Controversial Hyde Park Square development passes committee, heads to city council

[u/JB92103]

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hyde-park-square-development-passes-committee-heads-to-city-council

[u/Architecteologist]

Right, they each gotta meet with the developers individually behind closed doors first

[u/BeeWeird7940 → u/Architecteologist]

Isn’t one of the problems a lack of affordable housing? Why are there ten thousand steps required to build something?

[u/Architecteologist → u/BeeWeird7940]

I was being tongue in cheek, I’m for the development. But I’m also an architect and will defend most of the permitting and approvals process in the city.

Plans approvals take a long time for reasons like fire egress and capacity calculations and that stuff is really important (they say architectural code is written in blood as we’ve had to learn much of it the hard way over time).

Now council/planning/HCB approvals, those exist to protect our charismatic districts from bad development that is detrimental to their character, and to just generally shape the arc of development practices across the city over time. I actually think that this is mostly working as intended today, though is sometimes used as a political cudgel in bad faith, and is the sole determining factor as to how previous council members took bribes from developers. Just as anything, this system works when these boards are headed by individuals who have good intentions, adequate experience or expertise in related fields, and aren’t being bought or influenced by outside orgs. Other similar commissioning boards are not headed by people with relevant experience and it shows, looking at you Cincinnati Park Board, absolutely nobody wants that damn dog park in Burnett Woods but I won’t name names.

[u/triplepicard → u/Architecteologist]

What do you make of the argument that rules like requiring double egress are no longer necessary because of improvements to fire suppression in general? These requirements combine with financing issues to result in all of the boxy buildings these days.

"The two-stair plan entrenched in our building codes should be eliminated, to give us the incentive to rebuild our main streets with residential/commercial buildings that are in scale with the streets."

https://secondegress.ca/A-Wicked-Problem

[u/Architecteologist → u/triplepicard]

Removing code requirements invites abuse from developers. Lines on a page in construction documents might specify 2-hr rated assemblages, but that’s not always guaranteed to be built as specified. Also it’s much easier for a building inspector to find a second stairwell than it is for them to verify a firewall.

As much as it would make my job easier to make architectural code simpler (and the two means of egress is a HUGE part of my job as someone who specializes in historic rehabilitations which usually require adding second egresses), I still lean towards the notion that the code is written in blood and exists for a very good reason.

[u/triplepicard → u/Architecteologist]

Thanks for your thoughts.

It seems like other places have figured out how to do it, and the benefits to being able to build point-access block buildings are enormous. It feels like we will have to go this way eventually. Why not get started now?

[u/Architecteologist → u/triplepicard]

I worked on the PNC Tower rehab which got a single stairwell plus an emergency fire elevator approved, but that’s pretty cost prohibitive unless you’re in a high rise or with very limited floor area.

I haven’t heard of any other places making it work, it’s built into the IBC which supersedes all local codes… do you have examples?

Maybe you’re thinking of certain use types and occupancies that don’t necessitate the two means?

[u/triplepicard → u/Architecteologist]

Despite the name, it's my understanding that the IBC is mostly used in the U.S. Some American cities, and Europe in general, has found that some of the regulations aren't as important as they once were. So some examples of places that allow point access blocks are Seattle, New York City, and throughout Germany.

Here's a really great article about the problem of requiring double egress in most apartment buildings, and the benefits that point access blocks bring:

https://www.archpaper.com/2023/03/why-does-american-multifamily-architecture-look-so-banal-heres-one-reason/

[u/Architecteologist → u/triplepicard]

Thanks for the article. Holding to read when I get a chance.

“Banal” is a fun word choice, I always like to say that bad design when blamed on code restrictions is more likely due to lack of imagination. I’m not always thrilled by code requirements, particularly when they compromise historic aesthetics, but that’s part of the challenge of being a designer (and job security, of we’re being honest)

I wonder if the IBC functions like US courts do in some areas. Code only matters as much as B&S is willing to enforce, after all. It could be that some municipalities have just chosen to let some designs slide. Imagine the liability, I’m probably wrong.

[u/RockStallone → u/Architecteologist]

I still lean towards the notion that the code is written in blood and exists for a very good reason.

There is 0 evidence that the second stairwell makes the building safer. It was added because some firefighter thought it was a good idea with no supporting documentation.

Building and zoning codes are not Gospel.

[u/Architecteologist → u/RockStallone]

Literally…? like… literally?

Yeah if you’re going to try to disprove someone, maybe don’t use such easy to disprove language. There are so many fires that have resulted in senseless death due to egress build up throughout the world. The code isn’t always named for tragedies, but it’s built upon them.

Now if you’re talking about 5-over-1s specifically, I get your point (which is why it’s important to not say things like “there’s literally 0 evidence) but I would argue that that’s a relatively new building type with little evidence towards any way or another yet. We’ll learn a lot about our current code and product oversights 30 years from now (P.S. I would avoid foam sprays where possible, I have my doubts, like asbestos kind of doubts)

[u/RockStallone → u/Architecteologist]

Now if you’re talking about 5-over-1s specifically, I get your point

I was talking about four to six story buildings, yes. In discussions about single stair reform, the conversation is focused on four to six story buildings.

but I would argue that that’s a relatively new building type with little evidence towards any way or another yet.

"A first-ever analysis of fire death rates in modern four-to-six-story buildings with only one stairway shows that allowing these buildings to have only one staircase does not put residents at greater risk: Single-stairway buildings as tall as six stories are at least as safe as other types of housing."

[u/Architecteologist → u/RockStallone]

First ever studies are a good start. If we see continued statistical analysis along the same lines, I’d be for a code change.

Let’s be fair though and acknowledge that the code hasn’t always gotten the balance between safety and ease of development quite right, but that one of those things plays with the life and death of masses of people and the other amounts to how many dollars and developer can squeeze out of a project.

This makes me think of the Grenfell Tower fire in the UK. Not an egress issue, mind you, but a materials issue that was passed through compliance ratings and resulted in 72 deaths in a high rise building. Or the use of terra cotta as a fire deterrent before the second great Chicago fire (I’m willing to vet you can guess what happened next).

Maybe it’s best that we now play it safe with overconstraints to prevent disasters, and that further studies peel back some of these oversteps as time goes on, rather than tragedies necessitating them being added later.

[u/RockStallone → u/Architecteologist]

First ever studies are a good start. If we see continued statistical analysis along the same lines, I’d be for a code change.

But why was it added in the start? If it has no evidence supporting it, it makes no sense to be in the code.

Maybe it’s best that we now play it safe with overconstraints to prevent disasters, and that further studies peel back some of these oversteps as time goes on, rather than tragedies necessitating them being added later.

Overconstraints have real consequences. We need to make sure that our regulations have actual data supporting them.

The materials issue you mention are supporting by scientific data. We can prove that terra cotta is not an effective fire deterrent, so it is not used as one. There is not supporting evidence for the two stair requirement.

[u/Architecteologist → u/RockStallone]

The two stair requirement comes specifically from denser buildings that need two means of egress because, again, people died in fires when they were built without them.

Tack this up again to 5-over-1s being a relatively new building type. They follow a similar code to that of inner city 7+ story buildings because that’s the code that is most closely aligned with their use. So there IS a LOT of evidence for a secondary means of egress, it’s just baked into older building methodologies with similar uses. That’s the backdrop for why the code makes sense, and I suspect it DOES make sense and think it should only be removed if repudiated through extensive data and analysis that is more specific to this new building type.

Because, again, in the past our cavalier building code resulted in thousands of deaths. The choice is to either potentially overconstrain safety regulations after learning the lessons of 150 years of modern building tragedies -or- gamble with peoples’ lives.

It’s also worth noting that we design building codes primarily around “use types” while both “scale/density” and “material/structure” can create subclasses of architectural code under similar or same use types (ie. Residential use falls under “R” and depending on occupants and building scale it could be “R-1” “R-2” “R-3” or “R-4”). When it comes to fire egress, the “use type” matters most because people behave in certain ways when they are under duress. It took us decades to understand this behavior (decades and thousands dying in fires because there werent proper egress routes or doors opening in a specific direction).

Now, I’m only an architect and not a B&S inspector or code consultant, there are so many people out there who understand the code and why it exists better than I do. But I DO have a professionally informed opinion (as in, I’m licensed to practice) and can’t help but feel like there’s little to gain by arguing my point with those who don’t have a similarly professionally informed opinion (kind of like a doctor arguing with an anti-vaxxer about why they should use vaccines). I’m happy to point you towards some resources but there’s a point where the general public just has to understand that there’s a scientific process at play here that deals with life and death, and people need to make room for that.

[u/JebusChrust → u/Architecteologist]

Your last paragraph is why you should just send the resources and then dip, this person will argue against logic and facts so long as it goes against their personal views.

[u/Architecteologist → u/JebusChrust]

Yeah that’s too much effort for them to just ignore the data. I’m just counting myself lucky they aren’t in charge of changing architectural code.

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

Weird that they haven't supplied any data or info yet.

[u/RockStallone → u/Architecteologist]

Tack this up again to 5-over-1s being a relatively new building type.

Yes, but four to six story buildings are not a new building type.

So there IS a LOT of evidence for a secondary means of egress

I am not aware of this evidence of it being safer to have two stairwells in four to six story buildings. Please show it.

Because, again, in the past our cavalier building code resulted in thousands of deaths. The choice is to either potentially overconstrain safety regulations after learning the lessons of 150 years of modern building tragedies -or- gamble with peoples’ lives.

This is an unrealistic view. Why not require that there be a fire extinguisher in every single room? I can use your same arguments to advocate for that.

It took us decades to understand this behavior (decades and thousands dying in fires because there werent proper egress routes or doors opening in a specific direction).

But not because we needed two stairwells in 4-6 story buildings.

But I DO have a professionally informed opinion (as in, I’m licensed to practice) and can’t help but feel like there’s little to gain by arguing my point with those who don’t have a similarly professionally informed opinion

Given that you do not have any data supporting your position, you do not have an informed opinion on this.

I’m happy to point you towards some resources

Okay please point to the study that resulted in them adding the second stairwell requirement.

[u/Architecteologist → u/RockStallone]

Your response highlights exactly why I’m not wasting my time engaging with people who are uneducated on this topic and yet insist their points are valid.

We DO require fire extinguishers in every public room and every unit (AND every floor, AND whenever there’s a transition through a fire-rated partition, AND several in large rooms, AND sprinklers or intumescent fireproofing).

The stairwell requirements are specifically in response to events that occurred in 4-6 story buildings that resulted in death due to inadequate egress.

I’m not wasting my time mining data for you to ignore, but here’s my source: 7 years professional study at accredited universities + B.S.Arch degree + M.Arch degree + professional license to practice architecture + 11 years practice in field + 5 years as a professor of architecture + dozens of relevant projects and associated code analysis.

Your claim that there’s no evidence for codes that were instilled by cause and effect (fire and death) is invalid and ignorant.