165 Park Drive | Fenway

[bigpicture7]

Definitely agree there's no such thing as zero risk, and also did a double-take when I read that. But I assumed I wasn't getting CBCArch61's point, because I have to imagine they know there's no such thing as zero risk too. So yesterday I'd mentally reinterpreted what they were saying is that you need to build what you say you are building, e.g., a 2-hr firewall needs to perform as such, not less. What a building claims to be needs to be what it is.

I could be wrong, but that was how I interpreted it.

 

[stick n move]

Yeah - there is no such thing as "zero risk."

For a more realistic example: should we require fire suppression sprinkler systems in single-family homes? This is recommended per current IRC code and specified in NFPA 13D, but practically every jurisdiction nationally has opted not to adopt it as a requirement (with some exceptions that have adopted it and made such systems required). Massachusetts state building code only requires fire suppression sprinkler systems in unattached single-family homes if they're over 14,400 sf.


The vast majority of buildings one can "walk into" today do not meet current code. Current code applies only to new builds (or new substantial renovations), and not to buildings built or substantially renovated prior to current code being implemented. And even there, code is open to interpretation and inspectors have the ability to (often!) say "close enough" when meeting code to the letter is not easy or feasible.

Unless you live, work, and vacation exclusively in new builds, chances are that there are code violations all over all the buildings you enter. But this is a "risk" we accept because it would be prohibitively expensive (like -- we as a society could not potentially bear the costs without completely reshaping our economy) to fully retrofit every existing building to current code every time code changes. Are you proposing that we do that?

There are plenty of examples of building code being set using arbitrary standards that are not scientific or rigorously designed and often even counter-productive to safety overall. For example, if we make it crazy expensive to install elevators that meet current code (we do) than many buildings are just built without them (they are). But elevators (even those that don't conform to current code) are on net safer than stairs in many situations, so code's quest for the perfect ends up falling short of the good. Similar dynamics apply at times to double-loaded corridor dual egress buildings compared to much smaller floorplate single-stair buildings, etc.

My parents house in maine came with a sprinkler system because the nearest fire station is so far away. Id be more scared of it being accidentally set off and ruining the house vs it actually being used to stop a fire, but I guess it does make sense. First one I’ve ever seen in a sfh.

 

[CBCArch61]

Glad that devolved into a very semantic discussion so quickly. Let me provide some responses in an effort to right the direction/intent.

• When I said "zero risk", I meant structurally/systematically. Hence my next sentence was "If you are walking into a building there should be zero risk and if risk is present, a municipality has a responsibility to rectify the situation or penalize a private owner to the point where is is more beneficial to fix it.". if there is a structural problem, electrical problem, fire risk in an existing building that should be rectified.
• There is plenty of risk in life. The examples that goody pointed out - "People trip and fall down stairs, accidentally mix bleach and ammonia, slip in their showers, and so on" - are outside of the purview of the building codes, which was the original question that I was responding to.
• While it would be easy to come out say "every structure needs every life saving device and system possible to reduce the possibility of some outside chance this one small things happening", that is overburdensome and ridiculous. That is why the code provides the different avenues to compliance.
• Did people stop reading when they saw "zero risk"? I'm seeing responses pointing anecdotal code failures, some of which I pointed to in my comment.

Talk about grabbing a carrot and running with it. I thought I did a good job walking through my thoughts on why the codes are important while also pointing to some examples of "failures". Just because there are some elements of the code that could be deemed "failures" - ie dual stair exits - the codes provide avenues to building compliance without those failures becoming a factor.

A quick google ai result pops information from the NFPA and National Fire Sprinkler Association that shows a drastic reduction in fire related deaths since building codes were standardized. Things like number of exits, sprinklers, use of certain materials indoors, etc have all contributed to a >50% reduction in structure fire related deaths since 1980. Building code updates have also occurred due to major consequential fires like the Coconut Grove and Station Nightclub and even Grenfell Tower.

As my original post pointed out, the codes are not perfect, and definitely create some frustration within the industry, but we are at a better point now than we were a generation ago. If the codes need to be adjusted, they can be and they should be, but they are far from an overall failure.

 

[CBCArch61]

I have a friend who's both an architect working in multifamily and who won a lottery for an inclusive unit in Boston: there's a difference between the policy as written and the reality on the ground. in theory they have to be evenly distributed, of equal quality and can't be grouped, in practice they're not as equal, nor are many usually as large. Ie, in a building with 3bd units, fewer of those will be set aside for IDP than 1 or 2, and for example, their building grouped all the IDP units on the lower two floors and while they have notionally comparable finishes, in practice they're the less desirable units more exposed to retail noises and mechanical.

In new builds it is not a matter of written policy vs. executed policy. In your post, you have outlined housing discrimination and what you outlined is not allowed in newer builds (of buildings with 7+ units).

Sounds like the building was built either before newer policies for IDP were developed or by a crummy developer. As someone who deals with new development every day, I can tell you the city does not approve IDP units grouped together as you described and they check such things prior to final occupancy. In larger MF buildings it does not make sense to change finishes because that means more approvals for a developers architect, more attic stock you typically have to maintain, more management oversight as everything is not the same.

Most new builds that include 3-bed units will have a fairly small number of them as they are hard for developers to lease within their buildings (tend to have much higher rents due to size of units). Because there are so few of them, the IDP unit count will be extremely low because they are only meeting a small percentage of overall IDP counts.

 

[JeffDowntown]

In new builds it is not a matter of written policy vs. executed policy. In your post, you have outlined housing discrimination and what you outlined is not allowed in newer builds (of buildings with 7+ units).

Sounds like the building was built either before newer policies for IDP were developed or by a crummy developer. As someone who deals with new development every day, I can tell you the city does not approve IDP units grouped together as you described and they check such things prior to final occupancy. In larger MF buildings it does not make sense to change finishes because that means more approvals for a developers architect, more attic stock you typically have to maintain, more management oversight as everything is not the same.

Most new builds that include 3-bed units will have a fairly small number of them as they are hard for developers to lease within their buildings (tend to have much higher rents due to size of units). Because there are so few of them, the IDP unit count will be extremely low because they are only meeting a small percentage of overall IDP counts.

It may be policy that IDP cannot be grouped in market rate buildings.

But there are many examples of pretty recent developments of blended Market and high percentage Affordable buildings, where the affordable units and market rate units are definitely grouped. Two examples in Chinatown are One Greenway/66 Hudson Street and 1 Nassau (Metropolitan). 1 Nassau has the affordable units on the first 10 floors and the market rate condos in the 12 floors above -- both have separate entrances. Only really big units are the penthouses, and they are not affordable. One Greenway/66 Hudson have the market rate units in the tower portion overlooking downtown and the affordable units (a separate address even) are in the midrise potion overlooking the Southeast Expressway/Pike interchange complex.

 

[bigpicture7]

It is fair to cry poverty. The inclusionary units are sold for less than what it costs to build them, right? It's $600,000 to build a unit; they sell them for $250,000?

Nobody puts shovels in the ground if the building isn't expected to be net positive. Nobody cares what the p/l is on a given unit if the overall project makes money. Airlines fly routes all the time when particular seats lose money, but the cargo haul and/or other seats pull the whole thing positive.

Economics 101, sure.
Shedding tears because of particular units? no

 

[JohnAKeith]

It may be policy that IDP cannot be grouped in market rate buildings.

But there are many examples of pretty recent developments of blended Market and high percentage Affordable buildings, where the affordable units and market rate units are definitely grouped. Two examples in Chinatown are One Greenway/66 Hudson Street and 1 Nassau (Metropolitan). 1 Nassau has the affordable units on the first 10 floors and the market rate condos in the 12 floors above -- both have separate entrances. Only really big units are the penthouses, and they are not affordable. One Greenway/66 Hudson have the market rate units in the tower portion overlooking downtown and the affordable units (a separate address even) are in the midrise potion overlooking the Southeast Expressway/Pike interchange complex.

There aren't "many". Actually, you named the only two.

 

[JeffDowntown]

There aren't "many". Actually, you named the only two.

I did not realize those two developments were so unique in Boston. I know their high affordable ratios, financing structures, and construction on public land was unique. I know this was a big issue with affordable development in New York City -- the so called "poor door" developments. (I believe now banned in NYC).

 

[stick n move]

It becomes a simple question of whether we want 100% of nothing, or an imperfect solution that provides new units that will impact prices through pure market-based mechanisms.

Another thing that gets lost in the whole fight over inclusionary units being built in luxury housing is that the people in the middle are getting left behind. If you make just enough money to not qualify for subsidized housing you have to pay full market rate prices on a shit salary and you get no help. The inclusionary units on top of all the other factors push the prices up so all thats hitting the market is luxury housing with a few affordable units so the 2 far ends of the spectrum are being addressed but everybody in the middle is just SOL.

Maybe we could entice more lower middle tier housing to get built by not requiring affordable units if housing is being built to serve this group of people. It could be something like if you agree to sell your units for a bit cheaper than market rate you dont have to build affordable units and that would help make up the difference for the developer. If you want to charge full luxury prices you have to include whatever amount of affordable units, but if youll sell units for a certain amount less then you dont have to include affordable units. This could be a way to add some new supply to that lower part of the market that doesnt exist right now due to decades of under building because we dont have time to wait to catch back up by building now. Even if we start building at full speed now its still going to take a while until theres enough housing stock out there of all types to meet demand and lower prices. I dont know if this is the answer but theres a huge group of people caught in the middle who are getting no help at all and can barely make ends meet and its not really being addressed at all by inclusionary zoning laws or the market.