Whatever Happened to Fire Escapes
Fire escapes on older buildings prompt a broader look at how fire safety has evolved from external metal staircases to internal, fire-rated stairwells, sprinklers, alarms, and stricter materials standards. Commenters weigh whether these improvements justify relaxing requirements for multiple exits, noting tradeoffs between safety, building cost, and apartment design, as well as high-profile failures like Grenfell Tower that highlight the value of redundancy. The role of firefighters also emerges as a theme, with many now serving as general emergency responders amid fewer structural fires but rising risks from modern hazards such as lithium batteries.
Historic fire escapes and lived experience
- Many recall external cast-iron fire escapes on older UK and US buildings, often used as play structures.
- Several anecdotes describe them being removed as “unsafe” once internal stair redundancy existed, sometimes leaving upper floors effectively unusable.
- One report of a school fire escape partially collapsing reinforces concerns about their structural reliability.
What actually burns & building construction
- Debate over what burns in masonry or concrete buildings: furnishings, contents, and modern synthetic materials are still seen as a major fuel load.
- Older “brick” buildings are often noted as brick shells around wood frames; taller early high-rises used masonry plus steel.
- Some praise wood as a construction material (insulation, CO₂ profile) despite fire risks.
Modern fire safety vs. need for multiple exits
- Many argue fires are less frequent and better-detected (detectors, sprinklers, safer materials, less smoking), so multiple exits may be less critical in some buildings.
- Others strongly reject this, stressing redundancy: if one stair is blocked, another can save lives, with disasters like Grenfell cited.
- Internal concrete, fire-rated, self-closing stairwells are framed as the modern replacement for external escapes; “areas of refuge” and compartmentalization are mentioned.
- There is active debate over loosening two-stair requirements (e.g., for 4–6 story buildings) to enable denser, more pleasant housing vs. the risk of losing redundancy.
Firefighters’ role and “overcapacity”
- Some note firefighters in places like Ontario and NZ are “bored” and heavily used as first responders to medical calls and car accidents.
- Others counter that demand is bursty: you need many responders for rare large incidents, making apparent overstaffing a form of resilience.
- Examples include volunteer/on-call models, cross-training as EMTs, extrication at crashes, carrying immobile patients, hazmat, and even social-work‑like tasks.
- There is discussion of cost, pensions, and whether separate, cheaper medical/assistance teams would be more efficient.
Personal escape measures and EV/battery risks
- Multiple commenters recommend personal emergency ladders or rappel devices for upper floors; some note these are common in Japan and Korea.
- Concerns are raised about fires from cheap lithium e-bikes/scooters and reduced escape time due to modern materials.
Building codes and politics
- Some praise codes for dramatically improving safety; others criticize code evolution as influenced by industry interests and producing rigid, ugly, corridor-heavy buildings.
- External fire escapes are seen as a historically necessary retrofit for unsafe single-stair buildings, but now largely superseded by better integrated design.