Today’s item piqued my interest for two reasons: one, it’s related to my “real” profession; and two, there’s been a little controversy over the subject locally in the last few years. So it was up to the International Code Council to make a decision on the matter for the upcoming release of the 2009 International Residential Code.
Now that I’ve used my introductory paragraph as a great teaser, the subject at hand is the mandatory installation of residential sprinklers for new home construction. Proponents naturally see this as a life safety issue to prevent additional damage and loss of life in case of fire, while opponents lobbied on the argument of increased cost and maintenance risk. This is from the October 16th AIA Angle internet newsletter:
The actual cost of installing sprinklers varies depending on who you ask. Installation of sprinklers could increase construction costs by as much as $12 per square foot, according to NAHB (the National Association of Home Builders – ed.) In a report published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which supported the requirement, states the costs are much less, around $1.61 per square foot.
“Architects who focus on the residential side should be aware of this new mandate when they design homes in states that adopt the code. Currently, 46 states use the IRC. This code will greatly affect how architects design a home in those states,” says Paul Mendelsohn, AIA vice president of Government and Community Relations.
Mendelsohn is correct to an extent, as states do have the right to not adopt certain portions of these model building codes. This may be a fight which comes down to the local and state levels as the cost vs. benefit argument is played out on many and varied stages.
With the housing industry already in the tank for the near-term future, this requirement comes at a bad time. Certainly the increased cost will be passed on to the buyer, and depending on whose estimate you trust that translates into anywhere from $3,220 to $24,000 added into home costs for a 2,000 square foot house. Further, I found it intriguing that the insurance industry fought AGAINST the requirement, with the likely contention that possible water damage from leaks would outstrip the costs of the occasional fire.
Being a firm believer in private property rights, I think that the decision should be up to the homeowner and not dictated from on high. Obviously having a sprinkler system can make a difference in the event of a fire; however, the actual preservation of life is already addressed by the codes with a number of other regulations regarding door and window widths, exit access, and the like. Generally a home is of small enough size that escape from it is possible within seconds, so sprinklers tend to be more for the preservation of property.
It also brings up a point about water consumption. Most houses in urban and suburban areas will be tied to a municipal water source, but would that water source be sized to provide enough flow in the case of a fire? Many cities and towns already have difficulties with water pressure and this may worsen that problem. More importantly, is this new code a backhanded way to promote “smart growth”? The question of access to water supplies sufficient to fill a sprinkler system may be a factor in whether to allow homebuilding in certain rural areas like the one I live in, since I indeed have well water.
Naturally this isn’t a regulation which creates headlines, nor is it a governmental entity which is proposing it. This example points out that there are a lot of do-gooders who wish to make decisions for you about what’s best in your life. Building a new dream house shouldn’t necessarily need to include the additional cost and worry about extra water lines. Maybe it can be a selling point and possibly the life it saves could be yours or a loved one’s, but the choice should still be yours. There’s no need for states or local entities to adopt the 2009 IRC in toto; these new regulations can and should merit more discussion at their level.
Well, I agree with you on this one.
Michael,
I think it is faulty to assume that sprinklers save lives; they don’t– they save property. At best, they might save the lives of firefighters who actually have to fight the fire.
At the temperature it takes to activate your average sprinkler head (from 135 to 175 degrees farenheit), you would likely have been felled by smoke inhalation — or all the chemicals being released by whatever was being burned.
On top of that, I think someone needs to look at the trends in house fires. Because of better building codes, better materials, and better building design, the return on investment here would be phenomenally low. Look at the average number of runs for fire equipment responding to house fires for an indicator here.
We probably are close to reaching a point where we cannot “legislate” out human stupidity through technology requirements. It would probably be a much better option to spend that money on building and installing better smoke detectors and alarm systems if the major focus is to save lives.
I stated your argument within the post, GC:
“Generally a home is of small enough size that escape from it is possible within seconds, so sprinklers tend to be more for the preservation of property.”
Not having a copy of the IRC in front of me, I’m not certain whether smoke alarms or detectors are mandated for new construction but I suspect they are. It makes more sense to work on that end of technology (which is relatively inexpensive) than to mandate the sprinkler systems.
Obviously our friends at Bayside or SureFire may disagree with my assessment, but they have plenty of work created by changes in the International Building Code which favor sprinkler installation for commercial structures.
Michael,
Your point is taken…
When I mentioned smoke alarms and detectors, I was really thinking a “next gen” technology that was more sophisticated to eliminate false positives (like when I cook the scrapple a little too long) and deliver a more effective (louder, more visual, more annoying, and more durable) alarm.
I think the point in sprinklers is illustrated best by the tragic death of that girl in Princess Anne recently, where they would not have helped her– but basic common sense (not leaving food unattended on a stove) would have.
I want to comment on a couple of points: ” Generally a home is of small enough size that escape from it is possible within seconds, so sprinklers tend to be more for the preservation of property” Is it? Then why are more than 3,000 people dying every year in home fires? Not everyone is able to save themselves,older adults, the infirm, small children; they are the ones dying. Communities that have had home sprinkler mandates for awhile have not lost any lives in sprinklered homes. The argument that sprinklers don’t save lives is baseless.
On the cost-benefit analysis issue, NIST published a study last year,available here:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build07/PDF/b07025.pdf
proving that the benefit of fire sprinklers to homeowners are well worth the cost. You should know that the costs cited by the NAHB don’t have any basis and are disputed by numerous studies and facts from communities that have mandated sprinklers. The competition that has arisen from this has brought the cost down to between $0.60 to $1.00 in these communities.
It is a well proven fact among professionals and experts that education alone cannot reduce community risk; engineering and enforcement are the other two elements required. So, residential fire sprinklers are the engineering solution to the fire safety problem in the U.S. NAHB and other opponents need to get behind this initiative now or stay on the wrong side of history forever.