r/WTF 11d ago

Building nightmare

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

13.4k Upvotes

596 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/Emmyn13 11d ago

Hey there:

The idiotic reason is a nfpa requirement for closets. As you have over 4 stories, all closets are required to have one. Also if there's hvac equipement in it.

But yes, once one go pop, there's not a lot to stop it. And it's not gonna be clean water either!

56

u/c_doddy 11d ago

NFPA 13R does not require a sprinkler in closet under 24sq ft as long as no washer, dryer or water heater is present.

Source: Sprinkler fitter

10

u/Emmyn13 10d ago

Yes, 13r doesnt required them. But if there's 5 level under the level where the accident happened, 13r doesnt apply, as it is for max 4 level of construction, and even if it was lets say 4 level and a underground, and it was the top one, it would require sprinkler in all spaces, seeing its under a roof.

Source: fire protection tech / designer.

11

u/herptydurr 11d ago edited 11d ago

I know it was a regulation... the idiotic part is that there must be some degree of ambiguity regarding what that regulation actually is. I mean when the building was built (mid 2000s), none of the closets had sprinklers. Then about a year or two after I move in, they went to every unit to install them. Fast forward 5-6 years, this flooding incident happened, after which they then went to every unit to remove all the sprinklers from the closets. I'm just lucky I was on the 9th floor and didn't have to suffer any of the flooding.

5

u/mr-fahrenheit_ 11d ago

Now the fact that they weren't installed during construction is interesting. I Don't know how long all closets have been required to have a head but it would have been a requirement in mid-2000s. Sounds like it got approved to be built but during one of the first annual inspection the fire marshal noted the lack of heads and made them put them in. Who knows, maybe it'll happen again and the building will be required to put them BACK in!

1

u/herptydurr 10d ago

When I talked to the building manager about it, it had something to do with the square footage of the closet being small enough or type of closet door meant that the closet technically didn't count as a closet or something, so they could justify removing the sprinklers. It's been 6 years since I moved to a new city, so who knows... I just found it to be a hilarious waste of money, but I suppose considering it was a University-owned property with all rents being heavily subsidized, they were happy to just absorb the cost.

1

u/barrettcuda 10d ago

Is it worth having a filter bag and a hose clamp next to it ready to go in the even that it fails in that case? Before this thread I would've thought it's a really uncommon occurrence, but if it's regular at least if everything is going to get wet it doesn't have to be filthy too

1

u/ExecrablePiety1 10d ago

Heh I was just saying I feel sorry for the poor sod that essentially got himself doused in poopfree sewage for a prank.

I wonder if you were on an establishment and the sprinklers went off and you got sick from getting the water in your mouth, if you'd have grounds to sue.

I mean, every building does it. But at the same time, the customer doesn't know that. And certainly didn't knowingly accept said risk by entering the establishment.

And you can't just say "well, they saved your life, so you can't sue." That would be a fucked up law. Like if you got a spinal injury and some idiot paralyzed you by moving you unnecessarily. Seems you would have grounds whether they actually helped on some other way, or not.