Waterboy, Red:
I am not against fire safety. We need to have a fire code that ensures residential rentals are safe. And we do. A unit that would pass a Section 8 inspection is required to have 2 exits, recesses for below grade occupation, and a certain number of smoke detectors. My house doesn't have a sprinkler system and it's made out of wood and asphalt shingles; surely more flammable than a brick building. My office building doesn't even have a sprinkler system. In college I lived in old Victorian houses made into apartments without sprinkler systems. Have I been at grave risk my entire life?
On top of that, remodeled structures in most cities are not required to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems. Yet I don't hear of scores of associated deaths that would have been prevented by sprinklers. Are Tulsans too stupid to flee a burning building or just too fat to do so quickly enough? Smartassness aside: why is it safe enough for most places but not for Tulsa?
What's more; the fire code is not designed only for human safety. It attempts to make it impossible for the building to burn down (property damage is reduced by 50-70% on average with a sprinkler system). Now, considering that the buildings we are talking about have stood for 60+ years without such systems and haven't burned down and that a remodel would presumably decrease the chance of said building burning down in the future . . . I'd say we'd be better off with an occupied building that could possibly burn down than an empty building that will likely be torn down. We have required many of the buildings to be so safe that we have ensured no one will get killed in the building, because no one is in the building.
Some quick stats:
1) In 2007 there were nearly 415,000 residential fires (out of ~123 million residences).
Resulting in 2,895 deaths. (of 2.5 million deaths)
14,000 injuries.
And $7.5 billion in damage.
Looking at those numbers, residential fires are not really a big safety risk. The odds of a given residence catching fire in any one year is approximately 1 in 300. In each fire the odds of there being an injury is 1 in 30 (one in every 8,785 households). The odds of there being a death is 1 in every 145th residential fire (or 1 in every 43,000 households per year). If the cost of home fires was bore equally by all households, your share would be $60.
So we are prohibiting people from redeveloping old buildings to prevent an occurrence that will happen once for every 43,000 households. It just doesn't make sense from that perspective.
You can give the "life has no value" speech. But we all know that is a wonderful concept, but not reality. In reality there is a cost benefit analysis that determines what level of safety we are comfortable with. For 95+% of residences in Tulsa, we are safe enough without residential sprinklers.
2) The government (DHS) recommends sprinklers for new construction because the benefits outweigh the costs. The cost for new construction is purportedly $1 to $1.50 per square foot (generally less than 1.5% of the total cost). Retrofitting old buildings to code in Tulsa costs from $10-15 per square foot (often 25% of the cost).
A ten fold increase in the cost certainly skews that equation.
3) Insurance discounts for sprinklers range from 5-15%. Given the high cost of installation it will not cash flow based on insurance savings.
4) More than 80% of fire deaths occur in single family residences. If preventing fire deaths is out goal, statistically we would be much better requiring all single family homes that are sold to be retrofitted with sprinkler systems and hard wired smoke detectors (with battery backup). The cost to retrofit a family home is cheaper per square foot than an old brick building and the odds of actually saving a life improve.
But this safety measure would impact everyone. Cost everyone money. And prevent everyone from utilizing their property as they see fit . . . the retrofitting for conversions only effects some people. So who even though it doesn't improve safety as much, who cares?
5) Most residences in Tulsa don't have fire suppression systems. Thus, if the people that would occupy the downtown apartments move to another residence without suppression systems, nothing has been gained in the way of safety. The effect is a nullity.
6) COOKING is the primary cause of residential fires. Given that, couldn't a compromise be met requiring fire suppression in cooking areas only? There has to be a compromise that makes these structures safe but not cost prohibitive to remodel into residential space. The market simple won't sustain an additional $12 cost per square foot because CONSUMERS don't think the extra safety is worth the extra money. Hence, builders can not provide it for them no matter the mandate.
sources:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/sprinklers/index.shtm (and associated links from that page)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm- - -
I'm not arguing that fire suppression systems don't save lives. The evidence is pretty solid that they do save lives. My argument is that the application of this ordinance in its current form negates the possible advantage. It just ensures that remodels are few and far between and that when they occur they are priced out of reach for the average Tulsan (let alone college students, many of whom go to school downtown or just down the road at TU).
We are overreacting to a very unlikely event with a fire code that is more strict than most places. The result makes it impractical to convert downtown structures into housing that is affordable to Average Joe. We are protecting Average Joe from himself in order to keep him safe.
There has to be a compromise somewhere.