Becoming the “Bad Guy” – A Contractor’s Tale
As a hardware consultant, I often find myself in the unenviable position of being the “bad guy” in the room. You know the drill – the owner presents their grand vision for how they want the doors in their building to function, and it’s my job to say those dreaded words: “You can’t do that.”
It’s a weekly occurrence, really. I walk into a project planning meeting, brimming with enthusiasm to collaborate and find solutions. And inevitably, the owner will suggest something that violates an egress code. That’s when I have to put on my best “anti-fairy godmother” persona and burst their bubble.
“But I want to lock that door!” they’ll exclaim. And I’ll calmly respond, “Well, you can’t. Here’s the specific section of the code that prohibits that, and here’s why it’s in place…”
More often than not, we’re able to find a compromise – a code-compliant solution that still meets the owner’s needs. But every now and then, I encounter a real doozy. A case where the owner is so determined to have their way that they’ll go to great lengths to skirt the regulations.
Today’s tale is one of those rare occasions. Strap in, because this is a story you won’t soon forget.
The Case of the Locked Stairwell Door
It all started with a seemingly innocuous request – the owner wanted to lock a stairwell door for “security reasons.” Now, I’m all for keeping people safe, but when it comes to fire and life safety codes, there’s no room for compromise.
According to Section 1010.1.9.7 of the 2021 International Building Code (IBC), stairwell doors must be “openable from both sides without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.” This requirement, commonly referred to as “stairwell reentry,” is in place to ensure that building occupants can safely exit the stairwell and access an alternate means of egress if the initial stairwell becomes compromised.
I presented this information to the owner, and we seemed to be on the same page. “No problem,” they said, “we’ll just use one of the exceptions to that code.” Ah, the famous exceptions – the loopholes that owners love to exploit.
Sure enough, they landed on Exception 3, which allows for the stairwell door to be locked if it’s part of a “tenant space” and the door can be unlocked from the stairwell side with the “same effort” as unlocking it from the other side.
“Sounds good!” the owner exclaimed. “We’ll lock the door, but the occupants can still get out of the stairwell.”
I grimaced, already seeing the potential issues. “Well, yes, that’s the intent. But for security reasons, you don’t want them to be able to enter the tenant space from the stairwell.”
The owner paused, eyebrows furrowing. “Hmm, you make a good point. Let me think about this…”
A few weeks later, they presented me with a new plan. Door A would allow occupants to exit the stairwell, as required by the code. But Door B, leading into the tenant space, would remain locked. “Problem solved!” the owner proclaimed triumphantly.
I sighed, shaking my head. “I’m sorry, but that’s not going to work. The intent of the code is to provide an alternate means of egress if the stairwell becomes compromised. If the occupants can’t access the tenant space, they’re essentially trapped.”
The owner stared at me, unblinking. “But I need to keep my tenants safe! And what if the stairwell itself is the problem?”
Weighing the Risks
It’s a fair point, I’ll admit. In the aftermath of the 2003 fire at the Cook County Administration Building, which claimed the lives of six people, the stairwell reentry requirements were introduced to address this very scenario. If the stairwell becomes untenable due to heat or smoke, occupants should have the option to shelter in place behind a labeled fire door assembly.
“I understand your concern,” I replied. “But the code is designed to give occupants the best chance of safely evacuating the building. Locking them out of the tenant space doesn’t align with the intent of the regulation.”
The owner leaned back in their chair, brow furrowed in thought. “Okay, let me ask you this: what if we had a way for the fire department to access the tenant space from the stairwell? Would that work?”
I paused, considering the possibility. “That’s an interesting idea, but I’m not sure there’s a code provision for that. The focus is on giving occupants a way out, not firefighters a way in.”
The owner nodded, undeterred. “Well, let’s find out. I’m not giving up on this. Can you look into it and get back to me?”
I sighed, knowing I’d have to be the bearer of bad news once again. “Sure, I’ll do some research. But I can’t guarantee there’s a code-compliant solution that will give you the security you want while also meeting the stairwell reentry requirements.”
As I left the meeting, I couldn’t help but feel a twinge of frustration. Why was it so hard for some owners to understand the importance of these life safety codes? Didn’t they realize that their desires for heightened security could ultimately jeopardize the very people they’re trying to protect?
The Delicate Balance of Security and Safety
It’s a conundrum that contractors and hardware consultants face all too often. On one hand, we have owners who are understandably concerned about the security of their buildings and the well-being of their tenants. They want to keep unwanted visitors out and their spaces locked down.
But on the other hand, we have the stringent requirements of the fire and life safety codes, designed to ensure that building occupants can escape in the event of an emergency. These codes aren’t just arbitrary rules; they’re the result of hard-earned lessons, tragic incidents, and a deep understanding of how buildings and their systems should function.
FEMA guidelines on safe rooms for tornadoes and hurricanes emphasize the importance of balancing security and safety, noting that “the design of the safe room must address both the need for protection and the need for safe egress.”
It’s a delicate balance, to be sure. And as a hardware consultant, I’ve had my fair share of conversations where I’ve had to play the role of the “bad guy,” explaining to owners why their desired door function just won’t fly.
But you know what? I don’t mind it. In fact, I relish the opportunity to educate and inform, to help owners understand the intent behind these regulations and find creative solutions that meet both their needs and the code requirements.
A Beacon of Hope in Reading, PA
That’s why I’m so excited about the work we’re doing at Reading General Contractor. Our team is dedicated to not just building structures, but creating safe and secure environments for the people who use them.
We’ve seen firsthand the challenges that owners face when it comes to balancing security and safety. But we also know that with the right approach, it’s possible to achieve both. That’s why we work closely with our clients, leveraging our expertise in fire and life safety codes to develop solutions that protect their assets while also safeguarding their occupants.
It’s a delicate dance, to be sure. But with the right team of professionals – architects, engineers, and hardware consultants who are all on the same page – it’s a dance we can master. And here in Reading, PA, that’s exactly what we’re doing.
So if you’re a fellow contractor or a homeowner in the area, I encourage you to reach out to us. Let’s work together to unlock the secrets of residential refuge – to create spaces that are not only secure, but also safe, comfortable, and truly designed with the well-being of the occupants in mind.
Because at the end of the day, that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Protecting the people we serve, even if it means being the “bad guy” every now and then. It’s a role I wear with pride, knowing that the safety of our community is always at the forefront.
