Mary:
I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Sprinkler
installation is in fact a very effective (but yes, expensive) means of
protecting historic properties. There have been countless installations
that have addressed the concerns of not disrupting the historic fabric of
older structures. In fact, given the nature of historic building materials
and contents, suppression options are often a far better choice that
"passive" protection.
If fact, there is a specific NFPA standard relating to fire safety for
historic properties, including suppression. See NFPA 914, Code for Fire
Protection in Historic Structures. The intent of this and other
preservation-minded initiatives is to apply performance-based and related
"equivalency" to existing codes so that systems can be installed that best
address the specific needs of the historic facility.
Regarding your concern of pipes that will "leak and burst", that is
a generally a fallacy. Fire suppression piping and fittings are rated much
for higher pressures than domestic supply piping. As with any utility
piping or conduit, if installed correctly, they should be far more secure
than other types of piping. If the toilets and sinks are not a concern,
then the suppression piping should not be either.
Your concerns are legitimate though. I will admit, that many
designers and contractors have specified/installed systems that do indeed
cause irreversible damage to the historic fabric of old properties, however
this is an exception rather than the norm. If a reputable architect, fire
protection engineer and contractor are brought on board to a project, a
suppression installation can be performed quite seamlessly.
There have been many documented cases of complete losses of historic
properties and artifacts due to the fact that the curators did not want a
suppression system installed. When interviewed after the loss, they almost
all concede that they would rather have lost a room to water damage than the
entire property to the fire.
After all, a good installation will preserve the historic fabric AND
the structure in the case of a fire incident. Soggy contents and finishes
are a far better outcome that the complete loss of a historic and
irreplaceable property and its contents. We have found ways of restoring
many water and smoke-damaged materials, but do not have a good method for
gluing ashes back together!!
-Scott
your neighborhood fire-safety preservationist architect/engineer guy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Dierickx [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 9:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sprinklers
>
> Sprinklers are often a bad idea for historic buildings and are definitely
> not
> the only means of fire prevention. Putting sprinklers everywhere is a
> simplistic method formulated and supported by the sprinkler industry.
>
> There was a plan by whatever agency it was at the time responsible for
> homeless shelters in NYC to sprinkler the entire 7th Regiment Armory on
> Park
> Avenue. There was a small homeless shelter on the 4th floor, and the fire
> department was just asking for an alternate means of egress. The agency's
> answer was to install sprinklers in the whole building, at a cost of a $1
> to
> 2 million. This would include the incomparable, very decorated 19th
> century
> rooms on the 1st and 2nd floors. Tell me that running pipes (that will
> leak
> and burst) and installing sprinkler heads in a coffered and gilded Tiffany
> ceiling is a thoughtful method of fire protection. Fortunately, concerned
> preservationists stalled the project by invoking preservation bureaucracy
> at
> the state level while getting the interior designated a landmark, and the
> interiors were saved.
>
> Mary Dierickx
|
