Media pushing back on 2 MOE

[Yikes]

I’m seeing more and more articles and social media videos critiquing the requirement for 2 means of egress from multistory apartment buildings. Here’s another recent example. What do you think?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

How many people dies in that apartment building fire in England?

Grenfell Tower fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

72 died, most because they couldn't get out.

 

[klarenbeek]

Because buildings that look like that can't have two means of egress??? Has a lot more to do with aesthetics than safety.

And hardly "the rest of the world". Looks like probably old part of Amsterdam. Older parts of Bremen Germany where I was stationed in the Army looked similar, the newer areas looked a lot more like the picture of the "ugly" American apartment.
How come they're not showing buildings from any former Soviet Bloc countries???? or China?

 

[classicT]

The City of Seattle WA has an amendment that allows for this... and I know there is a broader interest and several other states/city's are looking at similar.

See Condition #7

 

[bill1952]

How many people dies in that apartment building fire in England?

Grenfell Tower fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

72 died, most because they couldn't get out.

That was 24 stories. May have had 2 stairs for 120 units. Did you miss the part about 3 or 4 or at most 6 stories? Pretty sure not sprinklered. Grenfel Tower was not close to being comparable to what the video proposes.

Because buildings that look like that can't have two means of egress??? Has a lot more to do with aesthetics than safety.

Did you miss the point about windows on more than one side, multiple bedrooms and being financially possible to build on smaller lots?

And if it's so hazardous, why don't Canada and US rank better in fire deaths?

 

[arwat23]

How many people dies in that apartment building fire in England?

Grenfell Tower fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

72 died, most because they couldn't get out.

I will (somewhat) counter that by saying most "couldn't get out" because they were told to stay in place by the fire fighters and building owners (a standard practice for buildings like this in the area at the time). The extremely flammable exterior cladding added during the renovations in 2015-2016, as well as city council (allegedly) ignoring fire safety requirements (like sprinklers) had more to do with the death toll than the number of exits, at least in my opinion.

The fire spread from the exterior of the building thought the cladding, so having one interior, centrally located staircase would not have had a negatively impact people's ability to get out of this specific fire since the stairs were not affected by the fire initially. This specific fire has more to do with human error, poor practices by the local fire department and building management, and poor choice of exterior material, again, imo. Most people who died did so because they followed what they were told to do, as many people from the upper floors were able to escape during the fire before it engulfed the entire building, at which point two exits closer to the exterior walls of the building (where they would likely need to have been placed if up to current code) wouldn't have done much to save anyone (again, in this specific fire).

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The IBC currently includes provisions for stories with access to a single means of egress. If there's a viable argument for making those provisions more permissive, the people pushing this agenda should go to the ICC and submit a code change proposal.

Here's a link to their web site: https://urbanarium.org/about

My immediate impression is that it's a self-styled charity (so what's their source of funding, and to whom to they distribute charity?) and politically on the "woke" end of the political spectrum. In general, that's at the opposite end from most people concerned about promoting life safety objectively.

 

[bill1952]

"....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.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I completely reject the opening premise of that video: that developers choose to develop an entire block with a single building solely because the code requires multiple exit stairs. With an opening statement like that, you can be pretty well assured that everything to follow will be B.S.

IBC Table 1006.3.4(1) establishes that up to three stories above grade an R-2 structure can have a single exit for up to four dwelling units per story, with a maximum exit access travel distance of 125 feet. The single exit provision also requires an NFPA 13 or 13R sprinkler system, and emergency escape/rescue openings.

If this group think this is such a huge problem, instead of uploading videos to YouTube they should be submitting a code change proposal to the ICC, and spend their YouTube production money on developing fire safety statistics to demonstrate that allowing a single exit for buildings up to 4/5/6 stories is safe enough to be allowed by code.

Yeah, there's nothing like showing a hotel room and using that to "prove" that you can't do apartments in certain types of buildings.

09:38 -- I doubt it's a coincidence that the building he chose to visit as an example is a cohousing building. For any of you who don't recognize the term, "cohousing" is a movement that was popular 20 to 30 years ago that was based on a more or less communal living model. Each family in a cohousing development would have a private dwelling unit, but the prototypical communities were based on shared amenities like cooking and dining facilities, and then individual communities might decide to add other common amenities such as maybe a swimming pool, an art studio, a shop facility, a computer center, etc. I knew an architect (from California, naturally) who was a proponent of cohousing development. It's not too strong a word to say that he was fanatical.

Bottom line: I don't think an apartment building for a cohousing group represents a fair example. We don't know what the communal parameters were that the group established. They may not have been at all suitable for commercial, for-profit rental apartments.

 

[classicT]

@Yankee Chronicler, I see and agree with you on the points raised regarding the video... but I am interested to hear your perspective on the language I shared from the City of Seattle. What do you think about such an amendment, particularly if it were brought as a code change proposal to the model codes?

The City of Seattle WA has an amendment that allows for this... and I know there is a broader interest and several other states/city's are looking at similar.

See Condition #7

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

@Yankee Chronicler, I see and agree with you on the points raised regarding the video... but I am interested to hear your perspective on the language I shared from the City of Seattle. What do you think about such an amendment, particularly if it were brought as a code change proposal to the model codes?

I think it needs a lot of work.

This section corresponds to section 1006.3.4 in the 2021 IBC. What Seattle has done is add several criteria to the five conditions listed in the 2021 IBC. Seattle has raised the number of stories from three to five, while keeping the number of dwelling units at a maximum of four per story. They allow an exterior exit stair as an alternate to an interior stair, and I don't much care for exterior exit stairs. Achieving the required protection for openings within ten feet of the stair is always a problem -- especially if it's a narrow urban site so there can only be windows on the street facade and the rear of the building.

The Seattle requirements call for the stair (if interior) to be pressurized, which increases the cost, and they require that there be a corridor on each story so that dwelling units don't open directly into the stair enclosure. They also require the elevator shaft to be pressurized, which also adds to the cost and complexity of the mechanical system.

The Seattle criteria call for the building to be protected "throughout" by a sprinkler system complying with 903.3.1.1. That's an NFPA 13 system. But then the next sentence in the same sub-section says the dwelling units shall have residential type sprinklers -- which is NFPA 13R.

Overall, I think the Seattle amendments are a poorly conceived, poorly written can of worms.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Another point for consideration is that escape/rescue openings above the second floor really aren't "escape" windows unless the occupants can fly. So they are there for firefighters to be able to get in, either to rescue occupants or to fight the fire. That means that windows, even windows large enough to meet the size requirements for escape/rescue openings, are useless if they face a very narrow space between two adjacent buildings or if they face a rear yard to which firefighters don't have any access for ladders or a ladder truck.

I think anyone considering making such a proposal should sit down with their local fire chief and fire marshal (I include the chief because in some places the fire marshal hasn't ever been an actual smoke eater), and then I would be sure to run the proposal by some of the fire guys on the ICC International Fire Code committee to be sure the proposal doesn't create issues that responding fire fighters won't be able to deal with -- such as rescue windows they can't get to.

 

[steveray]

The City of Seattle WA has an amendment that allows for this... and I know there is a broader interest and several other states/city's are looking at similar.

See Condition #7
View attachment 12291View attachment 12292

Lemmings do tend to follow each other to their deaths.....From what I hear the Seattle amendment also had something to do with FD response time...

 

[bill1952]

I completely reject the opening premise of that video: that developers choose to develop an entire block with a single building solely because the code requires multiple exit stairs. With an opening statement like that, you can be pretty well assured that everything to follow will be B.S.

IBC Table 1006.3.4(1) establishes that up to three stories above grade an R-2 structure can have a single exit for up to four dwelling units per story, with a maximum exit access travel distance of 125 feet. The single exit provision also requires an NFPA 13 or 13R sprinkler system, and emergency escape/rescue openings.

If this group think this is such a huge problem, instead of uploading videos to YouTube they should be submitting a code change proposal to the ICC, and spend their YouTube production money on developing fire safety statistics to demonstrate that allowing a single exit for buildings up to 4/5/6 stories is safe enough to be allowed by code.

Yeah, there's nothing like showing a hotel room and using that to "prove" that you can't do apartments in certain types of buildings.

09:38 -- I doubt it's a coincidence that the building he chose to visit as an example is a cohousing building. For any of you who don't recognize the term, "cohousing" is a movement that was popular 20 to 30 years ago that was based on a more or less communal living model. Each family in a cohousing development would have a private dwelling unit, but the prototypical communities were based on shared amenities like cooking and dining facilities, and then individual communities might decide to add other common amenities such as maybe a swimming pool, an art studio, a shop facility, a computer center, etc. I knew an architect (from California, naturally) who was a proponent of cohousing development. It's not too strong a word to say that he was fanatical.

Bottom line: I don't think an apartment building for a cohousing group represents a fair example. We don't know what the communal parameters were that the group established. They may not have been at all suitable for commercial, for-profit rental apartments.

It's a Canadian project. What does it have to do with IBC?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's a Canadian project. What does it have to do with IBC?

They're kvetching about North America. That includes the United States.

 

[Penguin87]

I’m seeing more and more articles and social media videos critiquing the requirement for 2 means of egress from multistory apartment buildings. Here’s another recent example. What do you think?

I suspect that functioning sprinklers would function better than 2 egress stairs separated by 20 ft in a small walk-up square plan apartment building.

However, having a fire marshall do annual inspections to make sure there are no fire loads in the corridor and exit stairs are probably more important. We recently had a fire in an apartment building that had a blocked off exit stair and large amounts of combustible materials being stored inside the corridor. Which was intentionally lit on fire by residents of the apartment building.

In larger buildings, separated egress access stairs are important. However, I have seen some developers build fire-separated scissor stairs that helix around each other, providing (2) means of egress within the footprint of (1) stair core.

 

[Penguin87]

How many people dies in that apartment building fire in England?

Grenfell Tower fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

72 died, most because they couldn't get out.

That building was illegally modified to include a fully combustible fladding system that created a chimney vertical plenum that immediately carried flames from the bottom to the top of the tower. It was a total failure of design and no matter how many exits that building had, people were going to die.

Thats on the AHJ, architect and facade system manufacturer which falsely claimed that their cladding system met the UK's building codes for high rise buildings.

 

[Yikes]

If I understand correctly, the issue at Grenfell tower was not 2 MOE and was not the interior stairwells. It was the combustible EXTERIOR cladding with an air gap to create a rainscreen that resulted in the chimney effect, correct?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In larger buildings, separated egress access stairs are important. However, I have seen some developers build fire-separated scissor stairs that helix around each other, providing (2) means of egress within the footprint of (1) stair core.

That used to be common. I thought the model codes were revised to prohibit such arrangements decades ago.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

If media is 'pushing back' on anything as technical as exits and egress, they are being fed information by some lobby group.

Gone are the days when journalists actually had the capacity for independent, curated knowledge.

 

[tmurray]

I've often wondered why there isn't more of an interaction between sprinklering a building and egress requirements.

 

[jar546]

IMHO
First, since when does a Canadian YouTuber constitute the "media"? Secondly, did anyone watch the entire video from beginning to end and absorb the message? Canada is more restrictive on this than the US, which may have been his point. However, he has a larger audience if he references North America, so I think that was a marketing decision on his end.

I believe there are some extremely valid points that were made in the video. The responses I am reading here suggest that not many watched the entire video with an open, unbiased mind and reflected on its points before posting.

Now if you really want to talk about issues that have created housing problems in North America, I don't think you have to look any further than some of my posts in the Planning & Zoning section of this forum. There we can talk about urban sprawl, parking minimums, densities, and the NIMBY movement. All of those are the real reasons North America has turned into one large parking lot. But I digress. That part of the conversation does not belong in this thread.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

I've often wondered why there isn't more of an interaction between sprinklering a building and egress requirements.

Admittedly, in (Canadian) NBC, there is no requirement for an egress window in a sprinklered building.

IMHO
First, since when does a Canadian YouTuber constitute the "media"? Secondly, did anyone watch the entire video from beginning to end and absorb the message? Canada is more restrictive on this than the US, which may have been his point. However, he has a larger audience if he references North America, so I think that was a marketing decision on his end.

I believe there are some extremely valid points that were made in the video. The responses I am reading here suggest that not many watched the entire video with an open, unbiased mind and reflected on its points before posting.

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?

This video intentionally presents things as fact that are not true, like the absurd premise that Canadian codes for public corridors lead to one-bedroom apartments. Hello? Not even remotely correct, and I have one project soon to start that actually mirrors exactly what is being presented: a small, compact apartment building on a small lot. It has a couple of two-bedroom suites and even has a barrier-free suite on the second floor. Try finding a barrier-free suite in a stairs-only residential-over-commercial apartment building. I oversaw construction of another small footprint, three-storey building with three apartments, two of which have two bedrooms. It has two exits, and fit on a small lot in a seaside community without issues.

The reason large apartments are built in North America is that like everything else, we want things bigger. Our cars, our houses, and our apartments. It's not the second exit or public corridor that's making buildings large - it's the desire for large that's making things large.

While in Italy, I stayed in a five storey apartment complex in downtown Naples. One entrance. That night, there was a mild earthquake. If it had NOT been mild, I might have been trapped in an apartment on the fourth floor of a one-exit, unsprinklered building. I did not consider that building safe.

Whenever someone posits a relaxation of demonstrated life-safety elements, follow the money.

 

[jar546]

The creator of this video was sponsored/fronted/supported by a non-profit collective in Vancouver, BC, funded by (surprise) developers and architects.

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