You are assuming a lot about whether the safety designs exist, or are adequate.
Uh, yes. Because there are laws governing how we can construct buildings in a safe way, and on the whole (c.f. the number of deaths in building fires over time) they work well. So I trust them.
As far as the putative logic flaw, I don't see it. Everything is a tradeoff, even "because money". Saving money on the dorm means lower tuition, more scholarships, more facilities elsewhere, maybe a few new endowed professorships, etc...
We're trying to save people that trust the system too much. Let me know if you know any people like that.
This is getting toward conspiracy theory territory. It's... a building code. Yes. Yes, I tend to trust building codes that have been keeping all of us safe in our homes and offices for the better part of a century. If building codes don't work, then where are the disasters in all the other buildings? You're saying that every other building in the USA in the 20th century "just happened" to be built safely, despite a thousand year history of terrible urban fires, and that regulation had nothing to do with it?
This isn’t some theoretical, conspiracy-laden issue. It’s an actual problem.
Yes! And by whom was it reviewed? And what happened when they reviewed it? I'm guessing the answers are "government regulators", and "they made sure it was fixed". And now it's being fixed.
You're literally citing the fact that safety regulation worked correctly as evidence... that it doesn't? Without the regulators you'd still be living in a deathtrap!
The safety regulation did not work because of the 71 people that died in Grenfell. What would you say if you lived there yourself "ah thats just bad luck for me"? what would you say if you lived there yourself and were one of the people that was reporting to the regulators about the problems in advance "I trust this system, I'm glad this system is based purely on trust, trust works so well, all should trust building codes because they are CODES, I like codes, they are infallible, its so cool that people exist to review the codes as well. This happens so rare due to the codes and not from simply being an uncommon occurrence that challenges building standard."
I don't really understand what your perspective here is to be honest. Not being wrong?
I think you misunderstood the poster - 100 people burned alive because the regulators were asleep at the wheel. That tragic disaster is the only reason his building was checked for adequacy, and it failed, along with thousands of others.
Right now there are thousands of buildings which were built and sold in breach of fire regulation, and the apartment owners are being saddled with 100% of the bill even when they own 25% of the apartment. In some cases the cost of repair exceeds the value of the property.
Large, multi-fatality fires are less common now, but they do still occur. I'd argue that we can always aspire to get better with regards to fire safety.
Building codes are state and municipal level laws. There is no harmonization. There are varying degrees of compliance based on competency, actual corruption conspiracies, and budget all of which changes decade over decade, building by building.
Many other regulations and individual behaviors have helped keep people safe. The way electronics work, the way people are educated, the public service announcements, the response times, and sometimes the building materials. Some things have actually become more flammable over the years.
Regarding building codes, 98 people just died in a literal building collapse in the Miami area. Your standard, if I understand correctly, is "that was just 1, where are the city wide Chicago fires", when the counterpoint is that this collapse prompted reviews of many properties and many more structural issues have been found in just that one municipality that threaten hundreds and thousands of people.
You shouldn't trust this process. You should root for the process to work decently since the probability of a disaster is low - this is the only area we agree! the incidents aren't happening! - but you should know that this is all luck. Continual luck in a system that barely works.
The norms of architecture that mandate e.g. windows for living spaces are here being violated so extremely someone's stepping down over it. This is therefore not an average project.
Concern seems reasonable.
I can‘t imagine it wouldn‘t be very pleasant, as an example, someone smoking weed inside a dorm next to me without a way to vent it out.
It's difficult to design a large window, that will also open, that also insulates sufficiently to hit modern energy efficiency certifications.
YMMV, but I live in Seattle, where there has been a residential boom with plenty of towers, and I have never seen a residential apartment with non-functional windows. Every room will have at least one that can open (though for efficiency reasons they're usually casement windows, which are annoying in their own right)
In an ordinary apartment building, if you build it stupid, people won't want to live there. Then the landlord won't want to build it that way to begin with and if some fool does it anyway there will be a profit incentive to knock down the building and do it again.
This is a dorm. At at state school. The normal market forces aren't there. The landlord isn't going to be motivated by losing money. The tenants aren't in an ordinary market because dorms are often subsidized or have unique zoning that allows for lower cost than is legally permissible in other available housing and are likely to be closer to the school than other available housing. So you have to exceed a higher threshold of terrible before people will abandon them.
All this just to save $200/1500 (13%)? You can get a better discount than that at any retailer.
This is false statement. The architectural design was provided by Van Tilburg, Banvard, & Soderberg, AIA.
Presumably, they didn't say "Hi, Charlie Munger, please draw up a building for us on a napkin."
It's in fact a barb that Munger is a non-practicing architect, and apparently ruffled feathers with the professional architect on the committee.
Which, from working with some prima donna architects, I am both unsurprised and unsympathetic about.
Building engineers ensure everything is to code. Architects fret about whether it looks and feels right.
Some architects are good at making livable spaces, but an architecture degree doesn't guarantee that, and a lack of one doesn't preclude it.
The idea that architects don't worry about building code is absolutely incorrect on a project of any scale.
Prima donna "starchitects" worry less, but that's because they've hired other architects to handle it.
Did the university believe it couldn't otherwise house 4500 students for a billion dollars? Were there considerations involved other than student housing?
This is just squeezing the undergrads to feed the rest of the machine more efficiently.
Money is really important, probably the single most important constraint for state universities.
Something's happening here that's more than just the money.
It's Mr. Burns hanging a "you're here forever" sign, or Kanye West ranting about his napkin design for the iPlane in the Oval Office while dropping a few "motherfucker"s.