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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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???
Monthly inspections?That sounds seriously excessive. One more city supported scam.
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.
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.