Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2017, 04:27 PM
 
2,081 posts, read 3,555,366 times
Reputation: 2375

Advertisements

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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2017, 05:15 PM
 
3,695 posts, read 4,964,007 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 06:52 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,183,205 times
Reputation: 15174
here's a list of deadly (> 10 deaths) fires in the US since 1980. Majority of them were still single-family homes:

NFPA statistics - Home fires with ten or more fatalities

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:

NFPA report - Unintentional fire deaths by state
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,219,944 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
here's a list of deadly (> 10 deaths) fires in the US since 1980. Majority of them were still single-family homes:

NFPA statistics - Home fires with ten or more fatalities

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:

NFPA report - Unintentional fire deaths by state
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 10:29 AM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,804,740 times
Reputation: 9236
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.

If they are so dangerous, why are billionaires paying millions for condos in this new high-rise?https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/30...go-jeanne-gang

Perhaps you've seen The Towering Inferno too many times.

Last edited by pvande55; 06-17-2017 at 11:43 AM.. Reason: Add yet another line
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,496 posts, read 9,438,419 times
Reputation: 5604
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 10:49 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,009 posts, read 53,183,205 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
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.
Yea, it's not an ideal source
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 06:27 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,416,147 times
Reputation: 3632
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
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.

If they are so dangerous, why are billionaires paying millions for condos in this new high-rise?https://chicago.curbed.com/2016/3/30...go-jeanne-gang
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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2017, 07:06 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,062 posts, read 106,967,400 times
Reputation: 115848
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2017, 09:17 AM
 
2,081 posts, read 3,555,366 times
Reputation: 2375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top