Fire sprinkler systems are now required on all new California single family residences (SFRs) and duplexes built on or after January 1, 2011. Prior to the recent California building code amendment, 146 cities and counties in California had building codes requiring sprinklers in particular homes, however this is the first time a statewide building code for fire sprinklers has been enacted.
The fire sprinklers are estimated to raise costs of new California homes an average of $4,000 per unit, an increase builders and buyers fear will slow and deter an already sluggish housing market.
Nonetheless, proponents argue this is an essential safety measure that will protect homes and people, especially in the wildfire-prone Golden State. According to a five-year study by the National Fire Protection Association, death rates were 83% lower in homes with fire sprinkler systems. Opponents of the new law have suggested more cost-effective alternatives, such as upgrading smoke detectors in homes built prior to 1992, when state building codes strengthened smoke detector requirements.
first tuesday take: It may be awhile before the newly-mandated fire sprinklers will be of use to anyone — the number of SFRs and apartment/condo construction starts from December 2010 to January 2011 dropped more than 40%. For SFRs, that is the most dramatic decrease since before the Great Recession. This dearth of new home construction reflects the lack of money in the system available to builders, which in turn is representative of a lack of housing demand. [For more information on construction starts, see the February 2011 first tuesday article, CA single- and multi-family housing starts.]
In the short-term, the increased cost of building new homes due to the fire sprinklers may benefit California’s recovering housing market by deterring construction. The few homebuyers in the current market are spread too thin to cover the current inventory of both existing and new homes. Thus, introducing more inventory to the market would further weaken prices and sales volume and prolong the state’s already protracted real estate recovery. [For more information on home sales during and after the recession, see the March 2011 first tuesday article, Home sales volume and price peaks.]
In the long-term, fire sprinklers will of course increase costs for builders, who will pass on these costs to buyers. While fire sprinklers may prove effective, putting money into installing them in every new home will not make California housing more efficient in the future to justify the money spent.
Re: “Sprinkler systems now required in new homes” from The Press Enterprise
Keep up the great work! Thank you so much for sharing great posts.
It’s interesting how fire sprinkler at homes has become a mandatory thing for a lot of places, to decrease most fires caused at home. I recently moved to my new house, and I have been thinking about having a fire sprinkler system installed. I will definitely start looking for a company I can hire to have a fire sprinkler installed at my house.
I’m very glad they put these new fire codes into force. I deal with insurance claims on the daily and so many of them could have been prevented by fire sprinklers.
I look forward to a safer 2011 and beyond!
I understand those that live in highly populated areas would benefit from sprinkler systems. If your house catches on fire..you don’t want to burn down the entire neighborhood. The elderly, disabled, and babies will benefit the safety. However, no one seems to have any regards to those that live in remote area’s where the weather gets well below zero in the winter time and the nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile or more away. Are the insurance companies going to pay for broken pipes that flood a house in the winter time? This is an extreme law for many and beneficial for others. The state of California would have gotten more money from me by building a new home, however not now. It would have provided work for builders & provided sales to building and hardware stores, and yes it would have raised my taxes. I am so sick of our government digging deeper & deeper in our pockets for foolishness. I have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and a protectant blanket if needed. Why do I have to have a sprinkler system. Next thing you know our government is going to dictate how much toilet paper you can use. We have too many rules, regulations, and dictators. What happened to choices?
Has anyone seen the correlation between the rise in sprinkler installation and insurance claims? How about the link between homeowners taking on more responsibility (like installing sprinklers for certain degrees of remodeling) and the cost for that city’s fire department? It seems like we should need fewer fire stations not more and where I live we continue to spend money on high-tech fire stations…yet (and this is interesting), our friends called 911 when the house caught fire. The dispatch reported the fire station needed this call to geo-locate the fire – otherwise they couldn’t find the address. This is a small town – less than 8,000 people and not wilderness.
Fire sprinklers are only a small part of the new California Green Building Code that is now in place and that ALL builders and remodelers must follow. No more mutli head shower units. Lower water use toilets…
I agree it is a poor time for these things to start and I am sure that the home builders associations are working on a way to set back the implimentation dates.
Lets me professional and point out the plusses and not the negatives.
I agree that sprinklers can save lives and property, I do not think that it should be mandatory. If any thing folks who want to live out in the Mountainous areas of California need to protect their homes by doing the basics. Clear around your property, removing dead and live fuels Build your home with fire resistive materials, have Water and ways to pump it onto the exterior of your home. The Mandatory Sprinkler law is just another way of Gov’t interfering in our lives.
I’m surprised at some of the comments that show the posters are less than up to speed on the issues discussed, Tina at least has it right. And I’m on neither side of thie issue other than the side of correct facts and an anti-alarmist bias.
Most deaths in house fires are from smoke inhalation, not from getting “burned to a crisp”. If it’s mandatoruy to have an operable sprinkler system in your home and you disable it, you may be in violation of the law and worse, your insurance carrier will probably not be paying any claims on homes with disabled systems. The cost that’s been quoted, $4000 (without any proof BTW) will be more than made up by reduced insurance premiums over the life of the home and better, adds value to a future sale over other homes built before this date.
With regard to double paned windows and insulation adding to the cost, there’s no government mandate for either of those so participation is voluntary.
Homeobuilders aren’e being asked to absorb anything other than what’s to be absorned by the purchasor. There’s an extraordinarily low chance that “(s)ome dishonest contractors put the heads in the ceilings but never hook them up and they brag about it and charge for hooked up systems.” – fire departments in every jurisdiction in the State are responsible for signing off on this portion of building permits of every type, and they include testing of the system before sign off. And if you know of dishonest contractors that are putting in inoperable fire suppresions systems, it’s time you names names and started blowinbg the whistle instead of blowing out this unfouded rhetoric. And how exactly are politicians to benefit from this as you charge?
And for someone in the business for 21 years you should already know that your seven detectors WILL NOT PUT OUT A FIRE nor will it help when you’re not there, period. This writer is a particularly dangerous sort of ignorant licensee – sprinklers ARE NOT ACTIVATED with smoke – not knowing this makes you a less than informed agent for your buyers. Not to mention that you suggest lowering or removing this possible safety standard because it’ll make it harder for homebuilders to absorb costs, again – they aren’t absorbing anything, the buyers are paying the cost.
It is and has been mandatory for smoke/monoxide detectors inner detected in CA building code. Hense as you stated more people killed by smoke inhalation that burning. Double pane windows have been mandatory in CA for quite some time through Article 24 Energy Efficient construction. And why did the building code eliminate the mandatory 5/8-inch drywall required on the wall that is adjoining to the living house replaced with only 1/2 inch before the interior sprinkler system. Home sprinklers will not put out a hot fire completely. Your statements just show me how ignorant you are to the Uniform Building Codes.
First of all the sprinklers don’t go off until the room gets to a certain temp. I think mine is 200 degrees. So false alarms aren’t common. I don’t see how indoor sprinklers will save homes in the wildfire areas. Put them on the roofs they might do more good.
This may be good news for current inventory and we need all the help we can muster, but I have heard that the cost of homeowners insurance is higher when you have a fire sprinkler system due to small fires or false alarms that set off the system runing the furniture, flooring, etc. If there are any insurance agents out there please verify this or tell me I am wrong. The saving of lives is of course the most important consideration but this will come at a greater cost and not just construction but yearly preimiums if I am right.
I have been in new home sales for 21 years in California and given the current economic climate I would say mandatory fire sprinklers statewide is typical how out of touch with reality the bureaucrats really are. Homebuilders in our state have been on life support for five years and simply cannot absorb the additional $5,000 costs, on homes I offer, priced from $200,000-$300,000. My personal home was built in 1999 and I have 7 smoke detectors in my home, all hardwired with battery backups, and when they activate you can hear them a block away. If I bought a new home with sprinklers I would disconnect the entire system so if I burn dinner cooking in the kitchen at least the new sofa and plasma TV won’t be ruined from water damage. After all, how often does a newer home go up in smoke? Statistics show older homes catch fire at a significantly higher rate than newer ones, therefore, code updates and retrofits on older homes should be the order here with tax incentives for homeowners to do so.
Double pane windows add to the cost, insulation adds to the cost, etc. All these things were resisted. I do suspect some politicians will benefit but in the long run the houses will be safer and the people will be able to get out before they are burned to a crisp. Fire resistant materials also help. I just hope the sprinklers are hooked up. Some dishonest contractors put the heads in the ceilings but never hook them up and they brag about it and charge for hooked up systems. If some one pays a million for a house an extra $4000 wont break them. This should have happened a long time ago.
Double pane windows keep inside your home cooler in summer and warmer in winter. I cannot imagine a home without insulation. You sure as heck would not like your utility bills. I would feel 100% confident the suppression system is connected in new homes due to the inspection process. A Building Inspector would not attempt a sign off of a false inspection with the possibility of Federal charges. To be safe and content all retrofit suppression systems require a building permit. So, make sure you get one. ô¿ô