The phenomenon of fires in new high rise construction is troubling. Today’s fire in Weymouth
should make us remember that similar instances happened in Waltham and Dorchester. The Dorchester fire started because of faulty pipe installation and the Waltham fire seems to have been arson.
In all of these cases, the question arises as to the soundness of mostly wood construction in such tall buildings. The prevalence of wood creates a tinderbox and can rapidly consume entire buildings. Waltham has asked for a moratorium to examine the issue. Does it make sense to build in such a way?
In Ancient Rome, wealthier people lived on the bottom floors to better escape the likely reality of tenement fires. Modern building and construction techniques should make everyone safer, but do they? Does mostly wood construction create unnecessary hazards?
Construction sites can be dangerous. That’s why workers and visitors wear hardhats [duh]. But implying that construction dangers [like those referenced] carry over to post construction occupancy, is just total nonsense. Particularly when discussing fires, because all “high rise” buildings here have fire suppression systems that are activated well before occupancy. Other than anti development propaganda, I’m not sure what point this thread is attempting to make.
Ms. LeBlanc, are you a civil engineer, architect or in possession of some other background which would make you qualified to question in any serious manner established building codes? Two accidents (the third being arson and thus not relevant) hardly seems like a basis for even raising such an option; though perhaps it would make you qualified to run for Mayor.
Using these unfortunate fires to push your anti-development stance. OK.
@Mary and @Elmo I’m talking about development; I’m taking about safety, and questioning construction practices which are two different issues. It seem imprudent to not address safety concerns because of one’s own personal agenda. Also, Waltham Fire Chief Paul Ciccone noted:
“There’s not a lot we can do about it, but wood is always very disconcerting to us because wood burns,” he said. “When you have a complex of this size, which is primarily wood frame, wood stick construction, it’s a big concern. And when it’s in a spot like this, it’s very congested, it’s very hard to access. We see these go up, we keep an eye on them.”
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/07/24/waltham-fire-apartment-complex-elm-street-wood-frame/
I would hope we don’t overreact but seems like this might be a serious problem, according to this Globe article by the excellent Kay Lazar: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/12/lessons-not-learned/a3ZhFnxYRjVCVmYGBfznjP/story.html
However, I would hope our reaction isn’t to say we should stop building construction. That makes no sense. We should make sure we have the best safety standards in place. According to the article, “A Globe review of construction site safety enforcement in 12 Greater Boston communities found that only three require developers to submit written fire prevention plans — the gold standard, according to experts — addressing in detail potential risks and proposed safeguards.”
I did some quick googling but couldn’t find if we are one of the communities that require written fire prevention plans. Maybe someone can clarify?
Really? Someone questions the safety of a certain type of construction – one that reasonable people including fire chiefs are concerned about and that there’s been investigative reporting about – and your response is to scream “anti-development” and “how dare you question this if you’re not an engineer or architect”!?
There are serious questions about whether this particular form of construction is safe, or how to make it so. If nothing else, it’s a concern for the safety of our fire fighters. We should care as a community whether we have adequate safety standards and whether they’re being enforced.
I’m not anti-development and I’m not an engineer (though I did attend engineering school). That doesn’t stop me from being concerned about this issue.
I agree with Bryan and Meredith: This is a reasonable concern. I appreciate that Lynne has raised it.
Why mention the arson, though?
Every link above relates to fires that have taken place in wood frame buildings under construction, prior to fire suppression systems being made operational. It’s a concern for firefighters, but not much of a concern for potential tenants who would live in the buildings after they had operational sprinkler systems. It’s also worth noting that Newton has more than 10,000 residential wood frame homes without any fire suppression system, just to keep this all in proper context.
In any event, I question the relevance of this thread to Newton. But if someone would identify a specific construction project or building in Newton they feel this is relevant to, I’m very open minded to discussing it.
Mike’s right about the sprinklers. They’re typically not activated until the building is completed. If you activate the system too early in the process the pipes could freeze in cold weather or the system could be damaged during construction.
In the end, all buildings no matter what they are made of — bricks, wood, straw, etc. — have to pass the same fire codes and inspections before they receive their occupancy permits.
If you look at the article Bryan linked to, which is very much worth reading, there are steps that can be taken to lower the risk of fires occurring or spreading. Training is key – in one of the fires, workers took 90 minutes to call 911!
Given where these are usually built, the risk is not just to firefighters but to neighbors. The article outlines how to minimize the risk, including having a fire prevention plan and actually following it, and makes it clear that the risk of catastrophic fire during construction with these structures is higher than for alternative building methods. This is something it would be worth having our City Councilors look into in conjunction with our Fire Department.
Folks’ concerns are understandable, given the too many terrible fires noted, but codes and best construction practices are primarily about safety – and there are layers of complexity to take into account. Greg is correct that fire code compliance is mandatory – and it also determines material selection.
First, just because something is wood frame, does not mean it is more susceptible to fire. Things can be fire proofed. Steel melts and fails, so it has to have a fire protective coating in many cases. The entire wall roof and floor assembly must be considered – which, when completed, carries a fire rating expressed in hours. That is, the number of hours the entire assembly is rated between floors or units. The frame is protected with finishes that have fire ratings to protect the frame. Doors have fire ratings to common hallways and even periodically within the hallway. Required ratings vary according to the use/s. Common stairwells are fire rated continuously to isolate them from the rest of the building.
“Fire stopping” is also important. The famous Chicago fire at the turn of the last century was out of control because the construction method was “balloon framing” – multi story wall framing open from floor to floor, which acted as chimneys. This is no longer allowed. Fire stopping (or blocking) is required at every floor by code and is one of the most carefully inspected elements of a building. Good construction practice would be to install fire blocking as you build.
There are also insulations that are fire suppressors – densepak cellulose for example. ( And some, such as glass fiber, that actually advance flame spread). A technical review of the wall/ roof assemblies for each of these buildings, would be interesting to review.
In addition, although the fire suppression system is not fully functional til the end of construction – the standpipe should be installed, accessible and maintained as construction progresses. As someone said, a construction management plan is very important, including order of operations to maintain some level of fire fighting capability and, importantly, a site security plan throughout construction.
Councilor Crossley, thank you for that very thorough explanation. Very helpful.
Personally I feel that these fires are so bad because of the cheap pressed wood and Concrete Construction. If you look at the Waltham Fire which as we understand was arson – all the structures burned down, all the cars exploded but what remains is the Building that housed ET Auto body. That building was built years ago and was made out of Brick and Concrete. All the cars burned/exploded around it but the building still stands and the intensity of that fire should have burned everything down but because the Auto body shop was built well – it did not burn down . I personally believe that now 3 fires of new construction all built in the same way is telling us that those types of Buildings are a fire hazard. And based on the intensity of these fires – would the sprinkler systems have held up?
Something to keep in mind in this discussion: Fully sprinklered buildings are incredibly safe. There has NEVER been a mutliple fatality in a sprinklered building.
Light it up before the sprinklers are activated and you’ve got a problem.
People may not remember, since it was out of state, the Avalon Edgewater fire in New Jersey in January 2015. This was an occupied building. Here’s a 1-year update, at which point, nothing had changed in building codes.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2016/01/20/avalon-at-edgewater-inferno-one-year-later-more-time-for-healing/94411010/
The ‘Related Story” link about the frustration of local fire chiefs about inaction by the their state assembly is no longer working, but here’s a similar story from the Journal of Light Construction (perhaps appropriately): http://www.jlconline.com/coastal-contractor-news/new-jersey-fire-officials-demand-tougher-code_o
Then there was another fire, at a different Avalon, this one under construction, in Maplewood NJ, in February of this year! Avalon had ‘voluntarily’ adding extra sprinklers and masonry firewalls in response to the Edgewater fire, so apparently there had been no change in mandatory measures in the two years since Edgewater.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/essex/2017/02/04/fire-destroys-maplewoods-avalon-apartment-complex/97486008/
And it looks like North Carolina is having the same problem as NJ and MA:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article139881553.html This article points out what I’d read elsewhere — the sprinkler systems are designed to give people time to get out of the building and save lives, not to save property.
Builders prefer wood because it’s cheaper than steel. It appears from the lack of action in so many state legislatures, that they are listening more to lobbyists for the construction industry, than to their local fire chiefs.
I suspect that cities and towns are not allowed to have stricter building codes than state law — I asked at ISD once and was told Newton follows the MA building code. But like those fire chiefs in NJ, I would like to see steel framing required for buildings over three stories when the city has the leverage to do so, such as when a special permit or rezoning is being sought.
@Deb Crossley: Completed or nearly-completed wood frame buildings with full wall and floor assemblies as you describe may be about as safe as a steel-framed building but I think the primary concern here is buildings in an earlier stage of construction. A wood-framed building that only has the wood frame up is going to be much more flammable than a steel-framed building at a similar stage. I think people are looking for reassurance that Newton construction codes specifically are adequate for this type of building at all stages of construction.
Immediately after the Waltham fire there were reports published that the natural gas was already on in some of the buildings but the sprinklers were not. If true, this would seem like a lapse in safety. If the building is far enough along to turn on the gas, isn’t it far enough along to turn on the sprinklers?
I haven’t seen a wood frame building of >2 or 3 stories going up in Newton. The closest might be a 4-5 story building under construction on 4th Ave. in Needham, which has now reached the point where the walls are being sheathed so the wood framing is not as obvious as it was a few weeks ago.
I drove past one of the new projects in Watertown a few weeks ago. It was in a stage where the framing was up and the particleboard walls were partially installed over the visible 2 by 4s. My first impression was “kindling”. If you ever built a fire out of wood (bonfire, fireplace, etc.) you know that you want the wood pieces close enough to spread the fire but with some air gap between them. That’s what these vanilla sububan lifestyle starter sets look like before they’re completed. It is a bonfire waiting for a spark. The fact that Waltham was arson is irrelevant — it was just too easy to ignite, and it burned very fast and very hot.
This is very relevant to Newton because Korff’s Orr Block project is of just this type of wood construction. Five stories of wood. Check it out if you don’t believe me. Last year when someone asked, at a Land Use Committee meeting, why there was no office space included, he said that office customers demand steel frame, but his project is wood frame, which is cheaper. I think the state code is way too lax in this regard.
Fred – Facts first – Washington Place is to be primarily wood frame, but it is significant that the first level, or ‘podium’ is steel and concrete to separate the commercial/ retail spaces from the residential with the proper fire-rated assembly. The wood framed floors will be built on top of that. A podium is not required by code, but that is how the project is designed. Austin Street is also designed with a steel and concrete first level podium.
The Public Safety Committee, of which I am a member is out in front of this issue. In the past few weeks I have met with the major developers in the city to express our Committee’s concerns with this type of construction. In particular I want to be sure that we protect the neighborhoods around these projects during pre-occupancy.
We will be seeking pro-active measures to ensure vigilance in monitoring the sites during and after construction hours.
Just because its legal doesn’t mean we aren’t taking action.
@Councilor Cote – thank you for sharing this information. I appreciate knowing that the Public Safety Committee is on the ball and working to mitigate risk.
@DebCrossley Thanks for your information. Some of the reasons for building with wood are reiterated in “Fire Chief ” online source (https://www.firechief.com/2017/03/14/are-wood-frame-high-rises-a-fire-risk/ re: market, industry, profit margin, and environmental) – though I can imagine objections to some of the “advantages” so it’s a bit of a mixed bag.
But a few considerations:
1. Resident expectations of building codes does not necessarily coincide with industry standards and gaps may not be bridged until fatalities or injuries occur. Special interests (as we know) have a way of making policy.
2. The “Fire Chief” link above makes clear appropriate materials, construction methods, safe-guards need to be in place for safety to be optimal, and that continual testing, up-dating of building methods, and stringent oversight (with accountability, of course) need to be in place. Is there a reasonable expectation for this?
3. Thinking back to the articles posted regarding wood-constructed high-rise fires, real fire chiefs seem to have a good degree of ambivalence about these materials (See “Building Design and Construction” online magazine https://www.bdcnetwork.com/concerns-over-new-wood-frame-mid-rise-residential-building-construction-charlotte ). This is worrisome and reminds me of the adage: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.” Who doesn’t know that often what seemed to be the best practice falls out of favor or comes to be understood as downright dangerous? Exempla gratia: food fads (eggs are now good?!), bottled water, FDA approved drugs that are later pulled, and (appropriately enough) fire retardant materials – now deemed almost more dangerous than the fire themselves.
I’m not at all saying new things are bad, but I am suggesting that common sense if often eschewed for the best new thing which may be profit, industry, or special interest driven. A healthy dose of skepticism (and common sense) is often prudent.
Thank you Jim Cote. Hopefully the other Councilors will also realize that this type of construction using pressed or Light wood is a Fire Hazard, How many more of these types of Buildings need to burn down until it is taken seriously.
I remember years ago looking into the affordability of green building (specifically LEED silver) and there was a presentation about the cost of green building in public housing. The result: due to “strict” building codes there was no cost premium in NY or MA, but because it was “easier” to build in CT it going green would cost 5-15%.
Stick-built wood frame (or even prconstructed panels) have a short lead-time compared to concrete or steel … there’s not going to be as many engineering shop drawings, there are more firms, the material is more readily available, etc. And it’s held together with standard metal hangers, nails, and screws; it’s easy to find the labor. Compare this to setting pre-bent rebar (or site bending rebar) and placing at appropriate spacing to allow for concrete infill (plus the effort to stick-build the and or bolting/welding steel, and you can see that this is a faster and easier method of building.
As long as it’s permitted by Mass. building code, it’ll be used.