rltarch

How about removing everything and starting over? The countertops are an inexpensive loss, and the cabinets can be rearranged better...

You need to do something with the tiny space above the wall cabs - maybe a soffit? Then add a nice cooktop on the peninsula with a hood above.

Or maybe an island instead of the peninsula for improved traffic flow and less wasted cabinet space.

Take all the upper cabinets off the outside wall, and put them on the left-side wall. Put in three windows instead of two.

Could probably do that with all the same cabinets!

Bad detailing is bad detailing, regardless of the materials. Typically, untreated wood can't touch masonry anyway; I wonder how this was missed in this example?

Chris, there's another side to this story you need to look into. Please read the following:


On April 22, over the heavy opposition and lobbying of the NFPA, the NFSA and Michigan’s fire service community, the Michigan Residential Code Review committee voted 10 to 2 to approve the code change proposal offered by Habitat for Humanity of Michigan to remove the R313 requirement for mandatory sprinklers from Michigan’s 2009 residential code. The AIA representative to the committee voted in favor of Habitat’s code change.

Besides Habitat for Humanity of Michigan, the coalition against sprinklers included, among others, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Association of Counties, the Community Economic Development Association of Michigan, the Michigan Association of Home Builders, a plethora of local government officials including building inspectors and even two fire service personnel.

Lee Schwartz
Executive Vice President for Government Relations
Michigan Association of Home Builders
1-800-748-0432


Michigan's argument against the forced installation of fire sprinklers is compelling, and includes the NFPA's own data such as:

A January 2008 study (1) by Fire Analysis and Research Division of the National Fire Protection Association contained the following finding:

“The chances of surviving a reported home fire when working smoke alarms are present are 99.45%.”

The same study reported a survival rate for homes fires without working smoke alarms of 98.87%.

With survival rates that high, even when there are no working smoke alarms, are sprinklers really justified?

The same report also found:

“Because there is evidence that working smoke alarms often act so early that they convert what would have been a reported fire into a very small, unreported fire, the potential savings from universal working smoke alarms could be even larger.”

and this:

While any fire death is a tragedy, the annual residential fire death rate in Michigan is 1.31 people per 100,000. This rate equals the average number of Michigan citizens who die from asthma each year. (4)

The chances of dying in a residential fire in Michigan are 1 in 76,362 while the chances of dying in an auto accident are nearly ten times higher at 1 in 7,500.


Regardless of one's position on the need for sprinklers, doesn't this make the question of who benefits most from this legislation worth examining?

Regards,

Richard Taylor, AIA
www.rtastudio.com

Hello, Chris. I do look forward to your in-depth article, and hope you've looked into the politics behind this as well as the practical issues.

Many good points have been made in the previous posts - the most important of which is that the vast majority of home fires occur in houses over 60 years old. Those are the ones with the outdated electrical systems, the cause of many house fires.

The NAHB pushed hard against this code, but the firefighters and the fire-suppression lobby behind them won the day. I listened to the tapes of the arguments for and against the provision during the IRC meeting in MN and was shocked that the legitimate concerns of the homebuilding and design industry were ignored.

Cost is indeed an issue, but not because of the 1%-2% cost of these systems. Rather it is the unending upward spiral in home costs - this is another contributing factor. 2% here and there starts adding up.

Next on the agenda is enactment of the commercial standard for stairs, which will require a maximum 7" rise and minimum 11" tread. Again, we'll be told it only contributes a small percentage to the cost of a house...