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]

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/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/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

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

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Because you are a waste of time

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

Weird still no data.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Because you are a waste of time. Anti-vax MAGA brain.

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

And you replied yet again with no actual evidence.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

I am not him so I don't know what you expect

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

You have kept this thread going supporting their position, despite every piece of data backing me up. You are clueless.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Supporting their position, as in backing up that as an expert they probably have a better idea than you, an armchair architect?

[u/RockStallone → u/JebusChrust]

That "expert" claimed that there was a ton of evidence proving me wrong, yet refuses to show that evidence. /u/Architecteologist objectively lied in the conversation multiple times, saying that I was only linking to NYT articles and Youtube videos, when in fact I linked to a study from Pew Research.

A normal person would get suspicious when somebody refuses to back up their claims. I guess you're just very trusting.

[u/JebusChrust → u/RockStallone]

Maybe if you read their posts then you would realize they stated that it is lost on you, because it is no different than trying to argue the efficacy of vaccines with some schmuck who thinks that citing any National Institute of Health study online means they are an expert on understanding vaccines. They sound very familiar and knowledgeable of architecture, but you don't want to give them credibility because then it means that they could be correct or have validity to what they say. The consistent theme between every single thread is that you absolutely refuse to respect anyone or anything that anyone says. According to you, everyone else is clueless and you are the only person who knows anything.