We learned no lesson from Chicago in 1871? Yes, times and technology have changed but wood burns a lot easier than cement and steel.
The most common structure type around are single detached homes, which are wood framed, and there's not an issue with them burning down at an alarming rate. I would champion this as a way to make low-mid-rise buildings more affordable to build, lowering cost to entry to denser core neighbourhoods. If the codes were lacking any good fire standards, then I'd be concerned.
The most prominent large wood structure that I have seen built recently is the Westhill at Erb and Ira Needles.
I think fire is the first issue on everybody's mind, and it's why I still reserve some judgement. But when examples are brought up like the
Kingston fire that trapped a crane operator, or even the fire at the Victoria Crossing, these examples seem to always be before the fire suppression and monitoring has been installed.
There's an upside, of course. Anything that makes midrises more economical makes it more likely we'll see more of them, and that they'll be cheaper. In a growing city like ours, that's a large potential benefit when it comes to infilling corridors like King Street with a good streetwall, instead of a few interspersed high-rises.
How can you possibly get 400+ students out of a burning 18 storey wood structure before its too far gone?
(06-14-2016, 01:51 PM)JoeKW Wrote: [ -> ]How can you possibly get 400+ students out of a burning 18 storey wood structure before its too far gone?
By having astonishingly extensive fire-proofing and sprinkler systems that prevent any fire from getting out of control.
(06-14-2016, 02:25 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016, 01:51 PM)JoeKW Wrote: [ -> ]How can you possibly get 400+ students out of a burning 18 storey wood structure before its too far gone?
By having astonishingly extensive fire-proofing and sprinkler systems that prevent any fire from getting out of control.
so the building would be unburnable like the Titanic was unsinkable.
(06-14-2016, 03:25 PM)jgsz Wrote: [ -> ] (06-14-2016, 02:25 PM)Markster Wrote: [ -> ]By having astonishingly extensive fire-proofing and sprinkler systems that prevent any fire from getting out of control.
so the building would be unburnable like the Titanic was unsinkable.
Ultimately, everything can burn. And in a concrete building, even if the concrete structure itself doesn't burn, interiors will, and occupants can still die.
In any case, UBC aside, the proposal is for mid-rise construction using wood, not skyscrapers.
I really can't help but think this is clearly a case of "why not?", rather than "why?". I just don't see the point. It doesn't seem worth the risk.
The number of fires continues to drop. 30 years ago there were about 33,000 residential fires in Canada; in 2007 this was down to 13,000, even though the population had grown nearly 50%. Residential fires are simply far less common than they used to be.
Data available here:
http://www.ccfmfc.ca/stats.html
Add sprinklers and fire-resistant interior materials to the mix, and mid-rise wood becomes very much an acceptable risk.
Home wiring is a lot better and Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters prevent a lot of fires too!
And far fewer people are smoking. Especially inside. Smoking-caused fires are down from 5000 to 900.
Also, baseboard heaters and space heaters are much safer than they used to be.