to install them.

On the contrary, he lobbied against sprinklers.

https://www.exploreseiowa.com/2018/04/07/trump-tower-fire-is-second-2018-blaze-in-sprinkler-free-residential-tower/

Pruitt at 8:03 suggesting that his security spending is justified due to death threats. Well, he has a dead tenant and radio silence. Kelly must not be around. Golf date still on for tomorrow.

Is there a elevator in the tower to lift a fire truck to 50th floor?

Who cares that DeBlasio wasn't mayor 35 years ago, when the damn thing was built?


Does NYC not have a city council that sets the building codes?

Have any of them expressed any thoughts and prayers for the injured and the family of the person killed? Or are we still pretending that isn't the most important part of the story?

...and at the time, did not require existing buildings to be retrofitted, unless they underwent massive interior renovation. The commercial codes are more stringent.

I've lived in Manhattan my whole life. I've never seen interior apartment sprinklers in a building constructed before the 21st Century, including where I live.

How anyone can get insurance in that building without sprinklers.

Sprinkler systems for high-rise buildings are very expensive to install and maintain. That's probably why New York developers fought to avoid the installations, and they probably made compromise deals with the code people for installation of extra fire walls, automatic-closing doors, etc. to avoid sprinklers.

The primary reason they are so expensive is because of water head. If you were to supply one sprinkler head at the top of Trump Tower from a street level water source with no intermediate booster pump(s), it would require around 300psi of pressure - which is not practical. Therefore, booster pumps have to be installed in equipment rooms at various levels to achieve sufficient sprinkler head pressure at nominal flow. And, it may well be that an emergency electrical power supply (diesel or NG generators) for the pumps would be required as well.

Further, city water mains must be able to supply adequate volume for worse-case fire situations, and do so without completely starving the mains of water for other fire fighting needs.

In addition to all that, the codes always require stringent annual maintenance, inspection and testing of these systems, further adding to long-term cost.

It's very complex and requires a lot of design and planning to implement. Retrofitting an existing building is an even bigger mess. I'm just trying to provide an off-the-cuff perspective to help explain why Trump and other developers would fight against sprinkler codes.

who ends up paying exorbitant insurance rates to live in a high rise building without sprinklers.

Typical Republican behavior.

And, I'm sure none of those issues were ever mentioned by the Trump sales people. All the customer heard was "these are the finest apartments in New York City!".

.....

and they can always sell and leave if they think it unsafe or the insurance is too high.

I don't hear of a lot of people leaving or complaining, though. They're rich.

News interviews reported some residents scared shitless and thought they were going to die. Plus, there's extensive smoke damage in several floors and I'm sure that's repulsive to the wealthy.

One thing we can bet on: Trump will take great care of these residents with cleanup and compensation - far better than his treatment of the folks in California suffering from those devastating forest fires!

........

here in Raleigh (23 stories, not like high rises in NY) last month. It is sprinklered. I wouldn't consider living in a high rise without sprinklers.

I'm surprised anyone can afford the insurance in a high rise without sprinklers.

There are 8 sprinklers in my 17th floor 620 sq ft. studio apartment, including one in the closet over the w/d; one in the mechanical closet (hot water, forced air unit); and one in the clothes closet.