Forum
« C of Os and roofdecks Question for an Architect »
March 14, 2008
Keep ugly sprinkler system?
Our house was once an SRO and has a sprinkler system throughout that looks about 50 years old. It's pretty ugly but my boyfriend thinks it might also be pretty useful in a fire and that since we have it, we should keep it. I have a hard time picturing a beautifully restored house with these ugly pipes all around. Also, we don't even know if it works! Does anyone have a similar tale, and if so, where did you start?
Comments
town houses have a sprinkler system if they are 3-family or more and DO NOT have 2 means of egress (exit).
If your house is a legal 3-family or more, you mean need to keep it.
But please have it inspected and updated, it you decide to keep it.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:26 AM
Sprinklers must be inspected monthly at your cost under the new city regulations. Also sprinklers do not prevent your house from being damaged in a fire, they merely provide a safe path for people to exit.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:44 AM
One option I've heard of is keeping it only in the stair/hallway.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:16 PM
Keep it: inspect it: have it serviced: make it as appealing as possible.
In the history of the world there has never been a multiple fatality fire in a building with working sprinklers.
Posted by: bruce_in_toronto at March 14, 2008 12:16 PM
If I ever did a new-build house or if I gutted and rebuilt the inside of a large old structure, I would add a sprinkler system. It doesn't keep a house from burning down but it allows people to get out safely. I would be open to adding it to our brownstone now even though it's only a 2-story one-family. Maybe one spray nozzle coming out of the wall directly over the stairwell, outside the bathroom where there already is plumbing. Something like that.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:42 PM
If your place isn't required to have a sprinkler (1-2 family), but you have one, do you still need to have monthly inspections? Who inspects them and what does it cost?
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:16 PM
Inspections are performed by licensed fire sprinkler companies
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:20 PM
You can recess the pipes and the sprinkler heads. The "heads" are then hidden can covered with a white cap....it is a sleeker look for an ugy but safe system
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 3:20 PM
trade center had working sprinklers.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 3:36 PM
As far as the city is concerned, if it's on the wall (or ceiling) it's gotta work. Meaning, even though it may not be required it must meet all codes and be tested and inspected accordingly.
Approved companies are readily available on FDNY's website. Remember, those companies certified by the city are the only companies that can test, inspect, or maintain your system. State certification does not apply within cities with a population >1,000,000. If it is as old as you suspect you can be fairly certain all of the heads will have to be replaced at a minimum.
Posted by: Bklyn Fire Alarm Guy at March 14, 2008 3:47 PM
keep the sprinkler for sure. you can figure out ways to make it appealing and it does add value to the house IMO. i'd just get it serviced and confirmed that it in working order.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 5:23 PM
Monthly inspections?That sounds seriously excessive. One more city supported scam.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 6:45 PM
We just bought a house with the same issue-ours is a Ditmas victorian. Anyway, just today I looked into this and found that our system must indeed be checked once a month--but it's only about $400/year to do this. The weird thing is that I thought we'd save a bundle on home owners insurance with the system...but it actually didn't help as the agent said those systems often leak, creating more damage.
Anyway, we're still definitely keeping our system since we have a small child. But any ideas about how to make it look less hideous???
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 9:01 PM
Somebody I know who owns a coop in a building with sprinklers just had one of the owners in the building get certified to test the sprinklers, to save the coop from paying someone. Not a big deal to do, I don't think. If I were you, I'd look into whether you can do this for your house.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:27 PM
hey it costs big bucks to sprinkler a home.
Think of it as if you lucked out and now, all you have to do is rework the pipes.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:31 PM
Keep 'em. Recess the pipes if you must, for aesthetic reasons, but they are worth keeping. My friend, retired FDNY, tells me that they are worth their weight in gold in case of fire, as they allow you to escape. He says he would never live in a row house without sprinklers.
Of course, making sure they work, and are maintained is key.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 15, 2008 12:00 AM
The guest at 10:27 is correct. You can study up and take the test down at metrotech to get what the FDNY calls a certificate of fitness. It will allow you to perform the monthly inspection in your building only, which you must keep a log of. However, you would still have to have an outside vendor perform an inspection twice a year. The 3rd party certifies your system, checks backflow, etc.
Posted by: Bklyn Fire Alarm Guy at March 15, 2008 9:50 AM
We asked the same questions of our architect when we recently renovated our SRO and he gave the same advice as many of the sprinkler supporters and it definitely made a lot of sense for safety reasons to have working sprinklers so we recessed them. We did get a break on our insurance from State Farm for the sprinklers.
One thing that our architect said that you may not be considering is the fact that once you have them, the city may not approve your renovation permit if you plan to remove them because you would be making the building less safe.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:03 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.