Hacker News Reader

I would think that, you being a former firefighter, you’d know that exits (for regular use and, even more so, emergency exits) are not the same thing as (are generally a superset of) entrances.

Yes, I've already addressed that point multiple times in this discussion. Emergency exits are a factor, but not a be-all / end-all.

State building codes in California have for new construction for more than 30 years (heck, California has, for a decade, required them for new single family homes, too.)

Thanks for sharing. I'm not a California resident, so I'm less familiar with the particulars of their regulations out there.

Where are you? In the northeast, sprinklers have been required in institutional buildings for as long as California.

North Carolina for me.

Dang! Thanks for widening my horizons!

Wow, I had no idea that there were still states that wouldn't require them.

There's a lot of nuance to that, because "requirements" vary based on building type and other details. And TBH, I'm not 100% up on the latest details even here in NC, as I've been away from the fire service for some time now.

What I can say with some confidence is that sprinklers are widely required in commercial buildings, and I think it's safe to say that's fairly widespread across the US. But even there, I wouldn't say the requirement is totally ubiquitous.

Getting into residential structures is where it gets murkier. For single family homes, I think something like 46 states don't require sprinklers for new construction. For multi-family, and things like dorms, I'm less clear on the details of what is / isn't required around various parts of the country.

> For single family homes, I think something like 46 states don't require sprinklers for new construction.

Also, just to add on here, a number of states have adopted statewide rules prohibiting local codes from requiring sprinklers for new single-family homes.

Oh, I was meaning for multi-family dwellings. I haven't seen them in single family homes either, though it is interesting that requirements are starting to increase there too.

TBH, I just wish there were stricter rules for smoke detectors and equipment in garages. I feel like this is a big gap with the current rules, at least in my state.

Interestingly, NC's requirement for student housing is actually done internally by the UNC System rather than by any code authority. The last unsprinklered dorms at UNC were torn down a few years ago.

As far as I know, building codes do require sprinklers in new residences just judging based on the 2010s era complexes around campus. I had assumed this was standard everywhere now, but maybe not. The place I live in now is from the 60s iirc and so of course does not have any. Interestingly, the entire buildings fire panel and smoke heads seem to have been retrofitted rather recently, but the old continuous bells are still in use with no strobes. Surprisingly, many residents do not seem to understand the significance of not having sprinkler protection and do not evacuate with any urgency, if at all.

Interestingly, NC's requirement for student housing is actually done internally by the UNC System rather than by any code authority. The last unsprinklered dorms at UNC were torn down a few years ago.

Interestingly enough, I believe at least some of that was in direct response to the UNC Phi Gamma Delta fire back in 1996.

https://www.wunc.org/news/2021-05-12/unc-chapel-hill-phi-gam...

and do not evacuate with any urgency, if at all.

Yeah, there's an unfortunate "thing" about automatic fire alarms - the "boy who cried wolf" effect. Many automatic alarms go off a LOT and more often than not the reason is either a straight up fault in the system, or at best, a "real, but non fire" reason like smoke from cooking. I listen in on Chapel Hill FD dispatch a lot and I can tell you, CHFD goes to the various dorms around campus all the freaking time for alarm activations, and rarely is the cause any kind of actual active fire. So people get conditioned to treat those alarms as "nothing-burger". It's unfortunate.

I would say that, as someone holding a B.S. in Fire Protection Engineering, I am extremely uncomfortable with no windows in a bedroom.

I'm curious - reading this makes me depressed at how stupid HN and reactionary HN seems to have become.

Do people not realize that in California we build residential buildings that are MANY MANY stories tall.

The LACK of operable windows in a bedroom is generally a REQUIREMENT on a skyscraper / residential condo tower for safety reasons. They worry about kids falling out etc.

The safety plans involve other measures - including much better building codes around fire control (ie, sprinklers). Fire hardened emergency exists (ie, these students may be moving out of historic all wood tinderboxes if my old CA school is any indication).

>The LACK of operable windows in a bedroom is generally a REQUIREMENT on a skyscraper / residential condo tower for safety reasons. They worry about kids falling out etc.

Can you explain more on this point? Because tall buildings not having windows that open because children might fall out of them sounds completely ridiculous to me. Some of the Soviet commie blocks were 16 storeys tall and obviously the windows can be opened.

What are the other reasons why this restriction would be in place? I'm genuinely curious.

Sure.

One issue is that for tall buildings a fair bit of thought goes into things like aerodynamics of overall building, ventilation / HVAC control, and internal pressures.

A tall building has an issue with its core / utilities usually, the taller the go generally the worse the ratio of non-livable space to livable. So things that mess with for example HVAC efficiency may be seen as a negative.

If everyone opens a window on one side of a building, over building surface areas and wind speeds at heights, you can get pretty crazy pressure issues. You can also get aero issues. You an also run into HVAC issues (ie, volume of air from 3 open large windows on the 40th floor may overwhelm HVAC system capacity).

Let me ask you, you are building a skyscraper to rent.

If you allow folks to open their windows and the wind blows something out that kills someone on the street - who will be sued? If someone drops something out (trying to put a plant in window or stick a telescope out) and kills someone - who pays. If someone falls out that window, who will be sued (see a cruise line that had a stupid idiot hold a kid through the window and drop them).

Other issues are around maintenance and weather proofing etc etc. Again, environment at height can often be harsh, and now you may have to have someone on side of building to replace a window or related mechanisms. Easy in a house at ground level, a pain at height.

BTW - I like windows that open and would NOT live in a tall res condo. My key point was that all the folks talking about how window exists are required - it's so weird seeing people speak with such certainty on something so easily disprovable.

I think up to 30 floors or so and older places it was common for windows to open (they were also built differently, more open space / daylighting / shallower footprints (ie, H shape buildings vs full block buildings).

I live in a tall (>30 floors) residential building in Texas, and all of our windows open. I wouldn’t want to use one as an exit in a fire, though. Even going down the stairs during an alarm took ~10 minutes.

How do you vent your room?

> Some of the Soviet commie blocks were 16 storeys tall and obviously the windows can be opened.

The Soviet system was not exactly known for its fidelity to safety of its citizens.

They're still in use today though and I'm unaware of them being somehow much more dangerous as a result.

There is a difference between not having windows that can be fully opened and not having windows at all. As others have said, windows have other psychological functions, such as giving orientation, providing daylight, etc.

> The safety plans involve other measures - including much better building codes around fire control

We could all see at Grenfell Tower in London how well that worked.

Figure 6 shows the floor plan (or see [1])

Even with emergency exits, there are a lot of interior areas that will quickly be blocked off from any exit if a fire breaks out in the wrong place.

The whole interior are will also fill with smoke really quickly.

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/spokanerising/status/145392774727...

I think probably you shouldn't be talking down to the firefighter about fire safety this way

Most of what you said was already addressed

The architect didn't resign over fire safety. The fire safety discussion isn't really relevant. There are a lot of sprinkled buildings with rooms without direct exits or Windows. Most office building and many dorms etc even.

That's not a statement of support for the building just that it isn't why this architect found issue.

It's all good. Just because I have experience as a firefighter and have some domain knowledge that the average joe lacks, doesn't mean I'm always right. And my comments above were based on, as I've said, limited knowledge as there are a lot of areas that TFA doesn't touch on.

I think this is a good discussion though, as maybe it exposes some members of the public-at-large to some thoughts on fire-safety that they haven't considered deeply before. If so, that's a win in my book.

What makes a firefighter an expert on building egress requirements? The building must meet NFPA code (or whichever fire code the AHJ has selected) or it can’t be built, period. Whoever their insurance company is will not insure the building if it doesn’t meet life safety requirements.

Dismissing someone who isn’t a fire code expert who is making claims about fire safety is just fine to me.

If we were discussing how to safely fight fires, then by all means defer to the firefighter.

The building must meet NFPA code or it can’t be built, period.

To be pedantic, that may be the case for this specific building, as CA may be a state that simply adopted the relevant NFPA model code wholesale and with no changes; but it's not a true statement in the most general sense, as not all localities adopt the various NFPA codes verbatim (or at all).

You’re correct, I edited my post to reflect that right as you posted. Thanks for posting the clarification.