A recently completed research report concluded that the presence of sprinkler ordinances has no negative impact on the number of homes being built. In fact, in the comparison of two sets of counties, the municipalities actually saw an increase in construction in the year after regulations became effective, compared to the adjacent counties without sprinkler ordinances.
Conducted by Newport Partners, Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level compared residential construction in suburban Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, and Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia. Prince George’s County and Montgomery County have sprinkler requirements; Fairfax County and Anne Arundel County do not. The counties were selected based on their demographic matches to each other.
Newport Partner’s analysis was based on an extensive review of annual single-family building permits, the U.S. Census Bureau Surveys of Housing and Households, and analysis of local documents before and after sprinkler requirements were imposed. In addition, Newport conducted interviews with builders, trade association staff, and local government officials to provide insight into the housing landscape in these counties pre- and post-requirements. According to the report, “None of the statistical or interview information demonstrated that the requirements led to reduced housing supply.”
eric knight
eric knight October 4, 2009 at 7:45 pm
i do believe this ordenece is a bad thing for people who own a house and want to remodel it . They require me to put them in my house of 60 years old . The public water system does not supply the correct pressure and the cost of adding the equipment is now a third of the coast of my remodel . I do believe this is a bad thing , and As I surch the web , I have found all the studies are done by and supported by sprinkler companies and I do believe we are not getting a good revieew . And they have not been around long enough to know if they are saving lives . Feel free to contact me any time .
Ed Fitter
Ed Fitter November 13, 2009 at 4:31 am
the reason for the sprinklers is an addition to a house provides more square fottage for disaster. The history of sprinklers goes back over a century and residential sprinklers almost 40 years in comparison seat belts have only been installed in cars for 30-40 years and baby car seats even less.
As far as the cost i agree it does add up. When it come to letting a homeowner choose between safety or cost the cash is always the winner it requires someone with the best interest of safety to make that decision. If forensics have not found so many well done people in houses with smoke detectors without batteries this conversation may not be taking place
Rudolf
Rudolf July 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm
In our country the building lots are getting smaller and neighbours are starting to rub elbows – there may be no real estate between neighbours at all. For the safety of all residents it is imperative that the housing units are made more fire safe or the entire street may go up in flames.
People must realize that a fire in a home is a sign of failure. Fire prevention is very important, but mistakes happen. I am waiting to hear the news: “We are so lucky that our neighbour also had residential sprinklers – we could have lost everything when their kitchen caught fire”!
I imagine people would welcome if everyone had sprinkler protection. Sprinkler protection should not be optional anymore because those fires are no longer wood fires, they are hydrocarbon fires due to all the plastic on and inside the house, from carpets to pillows to furnishings to appliances, everything will burn with thick black,toxic, choking, killing smoke.
Housing prices will go up regardless. That is dictated by the market, not by the sprinklers.
GREAT work Ryan !