• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Single stair in multi family dwelling

B

bill1952

SAWHORSE
Joined
Aug 12, 2021
Messages
2,571
Location
Clayton NY
I was at the NFPA Single Exit Symposium they held a couple weeks back. Really interesting topic and is being pushed locally all across the nation. Big take away for me - the code officials and life safety folks are resentful that this has become a politicized issue and would prefer it to go through the typical code adaption process, which in their own estimate, puts it in the code sometime around 2030. From the legislator's perspective - and full disclosure, I was there with a city council policy aid advocating for a local amendment - a 2030 time line is too long, and the code officials may be less in touch with the resulting built form than the folks who are responsible for actually guiding the development of a city.

For example, Austin has seen a bias towards multifamily buildings getting bigger and bigger, while the unit sizes themselves are either shrinking or include many windowless bedrooms. Out of 80 students I was talking to last week, about a quarter of them live in windowless bedrooms in new condos around campus. Finding a building typology that could help bring smaller infill apartment buildings with more generous floorplans is a top priority for our council.

Code officials may be less plugged into topics like this, and for them they'd prefer to control the process.

That was the biggest sticking point imo, once we all sat down at tables and really looked at the provisions being proposed, there was very little safety concern unique to the smaller apartment buildings.
 
I see both sides of this argument and I agree that there is a "missing middle".

On one side I agree that current regulations do lead to a preference for designing larger buildings, and that leads to less desirable living conditions for the residents. The people who are investing in building housing have to look at it from a financial perspective. Stairwells are expensive (arguable but valid) and if you're building relatively small then you'll stay under the threshold for a second stairwell. If you pass the threshold for two stairwells then you will inevitably go much larger to help the project pencil out.

On the other side there is a valid process for amending the codes. If the complaint is that it takes too long, they should have started a long time ago. This isn't a new concept. I can't stand that kind of argument. Also, there is already a way to do this in the code, Alternate Means and Methods. If a competent Architect or Designer presented a good design for a "missing middle" building, and included their justifications for the AMM design, I would have no problem advocating for getting it through the process. If the Fire Department pushed back, I would recommend other possible solutions such as the EERO @steveray suggested. Or maybe increasing the size of the stairwell, increased fire ratings, more sprinklers, etc... The point is there are probably ways to make a good design work.

The idea that political policy can bully its way through is annoying. We in CA have seen multiple examples of this. For example, ADU laws...
 
Well, the process is slow. A very specific problem, conflict really between chapter 10 and 11, was just brought to my attention. As of now, the earliest edition that could see a change is 2030, so not much adopted till 2033. Over 10 years. "Should have started a long time ago" is an understatement.
 
Shams Gannon said:
I was at the NFPA Single Exit Symposium they held a couple weeks back. Really interesting topic and is being pushed locally all across the nation. Big take away for me - the code officials and life safety folks are resentful that this has become a politicized issue and would prefer it to go through the typical code adaption process, which in their own estimate, puts it in the code sometime around 2030. From the legislator's perspective - and full disclosure, I was there with a city council policy aid advocating for a local amendment - a 2030 time line is too long, and the code officials may be less in touch with the resulting built form than the folks who are responsible for actually guiding the development of a city.

For example, Austin has seen a bias towards multifamily buildings getting bigger and bigger, while the unit sizes themselves are either shrinking or include many windowless bedrooms. Out of 80 students I was talking to last week, about a quarter of them live in windowless bedrooms in new condos around campus. Finding a building typology that could help bring smaller infill apartment buildings with more generous floorplans is a top priority for our council.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine anyone living in a windowless bedroom. Isn't anyone reading IBC section 1031?

Are they trying for a repeat of that high-rise fire in Great Britain that killed so many people? If I remember correctly (which I may not), that building was lacking in remote exits, at least according to American standards.
 
You're thinking of Grenfell, which was an aging 22 story, 6 unit/floor, single egress building in the UK that had been recently reclad in highly combustible material. The tragedy killed over 70 folks in 2017 and since then the UK government has identified over 3,000 very similar buildings with flammable cladding, which now each require 24/7 watchmen. The UK also has a 'shelter in place' policy, which they are now in the process of reworking.

The proposal that is being considered here in the states comes out of Seattle, which only allows 6 stories with four units per floor, maximum travel distance of 125' to the exit (with only 20' in the corridor), pressurized stairwell, and an increased fire rating for the corridor and stairwell. These are much much smaller buildings.

The windowless bedroom issue is really bad! They're getting around it by using the borrowed light provision of 1204. AIA Austin provides this code fix... which I understand is making it into IBC 2024??

KUT Austin article about the windowless bedrooms
 
Joe.B said:
The idea that political policy can bully its way through is annoying. We in CA have seen multiple examples of this. For example, ADU laws...
Click to expand...
I just heard about whole apartment buildings of unsprinklered 'internal ADUs' going up in CA... what's going on there?!
 
Yes, it was Grenfell I had in mind.

Pressurized stairs don't stay pressurized when the doors are open, and the best stair in the world is no help if you can't reach the stair. Single exit residential multi-family is a stupid idea.
 
I find the "building code should not be affected by public policy" to be an interesting argument. I have the alternative view, it only exists because there is a public policy to improve the life safety and property protection of buildings.

I don't think that the code modification process should be compromised for changes in public policy, but we do need to make sure it is accessible and remains relatively responsive to public policy. Remember, much of the adoption process is done by those who are primarily interested in public policy. If we make them feel like the code no longer serves the interests of the public, they will question why they would adopt it.
 
Shams Gannon said:
The proposal that is being considered here in the states comes out of Seattle, which only allows 6 stories with four units per floor, maximum travel distance of 125' to the exit (with only 20' in the corridor), pressurized stairwell, and an increased fire rating for the corridor and stairwell. These are much much smaller buildings.


KUT Austin article about the windowless bedrooms
Click to expand...
And a <5 min. FD response if I am not mistaken.....
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
I can't imagine anyone living in a windowless bedroom. Isn't anyone reading IBC section 1031?

Are they trying for a repeat of that high-rise fire in Great Britain that killed so many people? If I remember correctly (which I may not), that building was lacking in remote exits, at least according to American standards.
Click to expand...
1031 does not require windows in bedrooms.

Buried bedrooms was not the issue at Grenfell.
 
The median house price to median income used to be 3 to 1, and now its 6 to 1. Which is less desirable: homelessness or living in a 6 story 24 unit multi family with one stair?
 
steveray said:
Depends on where you die...
Click to expand...
Or where it's more likely to occur.

We say if "only" 49 people only one way out. The code doesn't guarantee no one dies. We'd all have to live and work in one story type 1 buildings with fire sprinklers - and it still would not guarantee no one ever dies from fire.
 
Last edited:
So, we're looking at this here in Canada too and the response we have from first responder associations is generally positive in favour of doing research, but wanted to ensure that not just occupant safety is considered, but also firefighter safety as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top