I am fortunate right now to have a meaningful project that I hope will become a source of pride for an under-resourced neighborhood. It involves an existing Community/ Youth Center project in a pretty rough part of the city. City and private funded. Involves remodel of existing 13,000 SF building, and a new 12,000 SF addition.
Existing portion will house a small tenant space, administration offices, and a couple classrooms, but it's primary function and reason for being are multi-function activity rooms for the kids (K - 12).
The addition will be mainly assembly type space using movable partitions to create flexible room sizes. Used by the kids, and for adult community meetings.
From a code point of view, my initial research indicates a couple possibilities. The option my boss seems to have latched on to is sprinkling only the addtion, which is A3 and will likely be req'd in any case -- but then creating a separation wall and NOT sprinkling the existing portion, which is primarily non-combustible materials -- thereby cutting some cost.
Long story short, I can't imagine NOT sprinkling the remaining existing SF of a building that is typically filled with K-12 kids. I don't want to be overly dramatic about it, but when I think about the buildings that we DO sprinkler, and for the associated reasons, I feel like it's a case where as design professionals we really need to do BETTER than the codes we so often rely upon.
well, doing better than the codes can be admirable but can also be expensive. it's certainly not necessary to sprinkler a building just because it's got kids in it. i'm doing an elementary school renovation right now where the school was built in 1958 and we are now, 51 yrs later, installing a sprinkler system for the first time. and that's really only because we're adding 20k sf to the existing building.
sprinklers aren't the be/all-end/all. there are plenty of ways to make a building safe, and sprinklers aren't necessarily a guarantee of safety. you just have to pick the right solutions for the project.
sufficient exiting on clearly comprehensible paths and use of materials with low flame spread may be some of the best strategies.
advice: set up a meeting with your local plan reviewer and talk through the goals of the project. they can be very helpful allies in arriving at good answers.
I always recommend the client check with their insurance agent to see what kind of break in their insurance cost they would realize by installing a full sprinkler system. I also alert them to the fact that the Local Water Company is also going to charge you a higher rate for water if you have a sprinkler system even if your not using the water. This is because their lines need to be of an adequate size and of an adequate pressure to provide for your sprinkler system. If your going to be putting sprinklers in part of the building it goes to say the Water Company is going to tap your client for a larger water fee.
You will also be installing a double back flow preventor valve system if your going to be installing a partial sprinkled building. It is a big nut in the total cost picture of a sprinkler system. So I would say, check out how much it would be to sprinkle the whole building. See about insurance savings cause it sounds like your going to go for a partial system anyhow. Heck you might be surprised by how fast the payback is in reduced insurance cost in paying for the system.
Maybe check with the fire marshall on this? I mean if you talk to him, you might shoot yourself in the foot. But from a planning perspective, I know a lot of fire codes have been manipulated in a way that works for both city and owner.
Is the more of a real danger of the building catching on fire from a neighboring building or a neighboring building catching fire from your building? I just ask this because I've seen projects where this was the case and they talked to all sorts of people. The compromise was that the fire danger was the greatest from spreading and all they had to do was install some outdoor sprinkler system.
J, re: your warnings about the tone of my post... if it sounded like an accusatory leap on my part, not my intent. Of course, my boss, a family man himself, is most likely not looking for an opportunity to off a bunch a children... :-) But I'll say this -- I take nada at face value where any boss is concerned. Do i think that it's worth looking beyond basic code compliance and then questioning what is ultimately the best reasonable solution in a building full of kids with which my name will be associated? Well, you get the idea.
It's hard to convey adequate context on these kinds of posts, and maybe I didn't state my questions very well.
My question isn't about how codes work or how to meet with agency officials. Like most here, been there done that ad nauseum.
OK... The addition will for sure be sprinkled. Some practical additional considerations are the cost of creating a proper separation wall to replace/modify the existing wall next to the addition; that some if not all equipement/plumbing /water pressure / etc upgrades necessary for sprinklering the addition will then be in place anyway; plus see snook's posted items above.
Finally, the existing portion is getting a cosmetic upgrade, so "size, height , and travel" distances are unchanged. Materials will not change, either.
Again, most here can figure out what the codes say re: sprinklers. Yes, we could do code-compliant schemes without the sprinkler in the existing portion. How about the rock bottom basics at the other end of the spectrum: Anyone willing to say that the kids sitting in the paint-and-carpet-only remodeled existing portion would be made safer with the addition of the sprinklers?
Now, of course sprinklers do not guarantee safety (does anything?) I think my reaction to my boss -- and now to some some posts here -- is likely a reaction to the code book as the final word. It's force of habit, I know. All I'm saying is there are always other considerations.
Youth Center Sprinkler Requirements
I am fortunate right now to have a meaningful project that I hope will become a source of pride for an under-resourced neighborhood. It involves an existing Community/ Youth Center project in a pretty rough part of the city. City and private funded. Involves remodel of existing 13,000 SF building, and a new 12,000 SF addition.
Existing portion will house a small tenant space, administration offices, and a couple classrooms, but it's primary function and reason for being are multi-function activity rooms for the kids (K - 12).
The addition will be mainly assembly type space using movable partitions to create flexible room sizes. Used by the kids, and for adult community meetings.
From a code point of view, my initial research indicates a couple possibilities. The option my boss seems to have latched on to is sprinkling only the addtion, which is A3 and will likely be req'd in any case -- but then creating a separation wall and NOT sprinkling the existing portion, which is primarily non-combustible materials -- thereby cutting some cost.
Long story short, I can't imagine NOT sprinkling the remaining existing SF of a building that is typically filled with K-12 kids. I don't want to be overly dramatic about it, but when I think about the buildings that we DO sprinkler, and for the associated reasons, I feel like it's a case where as design professionals we really need to do BETTER than the codes we so often rely upon.
Please and thank you, your thoughts?
well, doing better than the codes can be admirable but can also be expensive. it's certainly not necessary to sprinkler a building just because it's got kids in it. i'm doing an elementary school renovation right now where the school was built in 1958 and we are now, 51 yrs later, installing a sprinkler system for the first time. and that's really only because we're adding 20k sf to the existing building.
sprinklers aren't the be/all-end/all. there are plenty of ways to make a building safe, and sprinklers aren't necessarily a guarantee of safety. you just have to pick the right solutions for the project.
sufficient exiting on clearly comprehensible paths and use of materials with low flame spread may be some of the best strategies.
advice: set up a meeting with your local plan reviewer and talk through the goals of the project. they can be very helpful allies in arriving at good answers.
I always recommend the client check with their insurance agent to see what kind of break in their insurance cost they would realize by installing a full sprinkler system. I also alert them to the fact that the Local Water Company is also going to charge you a higher rate for water if you have a sprinkler system even if your not using the water. This is because their lines need to be of an adequate size and of an adequate pressure to provide for your sprinkler system. If your going to be putting sprinklers in part of the building it goes to say the Water Company is going to tap your client for a larger water fee.
You will also be installing a double back flow preventor valve system if your going to be installing a partial sprinkled building. It is a big nut in the total cost picture of a sprinkler system. So I would say, check out how much it would be to sprinkle the whole building. See about insurance savings cause it sounds like your going to go for a partial system anyhow. Heck you might be surprised by how fast the payback is in reduced insurance cost in paying for the system.
Maybe check with the fire marshall on this? I mean if you talk to him, you might shoot yourself in the foot. But from a planning perspective, I know a lot of fire codes have been manipulated in a way that works for both city and owner.
Is the more of a real danger of the building catching on fire from a neighboring building or a neighboring building catching fire from your building? I just ask this because I've seen projects where this was the case and they talked to all sorts of people. The compromise was that the fire danger was the greatest from spreading and all they had to do was install some outdoor sprinkler system.
I appreciate everyone's respones...thanks.
J, re: your warnings about the tone of my post... if it sounded like an accusatory leap on my part, not my intent. Of course, my boss, a family man himself, is most likely not looking for an opportunity to off a bunch a children... :-) But I'll say this -- I take nada at face value where any boss is concerned. Do i think that it's worth looking beyond basic code compliance and then questioning what is ultimately the best reasonable solution in a building full of kids with which my name will be associated? Well, you get the idea.
It's hard to convey adequate context on these kinds of posts, and maybe I didn't state my questions very well.
My question isn't about how codes work or how to meet with agency officials. Like most here, been there done that ad nauseum.
OK... The addition will for sure be sprinkled. Some practical additional considerations are the cost of creating a proper separation wall to replace/modify the existing wall next to the addition; that some if not all equipement/plumbing /water pressure / etc upgrades necessary for sprinklering the addition will then be in place anyway; plus see snook's posted items above.
Finally, the existing portion is getting a cosmetic upgrade, so "size, height , and travel" distances are unchanged. Materials will not change, either.
Again, most here can figure out what the codes say re: sprinklers. Yes, we could do code-compliant schemes without the sprinkler in the existing portion. How about the rock bottom basics at the other end of the spectrum: Anyone willing to say that the kids sitting in the paint-and-carpet-only remodeled existing portion would be made safer with the addition of the sprinklers?
Now, of course sprinklers do not guarantee safety (does anything?) I think my reaction to my boss -- and now to some some posts here -- is likely a reaction to the code book as the final word. It's force of habit, I know. All I'm saying is there are always other considerations.
Design the sprinklers in the existing part of the building as an add alternate.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.