Fire Safety vs. Material Costs: A No-Brainer or a Budget Buster?

[jar546]

Alright, folks, let's dive into a topic that's been lighting up conversations among builders, inspectors, and even homeowners: Fire Safety vs. Material Costs. With wildfires becoming the new norm, should we be mandating fire-resistant materials in construction, even if it means jacking up the costs? I've got some thoughts on this, and I bet you do too.

The Burning Issue​

First off, let's get one thing straight. Wildfires aren't just "natural disasters" anymore; they're a recurring menace. We've seen the devastation they cause, not just in terms of property but human lives. So, the question isn't whether fire-resistant materials are necessary. The real question is, why the heck aren't they mandatory already?

The Cost Factor​

Now, I get it. Fire-resistant materials can be expensive. Whether we're talking about fire-resistant sheathing, gypsum boards, or specialized insulation, these materials can add a significant chunk to your construction budget. But let's put this into perspective. What's the cost of a human life? What's the cost of entire communities getting wiped off the map?

Code References and Standards​

Before you start quoting IBC Section 703 or NFPA 285 to me, let me stop you right there. Yes, we have some codes and standards that touch on fire resistance, but are they enough? And more importantly, are they consistently enforced? I've seen projects where fire-resistant materials were "optional" because of some loophole or local amendment. Seriously? We're playing with fire here, literally.

The Contractor's Dilemma​

I've heard the arguments from contractors: "If you make it mandatory, it will drive up the costs, and fewer people will be able to afford new homes." Fair point. But let's flip the script. What if your house becomes the next headline on CNN because it got reduced to ashes? I bet you'd wish you'd invested in those fire-resistant materials then.

The Inspector's Role​

Alright, my fellow inspectors, this one's for us. We're the gatekeepers here. If we see a project skimping on fire-resistant materials where they're clearly needed, it's our job to flag it. No excuses. No "it's a gray area." This is as black and white as it gets.

The Bottom Line​

1. Fire-resistant materials save lives and properties. Period.
2. Yes, they can be expensive, but can you really put a price on safety?
3. Codes and standards are great, but they're only as good as their enforcement.
4. Contractors, I get your concerns, but safety should never be a bargaining chip.
5. Inspectors, let's be consistent and stringent in our evaluations. Lives depend on it.

So, what's it gonna be? Are we going to prioritize dollars over lives, or are we going to make a stand for safety, even if it costs a bit more? I know where I stand. How about you?

Thoughts? Let's get this conversation fired up.

 

[steveray]

We are always going to prioritize dollars over lives...or entire industries would be out of business like soft drinks and fast/ junk food...

 

[Plumb-bob]

Most new houses I see already have the fiber cement siding, metal soffits, etc. so it would not be a big stretch to have mandatory fire resistance. Cedar or other wooden siding and roofing should not be permitted in fire interface zones.

Fire smarting a property is largely outside of building code matters, and requires a different approach to landscaping. Trees and shrubs close to buildings, cedar fences joining buildings, combustibles stored too close etc.

My little town is in a poor position for wildfires, and this summer I was watching 5 smoke columns all around us and it makes you think about these things.

 

[ICE]

The building code addresses construction and high fire zones. My back yard is a "forest" on a map. The reality is that the Conquistadors cut down the trees and we have brush. I still get to pay a premium for fire insurance and the new windows that will be installed in December are costing an extra $7000 for tempered glazing.

The "forest" burned several years ago.




There was a fire truck in every driveway. Mine came from Oceanside.



Unless we start building like we are in Florida, with concrete and steel... windows that repel train wrecks and nothing combustible within a football field, well until then there will be tragic loss of lives and property.

History has shown that any densely built area can burn to the ground. Forests set the stage but tell that to Chicago, Oakland, and now Maui. Buildings six feet apart don't stand a chance. There's a whole lot more to fire science than noncombustible construction and worrying about climate change.