Media pushing back on 2 MOE

[Inspector Gadget]

That would be a problem for sure. How does someone verify that is true?

The video states that the sponsor is "urbanarium.org."

Urbanarium.org lists its sponsors.

 

[bill1952]

The creator of this video was sponsored/fronted/supported by a non-profit collective in Vancouver, BC, funded by (surprise) developers and architects. Designing one-exit buildings without corridors would allow them to save money and maximize profits by jamming even more apartment buildings into the available footprint, wouldn't it?

At least we know how little respect one building official has for architects.

 

[jar546]

The video states that the sponsor is "urbanarium.org."

Urbanarium.org lists its sponsors.

Yes, I see that now. It is an organization that is trying to change densities to help with the housing issues in Canada. There is transparency there so I dont' see the issue.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

At least we know how little respect one building official has for architects.

You are using an over-broad brush.

We all know there are people in various industries (engineers, architects, contractors, and yes, building officials) who like to cut corners. Not every one of those professionals will, but some do.

The other element is that I am very familiar with the politics of the Wet Coast of B.C., having spent a few years living there. That's where I did the bulk of my construction, and believe me, there are big profits to be made and all sorts of folks who will gleefully cut corners. The Canadian legal database is full of court cases illustrating exactly that.

 

[bill1952]

You are using an over-broad brush.

We all know there are people in various industries (engineers, architects, contractors, and yes, building officials) who like to cut corners. Not every one of those professionals will, but some do.

The other element is that I am very familiar with the politics of the Wet Coast of B.C., having spent a few years living there. That's where I did the bulk of my construction, and believe me, there are big profits to be made and all sorts of folks who will gleefully cut corners. The Canadian legal database is full of court cases illustrating exactly that.

I think it was you who used a broad brush to paint all developers and architects as anti-safety.

 

[tmurray]

I think it was you who used a broad brush to paint all developers and architects as anti-safety.

Dude...

"....made up of architects, landscape architects, planners, developers, community organization leaders and other professionals who are passionate about city building."

Definitely woke, especially the developers, so concerned about racism and social injustices.

 

[bill1952]

Dude...

So being so concerned about racism and social injustices is a bad thing? and anti-safety?

 

[tmurray]

So being so concerned about racism and social injustices is a bad thing? and anti-safety?

I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

I'm just saying that there are likely very few of us not guilty of painting groups with a broad brush on occasion.

 

[jar546]

So being so concerned about racism and social injustices is a bad thing? and anti-safety?

We are going to discuss code issues, local ordinances such as zoning, densities, etc. We are pretty strict on anything that can be perceived or conceived as political so we need to stick with codes, federal, state or local laws and whatever applies in Canada.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I think it was you who used a broad brush to paint all developers and architects as anti-safety.

If I am a developer or an architect, and I am donating to a "non-profit society" that in turn has funded a video that advocates for relaxing fire-safety codes that have been deemed necessary and prudent to protect property and life, and I continue to fund said organization, then clearly I have an "anti-safety" viewpoint.

That doesn't mean my fellow developers and architects hold similar views.

 

[jar546]

If I am a developer or an architect, and I am donating to a "non-profit society" that in turn has funded a video that advocates for relaxing fire-safety codes that have been deemed necessary and prudent to protect property and life, and I continue to fund said organization, then clearly I have an "anti-safety" viewpoint.

That doesn't mean my fellow developers and architects hold similar views.

I think the video is being demonized when, in fact, it should create a discussion. Modern building materials, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, and new methods of construction can create safer environments than adding a stairwell for egress that was required when such technology and design capabilities may not have existed. I think it is worthy of open-minded discussion and evaluation.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I think the video is being demonized when, in fact, it should create a discussion. Modern building materials, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, and new methods of construction can create safer environments than adding a stairwell for egress that was required when such technology and design capabilities may not have existed. I think it is worthy of open-minded discussion and evaluation.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree.

 

[Yikes]

If I am a developer or an architect, and I am donating to a "non-profit society" that in turn has funded a video that advocates for relaxing fire-safety codes that have been deemed necessary and prudent to protect property and life, and I continue to fund said organization, then clearly I have an "anti-safety" viewpoint.

That doesn't mean my fellow developers and architects hold similar views.

I think the main point of the video is that other jurisdictions have already proven that there are elements of the life-safety code that may no longer be as necessary as it was in the past in order to protect property and life to a similar degree of performance, based on actual data. The video gave specific examples across the world, and they include changes Seattle previous made to their code to allow Point Access Block designs.
Modern fire sprinkler systems, fire-rated gyp board, fire-retardant treated fabrics (and Christmas trees!), and the overall reduction in the number of smokers in the US have reduced the number of fire-related emergencies at buildings. Locally only about 10% of our city's fire department calls are for fires - - the rest are paramedic calls.


So if you're going to critique the video, critique it on its technical merits. No need for ad hominem attacks on sponsorship.

And of course we need to acknowledge that when we use the words "safety" and "prudent" we are describing a consensus as to what any given society collectively determines to be "safe enough" when balanced against other goals for that society, and thus it us subject to change as society changes.

By the way, google "Seattle Point Access Block" and you'll see there are a number of other organizations pushing for this.

 

[steveray]

The problem is that stuff that gets put out in the public becomes accepted as fact with not necessarily the best vetting or full information....#fakenews