- Each sprinkler is individually activated by heat, so a localized fire in one room will be the only room affected by water disbursement (less water damage to personal items).
- A home sprinkler system is estimated to add 1-1.5% of the total building cost to new construction. On a $300,000 home, that is roughly $3000.
- Sprinkler heads can be recessed into the ceiling and concealed from view.
- Smoke and toxic fumes are greatly reduced by quick sprinkler response and might even put out the fire before the fire department arrives on the scene.
- About 69% of homeowners believe a fire protection system adds value to their home.
- Sprinkler systems will most likely lower insurance premiums. For example, State Farm offers its customers with sprinkler systems a 5-10% discount off the premium.
While huge luxury homes with 4000 square feet or more would greatly benefit from an in-house sprinkler system, homes of 1200 square feet might not feel the need for installation. Some city codes require homes with three above ground levels install a sprinkler system on the third floor, especially if you are converting attic space into finished square feet, example being a Queen Anne Victorian historic home.
If you are thinking of installing a system into your new home, make sure to use a professional fire sprinkler company. Most states require the work to be completed by a licensed contractor.
Don't get me wrong, the availability of a sprinkler system is a great home option. It not only can save lives, but it can also reduce substantial insurance claims against loss. We plan on building a new home in the future and will definitely install a fire sprinkler system. I just hope installation never becomes mandated by the government.
Has anyone installed a sprinkler system into their home, or have you seen it in the marketplace?
1 comments:
Hi - don't know HOW I came across your blog, but it struck me as an interesting coincidence...considering what you're discussing, and the fact that YEARS ago, my father (a former fire chief and fire inspector) was in attendance at a fire chief's convention where, at a meeting he participated in, the idea of requiring sprinklers in hotels was discussed by some chiefs of the biggest departments in the country. It seems that at the time, there was a lot of cheapskating on the part of the owners of the biggest hotel chains (no surprise there!), and it was nearly impossible to get the hotels to improve the safety to their customers with the addition of sprinklers (despite the horrors of the MGM Grand fire in Las Vegas). ...Enter a particularly enterprising and devious group of fire chiefs around the country, with connections in Washington (...where NOBODY wants to alienate the collective power of the fire unions!) They came up with an ingenious plan to exert political pressures in just the right places to push-through legislation that NO federal funds would be used to reimburse travel lodging in ANY hotel that did not have sprinklers...at the threat of losing big-time government convention and travel money, every hotel chain you can think of changed their song IMMEDIATELY, regardless of grandfather clauses saying that older establishments didn't have to retrofit. Didn't want to protect their customers, but protecting their most lucrative contracts was another thing entirely! Can't help thinking that, if sprinklers DO end up more widespread in private homes in the future, the legislation that iniates the change will most likely spring from a similar gathering of fire chiefs or disaster safety bigwigs in the future. Either that, or an across-the-board refusal by insurance companies to insure against fire in ANY structure that isn't sprinklered. It would lose them some customers at first, but in the end their funds would be safer because of limited fire losses.
Post a Comment