Dorchester Infill and Small Developments

cca's earlier point about being wary re: 5-over-1 construction made exactly.

Also, hope those aren't Alucobond classic or Reynobond PE ACM panels!
 
Just looked at in on channel 7 live stream; started 3:00-ish, and is not yet under control. 7 was also relaying the FD's concerns about roof collapse.

This is the building Boston 02124 posted pics of at post 692
 
Just looked at in on channel 7 live stream; started 3:00-ish, and is not yet under control. 7 was also relaying the FD's concerns about roof collapse.

This is the building Boston 02124 posted pics of at post 692
I'll have to take a look when I get home
 
Hope all of the workers evacuated safely

The news report suggested that the FD thought they had, but also noted it was a fire of pretty recent origin, so it might not be the case that all subs have their head counts done yet. Anyhow, no known injuries yet.
 
cca's earlier point about being wary re: 5-over-1 construction made exactly.

Also, hope those aren't Alucobond classic or Reynobond PE ACM panels!

Buildings under construction are WAY more susceptible to fire than completed buildings.
 
Buildings under construction are WAY more susceptible to fire than completed buildings.

Yes, but they burn longer/spread easier & we wouldn't be talking about the AHU's potentially falling through the roof if it was CIP concrete or steel.
 
Yes, but they burn longer/spread easier & we wouldn't be talking about the AHU's potentially falling through the roof if it was CIP concrete or steel.

Thinking the exact same thing as I stare out of my office looking at all the wood buildings going up next to Lechmere. Trinity just can't get any breaks in the area though - firth The Carruth finishing at the bottom of the market and they almost couldn't even give the condos away, and now this. This did go up really fast - I was hoping the retail announcements were going to be soon.
 
Must be a smokey fire I just boarded a ashmont train at Harvard and it smells very strongly of smoke
 
Fire chief:

- Fire raging in the void space between the ceiling of level 6 & the roof deck.
- The roof is buckling. Some RTUs have already collapsed thru the roof.
- Firefighters ordered out of the building. Activity is exterior defensive only.
- Lightweight wood stick construction can collapse in as few as 20 minutes.
- A collapse zone has been established.
- Ground floor is steel. Upper 5 levels are lightweight wood web joists.
 
So these construction types are cheap and fast to erect. What are the insurance policies like?
 
I just want to point out that this building was considered "substantially complete" per the reporting I'm reading. While still technically under construction, it is not like it was open wood framing. Two weeks away from occupancy permitting.

Interior finishes were complete, appliances installed, etc. I guess all that theoretical "fireproofing" didn't do a whole lot of good.

Some reporting [Boston Herald I believe] that workers were testing out the exit lighting and exit sign system, when a rooftop transformer caught on fire. I gather all fire protection systems were not yet operational, but would that have helped on the roof? Should the fire have been able to spread so easily from the rooftop to consume the top floor? (Roof collapsed, top floor destroyed, all rooftop systems destroyed.)
 
Last edited:
cca's earlier point about being wary re: 5-over-1 construction made exactly.

Also, hope those aren't Alucobond classic or Reynobond PE ACM panels!

Uh ... Yup.

Reynobond PE is not sold in the US. it is a foam filled panel not allowed by most codes. Those are plastic cores.
 
First tenants were to move in around July 15; this underscores Jeff's point about the building being substantially complete.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/2017/06/...-dorchester/iLmyRICWxes8mu5wAy1SdO/story.html

It would seem this building had a cockloft, and if there were firestops in the cockloft, these were inadequate.

DDcl0DvWsAEkokv.jpg
 
This quote from the Globe article....

The sprinkler system was installed but not yet active, with inspections planned for later this week.

... seems a bit ambiguous.

It's been awhile since the last time I was closely connected to the construction side of a project of this scale (i.e., with sprinklers) as it neared completion, but my memory is that the sprinklers were pressurized and thoroughly tested and functional before the FD inspections took place. The FD doesn't want to be doing their inspections while installers are still working out the kinks. So if inspections that the reporter was saying were planned for later this week were FD inspections, I'd think there'd have been water in the system and that it'd have already had some extensive testing by the installers. In which case the phrase "not yet active" ought to have been "not yet certified and FD-approved".

However, maybe the reporter meant that it was those initial, installer-led, inspections that were going to start later this week. In which case I could envision that the system hadn't been pressurized yet - terrible timing if that's what happened.

Anyhow, the reporter could have dug a bit deeper there, or else explained a bit better. Seems a hugely critical part of the story here: what was the status of sprinkler system? "Not yet active" from a reporter who probably doesn't understand such systems doesn't really answer it.

If it was truly not at all pressurized yet, then that helps explain how the fire spread so fast, and would also clarify that there was some dreadfully bad luck at play on the timing of that roof transformer igniting.

If on the other hand the sprinkler system was in fact pressurized and had gone through installers' tests and was just awaiting FD inspections, AND if there were fully pressurized sprinkler heads in that cockloft stellarfun mentions, then I'd be a lot more alarmed. That would seem to say something far more damning about how the building performed.

I am relieved to see that only minor injuries were reported, that's good news.
 
10:30 BFD presser:

- Roof started to sag within 9 minutes of BFD arrival. All were ordered out into a defensive exterior mode.
- There were sprinklers in the approx 1'-0" void space between the top level ceiling & roof deck (as required with wood construction)
- There is a question if the sprinkler system failed or if it was off. BFD/ISD is investigating. BFD/ISD does progressive inspections of sprinkler systems throughout construction. Sprinklers must be active within 2 floors of the work area.
- Still chasing some hot spots.
- All permits & inspections were totally up to par. Today was the final life safety inspection. So the sprinkler test WAS done & the system had previously been activated & tested, but appears to have been disabled after. (Note: There are legitimate reasons that they might disable the sprinkler system temporarily during construction, but this sequence of events will be investigated.)
 
This was a long building. There were no firewalls to divide the building up.
 

Back
Top