Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL. How does more people dying in a high rise fire compared to the number of people dying in, say, a single family home fire, make high rises more dangerous from a fire safety perspective? When a 747 crashes, it kills more people than when a single-prop plane crashes. That doesn't mean we'd be safer if we all flew single prop planes rather than big planes. Quite the opposite, actually. Now, I'm not saying that high rises are safer than smaller buildings when it comes to fires. But I don't see any evidence that they are LESS safe.
According to the NFPA, in high rises fires spread beyond their room of origin less often than in non-high-rise fires.
Last edited by stateofnature; 06-16-2017 at 04:44 PM..
I haven't listened to the story, yet. (at work) But, as I said earlier, I suspect that the UK/London will be taking a close look at their building codes, to make sure something like this is less likely to happen in the future.
There are reports that the building was reduced to one staircase in order to increase the number of units for rent. This relates directly to density and this is a change that should never be allowed.
In terms of fire the odds of a fire happing in a house is the same as for an apartment but becuase there are more units the odds of n building having a fire is worse as well as the potential consequences. Mulit story buildings should have strict regulations including bans in some areas because of this.
New York State has the highest portion of people living in big apartment buildings, its fire death rate is below the national average, though some other affluent states are lower:
New York State has the highest portion of people living in big apartment buildings, its fire death rate is below the national average, though some other affluent states are lower:
No, there were 9 apartment buildings and 8 single family homes. There were two rowhouses and one townhouse, which are multiunit buildings. It's unknown from that chart if more than one living unit was involved. The seasonal building in PA was probably a cottage in a recreational area. The Oakland firestorm is a confusing one.
The second link is interesting (Colorado does well!) but I see they include coal-mine fires as well.
It would be unusual to find a building that complies with every building code requirement, but that building is probably loaded with violations. High rises are not a problem in many other cities. I looked at the news photo and it looks like the only high rise in the neighborhood.
There are reports that the building was reduced to one staircase in order to increase the number of units for rent. This relates directly to density and this is a change that should never be allowed.
I have no problem with adding density to a building, as long as it still meets current safety standards. (although the fact that the more flammable version of the cladding was permitted in the UK is troubling) It's amazing to me that a building official would approve a reduction in the number of egress stairs. Doing this to add to the overall occupant load is even more mind-boggling. (I'd have to look at the construction documents to know the whole story, though)
Quote:
In terms of fire the odds of a fire happing in a house is the same as for an apartment but becuase there are more units the odds of n building having a fire is worse as well as the potential consequences. Mulit story buildings should have strict regulations including bans in some areas because of this.
Multi-unit buildings (not just multi-story buildings) do have strict regulations. On the rare occasions when a tragedy like this happens, building codes should be reviewed to make sure any similar holes are addressed.
No, there were 9 apartment buildings and 8 single family homes. There were two rowhouses and one townhouse, which are multiunit buildings. It's unknown from that chart if more than one living unit was involved. The seasonal building in PA was probably a cottage in a recreational area. The Oakland firestorm is a confusing one.
whoops didn't count correctly. The Oakland firestorm is from a wildfire on the edge of the city that engulfed nearby residential neighborhoods. So, could have been a mix of home types but more than one building.
Quote:
The second link is interesting (Colorado does well!) but I see they include coal-mine fires as well.
It would be unusual to find a building that complies with every building code requirement, but that building is probably loaded with violations. High rises are not a problem in many other cities. I looked at the news photo and it looks like the only high rise in the neighborhood.
money laundering? tax evasion? conspicuous display of wealth? stupidity?
didn't a lot of wealthy people buy first class passage on the Titanic?
actually if the purchase is for any of the reasons above the units are not likely to be occupied so loss of life due to fire is not likely for those units anyway
Last edited by IC_deLight; 06-17-2017 at 06:57 PM..
Uh oh here come the nanny staters who want to ban anything they see as risky...
Right, because it's ok to have only 1 staircase (with no fire escapes) for a huge building the size of two standard apt. bgs. combined, and watch people go up in smoke.
You're too late to protest any "nanny state"; building codes have been part of the political and architectural landscape for about 100 years now, if not longer. Apparently the codes need a bit of work in England, but if you read one of the linked articles, you'd see that Canada has measures in place to prevent such tragedies. If your kids and grandkids had been in that building, you'd be singing a different tune.
Right, because it's ok to have only 1 staircase (with no fire escapes) for a huge building the size of two standard apt. bgs. combined, and watch people go up in smoke.
You're too late to protest any "nanny state"; building codes have been part of the political and architectural landscape for about 100 years now, if not longer. Apparently the codes need a bit of work in England, but if you read one of the linked articles, you'd see that Canada has measures in place to prevent such tragedies. If your kids and grandkids had been in that building, you'd be singing a different tune.
Bad reading comprehension on your part. I never said we shouldn't have have fire safety codes. You can have fire safety codes without banning buildings types. That should be obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.