I’ve read this claim before - the requirement for two ways out is building/Fire code.
The claim that it makes a huge difference in the number of apartments doesn’t seem credible, nor has any included sufficient evidence that only one way out is sufficient.
Usually one of the counter-arguments is building material. Maybe if you’re building with stone and concrete, that’s less flammable than wood. However even then every wall has paint and every room has furniture
While it isn’t clinical, I think the practice of building beyond a few levels with a single egress point in so many other countries is sufficient enough evidence to justify changing this building standard.
At the same time, we allow bigger wood framed buildings than most places, so maybe there’s good reason.
—- anecdote time: a few years ago my town started allowing wood framed buildings up to 6 floors, from the previous 5. Sure enough, the first one burned down (it wasn’t finished so no one was yet living there to get hurt). Of course it was defended by people claiming technology fixes that - if the smoke alarms were installed, people would have had time to get out. We’re already making a huge concession in people’s lives so the builder can profit more, and now you also want to make it harder to escape?
I’m not sure the builder profits much more by using engineered timber given its expense compared to concrete. Given the environmental cost of building with concrete, it’s important to find alternative materials.
Even in your anecdote, it’s not as though the addition of a single floor was the cause of the fire, just like the material type wasn’t. It’s much easier for an incomplete building to go up in flames than a completed and occupied one.
Technology isn’t always a solution, but it’s not like pressurized stairwells, automatic hallway segmentation, or even sprinkler systems are things of science fiction. These are all pretty established techniques of fire control.
In terms of prevention, given the number one cause of fires in homes and buildings is in the kitchen, the easiest solution is opting out of the methane infrastructure in new projects. Though there’s a rather large industry that pushes for this practice to continue, so that’s a difficult thing to do.
Also, to bring it back to the topic relevant to this post, I’m not advocating to make escape harder in a burning building by eliminating stairwells. My point is precisely what’s in the content of the post - single stairwell buildings in other areas don’t have people on the upper floors dying hand over foot because they had to descend an extra flight or two.
If it was harder, I’m sure we would have heard about the trend of every building seven levels and up having dead bodies pile up in the stairwell after someone tried to flambé a quail.
I’ve read this claim before - the requirement for two ways out is building/Fire code.
The claim that it makes a huge difference in the number of apartments doesn’t seem credible, nor has any included sufficient evidence that only one way out is sufficient.
Usually one of the counter-arguments is building material. Maybe if you’re building with stone and concrete, that’s less flammable than wood. However even then every wall has paint and every room has furniture
While it isn’t clinical, I think the practice of building beyond a few levels with a single egress point in so many other countries is sufficient enough evidence to justify changing this building standard.
At the same time, we allow bigger wood framed buildings than most places, so maybe there’s good reason.
—- anecdote time: a few years ago my town started allowing wood framed buildings up to 6 floors, from the previous 5. Sure enough, the first one burned down (it wasn’t finished so no one was yet living there to get hurt). Of course it was defended by people claiming technology fixes that - if the smoke alarms were installed, people would have had time to get out. We’re already making a huge concession in people’s lives so the builder can profit more, and now you also want to make it harder to escape?
I’m not sure the builder profits much more by using engineered timber given its expense compared to concrete. Given the environmental cost of building with concrete, it’s important to find alternative materials.
Even in your anecdote, it’s not as though the addition of a single floor was the cause of the fire, just like the material type wasn’t. It’s much easier for an incomplete building to go up in flames than a completed and occupied one.
Technology isn’t always a solution, but it’s not like pressurized stairwells, automatic hallway segmentation, or even sprinkler systems are things of science fiction. These are all pretty established techniques of fire control.
In terms of prevention, given the number one cause of fires in homes and buildings is in the kitchen, the easiest solution is opting out of the methane infrastructure in new projects. Though there’s a rather large industry that pushes for this practice to continue, so that’s a difficult thing to do.
Also, to bring it back to the topic relevant to this post, I’m not advocating to make escape harder in a burning building by eliminating stairwells. My point is precisely what’s in the content of the post - single stairwell buildings in other areas don’t have people on the upper floors dying hand over foot because they had to descend an extra flight or two.
If it was harder, I’m sure we would have heard about the trend of every building seven levels and up having dead bodies pile up in the stairwell after someone tried to flambé a quail.