4 ms·

Former firefighter cautions we should be skeptical of the safety of this plan, and your rebuttal is "surely building codes mandate..."? A zero-evidence rebuttal

Former firefighter cautions we should be skeptical of the safety of this plan, and your rebuttal is "surely building codes mandate..."? A zero-evidence rebuttal concerning the safety of 4500 students.

jl6 5y ago
I don’t find it unreasonable to assume that the building will comply with government fire safety regulations and that those regulations are at least somewhat adequate.
- fdr 5y ago
  The regulations may have been written with architectural rules of thumb in mind, as in, "surely no one would..."
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    Building code isn't really written as rules of thumb but as rules.
- mindcrime 5y ago
  You might be surprised. Fire regulations are very much a local issue and there can be a lot of variance (although many local municipalities base their codes on standards put out by bodies like the NFPA, etc.). There are quite frequently things that one might intuitively expect to be in the regs, that aren't. Requirements for sprinklers, for example. As surprising as it may seem, there are still lots of places where sprinklers are not required in many buildings. I don't know the situation in Santa Barbara, but I did email their fire department earlier with an inquiry about this topic. Hoping to hear something back.
  - docfort 5y ago
    Fire sprinklers appear to be required. https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12040 https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.as...
- tw04 5y ago
  I don't find it unreasonable to think that government regulations around fire safety are based on current building trends. Nobody in the US stuffs 4500 people into a single building with almost all of them in the interior of the building. Nobody would voluntarily live that way, even the "projects" were/are more humane. Just looking at the proposed floorplan, in an emergency it would be a nightmare to get out. 7 kids trying to get out that one door with a giant table in the way while likely panicking? It screams deathtrap.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  You know who was violating fire regulations for decades? Nuclear Power plants! You would things that's the one place where safety would be taken seriously, right? https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/601/fire-protection-violations-us-nuclear-power-plants https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/601/fire-p...
  - salawat 5y ago
    Nuclear Plants have an adversarial interest in access control though. Sometimes, yes, even fire safety loses out.
skeeter2020 5y ago
If you were an architect who was concerned enough with the design to quit, wouldn't you both know about and publicize potential (or real) safety concerns?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jl6 5y ago

I don’t find it unreasonable to assume that the building will comply with government fire safety regulations and that those regulations are at least somewhat adequate.

fdr 5y ago
The regulations may have been written with architectural rules of thumb in mind, as in, "surely no one would..."
- LegitShady 5y ago
  Building code isn't really written as rules of thumb but as rules.
mindcrime 5y ago
You might be surprised. Fire regulations are very much a local issue and there can be a lot of variance (although many local municipalities base their codes on standards put out by bodies like the NFPA, etc.). There are quite frequently things that one might intuitively expect to be in the regs, that aren't. Requirements for sprinklers, for example. As surprising as it may seem, there are still lots of places where sprinklers are not required in many buildings. I don't know the situation in Santa Barbara, but I did email their fire department earlier with an inquiry about this topic. Hoping to hear something back.
- docfort 5y ago
  Fire sprinklers appear to be required. https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=12040 https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.as...
tw04 5y ago
I don't find it unreasonable to think that government regulations around fire safety are based on current building trends. Nobody in the US stuffs 4500 people into a single building with almost all of them in the interior of the building. Nobody would voluntarily live that way, even the "projects" were/are more humane. Just looking at the proposed floorplan, in an emergency it would be a nightmare to get out. 7 kids trying to get out that one door with a giant table in the way while likely panicking? It screams deathtrap.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
You know who was violating fire regulations for decades? Nuclear Power plants! You would things that's the one place where safety would be taken seriously, right? https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/601/fire-protection-violations-us-nuclear-power-plants https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/601/fire-p...
- salawat 5y ago
  Nuclear Plants have an adversarial interest in access control though. Sometimes, yes, even fire safety loses out.

skeeter2020 5y ago

If you were an architect who was concerned enough with the design to quit, wouldn't you both know about and publicize potential (or real) safety concerns?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]