U.S multifam codes have no concern for cost or efficiency – at just 4 stories, this has two enclosed, separately discharging stairs and THREE technical rooms – elevator (despite now being “machine room less”), sprinklers (none at all abroad), and electrical www.chicagocityscape.com/documents.ph... - ThreadSky

stephenjacobsmith.com • 11 days ago

U.S multifam codes have no concern for cost or efficiency – at just 4 stories, this has two enclosed, separately discharging stairs and THREE technical rooms – elevator (despite now being “machine room less”), sprinklers (none at all abroad), and electrical https://www.chicagocityscape.com/documents.php?document=3500#

Comments

nateboyd.com•11 days ago

Sprinklers seem like a good idea?

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

I’m not going to pass judgment (arguably nobody can make an informed judgment since the evidence is so low-quality), I am just pointing out that they are required almost nowhere on earth for a four-story, 16-unit building aside from the U.S. and Canada.

nateboyd.com•11 days ago

I was glad to have them in my condo in SF, a 16 residential + 2 commercial unit building. False sense of assurance? 🤷‍♂️

Which also had two stair wells, one of which practically no one used, random unused rooms and spaces, and a terribly designed boiler room system.

markasaurus.bsky.social•11 days ago

The price we pay for building every out of sticks

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

Not sure Chicago is even doing that! But it is a habit picked up from doing it elsewhere/in the past.

crzwdjk.bsky.social•11 days ago

Why are the fire sprinkler and electrical rooms only accessible from the alleyway?

cameronmaltby.bsky.social•11 days ago

Because they rarely need to be accessed.

halsco.de•11 days ago

Yes, and generally those are building maintenance's responsibility, not the tenants'.

nicksattele.bsky.social•11 days ago

In general, when do sprinkler requirements kick in? Is it for anything using the IBC?

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

Basically, yes.

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

Abroad, this would have a single, unenclosed stair (it has an alleyway in the back for rescues in case it’s blocked). The elevator would be smaller. There would be no elevator room. There’d be no sprinklers at all (even in the UK with the new post-Grenfell rules), nevermind a whole room for them.

randompersonfire.bsky.social•11 days ago

I'd be interested in seeing which jurisdictions are known to require control rooms for MRL elevators... and which are doing it with an official amendment and which are just doing it "because I said so" (which raises serious due process concerns).

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

I really would’ve liked to know too when writing my report. But it was just too much of a pain to dig into 100 different jurisdictions. There’s so much about codes and standards that is opaque due to the way information is shared (and not shared), which is its own problem.

randompersonfire.bsky.social•11 days ago

MA is a state that I know requires control rooms. VT is even stricter as they prohibit MRL without a variance.
(PS: I've seen the slang "shirt-pocket" used in some other disciplines to refer to AHJ-invented, non-codified "requirements". Not these as they're codified.)

stephenjacobsmith.com•11 days ago

Technically California is still on the 2004 A17.1 and so every single MRL has to go through a variance process too

randompersonfire.bsky.social•11 days ago

This makes me wonder... if California is handing out variances like candy, does that mean this could also be a path to installing an EN81-compliant elevator?
(PS: Whenever a regulation has a zillion variances, perhaps it's time for the regulation to be revised.)