a major souce of property damage and sprinkler systems put water all over the house, expect insurance rates to rise (unless your kids don't know how to kick a soccer ball).
does this mean each townhouse unit has its own riser or is there a building riser and then who maintains it and maintains the system?
I've seen that done both ways - it's more likely to be a shared system unless code prevents it, as it does in some places. A shared system is usually maintained by an association, similar to the way that shared decks and garages and such are maintained. The association's bylaws dictate how and by whom various systems and building and site elements may be maintained and funded.
Townhouses are single family dwellings on their own lots and each requires its own utilities.
A condominum, coop or other similar subdivision may have shared utilities, but then it would not be a townhouse.
no to be harsh, but i see a sprinkler system as a way of reducing the spread of a fire. in a single residence (stand alone house) you get the family and you move on with your life and what your left. in a townhouse, just like an apartment, i see it having more merit to contain the fire as much as possible to the one unit.
i see each house having its own riser being a big issue. i also see this as an added expense not just for the buyer/builder but for the fire department seeing they check these on a regular basis.
i also see this being an issue as a lot of home builders have a hard enough building a simple house correctly that i could see lots of issues with poor sprinkler system work - the biggest issue being sprinkler lines freezing.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 08:32 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: wograr wrote:
If that number could be reduced to 2399, it would be worth doing. You sound like a car company that would rather risk people llives due to a product defect because it is cheaper to settle after the fact than to recall and repair all of the cars.
I would definitely sleep a little better at night knowing that my house was sprinklered and that my valuables and nostalgic property were better protected.
Since six times as many people over 65 die from falls and 40 times as many people over 65 are injured as the total number killed and injured in domestic fires, it would make more sense to eliminate stairs and thresholds.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/adultfalls.htm
Protecting your "nostalgic" crap is hardly a reason to require $3 billion a year in home sprinklers.
Eliminating stairs and thresholds? That is a pretty retarded stretch of an analogy. Adding spinklers may be costly...but it is not an impracticality.
And I happen to consider the preservation of photographs and family heirlooms to be pretty important. If you are a detached sociopath then maybe the its not worth the three grand.
|
BetterMousetrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
Townhouses are single family dwellings on their own lots and each requires its own utilities. ownhouses are single family dwellings on their own lots and each requires its own utilities.
A condominum, coop or other similar subdivision may have shared utilities, but then it would not be a townhouse.
umm...
I live in a single family home on 3 acres, but share a well with two neighboring homes. The terms of ownership and who is responsible for repairs are spelled out in the deed. This is the first I'm hearing of the idea that if I don't have separate utilities I must live in a condo or a co-op!
I live in a rural area with some water and septic difficulties due to high ledge and poor soil conditions. Shared wells, shared septic, and "spring rights" that allow owners of adjacent or nearby properties the right to access certain other properties for the purpose of constructing pump houses, laying pipe, etc. to access water are all common here. But I think most of my neighbors would take issue with the idea that this means they aren't single family homeowners.Last edited on Mon Sep 29th, 2008 08:44 pm by BetterMousetrap
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
wograr wrote:
Eliminating stairs and thresholds? That is a pretty retarded stretch of an analogy. Adding spinklers may be costly...but it is not an impracticality.
Neither is eliminating stairs or thresholds. Just require all single family homes to be one story or have an elevator. Require thresholds to meet ADA requirements would greatly reduce trip hazards.
And I happen to consider the preservation of photographs and family heirlooms to be pretty important. Then sprinkler your own f*king house. Don't make it a law. If you are a detached sociopath then maybe the its not worth the three grand.
"Tyrell really did a job on Rachael. Right down to a snapshot of a mother she never had... a daughter she never was. Replicants weren't supposed to have feelings... neither were blade runners. What the hell was happening to me? Leon's pictures had to be as phony as Rachael's. I didn't know why a Replicant would collect photos. Maybe they were like Rachael... they needed memories
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7340 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:20 pm |
|
golfernut78 wrote:
no to be harsh, but i see a sprinkler system as a way of reducing the spread of a fire. in a single residence (stand alone house) you get the family and you move on with your life and what your left. in a townhouse, just like an apartment, i see it having more merit to contain the fire as much as possible to the one unit.
A townhouse is a single family home. It's not like an apartment. Read the code.
i see each house having its own riser being a big issue. i also see this as an added expense not just for the buyer/builder but for the fire department seeing they check these on a regular basis.
i also see this being an issue as a lot of home builders have a hard enough building a simple house correctly that i could see lots of issues with poor sprinkler system work - the biggest issue being sprinkler lines freezing.
|
cganiere
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:37 pm |
|
The fire fighting professions wanted this change. It will not save on insurance claims - claims for water damage after a fire often outstrip claims for fire damage. A burnt wall can be easily removed and replaced. A water logged wall can be removed, but the water will have spread through the rest of the structure which now has to be dried out. Don't forget about mold. Many current insurance policies don't cover mold.
This is in the next code, encourage the states to strike that provision and it will never be LAW.
Fire fighters choose that profession. Fire fighters are paid plenty and have generous pensions.
I want to get some of that $$$ back to pay for the fire sprinklers if we make their jobs significantly less risky.
If you are worried about death from floor collapse - don't go in the building till the fire is out.
|
golfernut78
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Euless, Texas |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | licensed architect - texas |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: golfernut78 wrote:
no to be harsh, but i see a sprinkler system as a way of reducing the spread of a fire. in a single residence (stand alone house) you get the family and you move on with your life and what your left. in a townhouse, just like an apartment, i see it having more merit to contain the fire as much as possible to the one unit.
A townhouse is a single family home. It's not like an apartment. Read the code.
i see each house having its own riser being a big issue. i also see this as an added expense not just for the buyer/builder but for the fire department seeing they check these on a regular basis.
i also see this being an issue as a lot of home builders have a hard enough building a simple house correctly that i could see lots of issues with poor sprinkler system work - the biggest issue being sprinkler lines freezing.
i've read the code and am perfectly aware that a townhouse is not an apartment, i'm just saying, like an apartment, a townhouse should be sprinklered to limit the spread of fire between units.
|
BetterMousetrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29th, 2008 09:50 pm |
|
I'm in a state that mandates that the insurance companies cover mold - though the amount of mandatory coverage is somewhat limited. Anyway many policies even in states that don't mandate mold coverage do cover mold if it's demonstrably the result of another covered peril (in this case fire, or the release of the sprinklers).
I'm sure many states will tinker with this sprinkler mandate enough, or delete it. It doesn't seem like that many states have adopted IRC in the first place. Everywhere around here (northeast) is using some | | |
