When it comes to building code, language is key
In my Codes and Regulations class, the professor asked the class something similar to:
“If a client wanted to maximize floor space by installing an external fire escape on their existing building as the second means of egress for the second floor of their building, what does the OBC say?”
Example of a Fire Escape in an existing building, an oft-seen occurrence in New York City, but not so often seen in Toronto.
Under Section 3.4. Exits, article 3.4.1.4. Types of Exit, the code states:
(1) Subject to the requirements of this Section, an exit from any floor area shall be one of the following, used singly or in combination:
(a) an exterior doorway,
(b) an exterior passageway,
(c) an exterior ramp,
(d) an exterior stairway,
(e) a fire escape (conforming to Subsection 3.4.7.),
(f) a horizontal exit,
(g) an interior passageway,
(h) an interior ramp, or
(i) an interior stairway.
And under Subsection 3.4.7. Fire Escapes, Article 3.4.7.1. Scope, states:
(1) Except as permitted by Sentence (2), fire escapes shall not be erected on a building.
(2) If it is impracticable to provide one or more of the exit facilities listed in Article 3.4.1.4., fire escapes conforming to Articles 3.4.7.2. to 3.4.7.7. are permitted to serve floor areas in an existing building provided the floor areas served are,
(a) not in an elementary or secondary school or a retirement home,
(b) not more than 2 storeys above ground level in care, care and treatment or detention occupancies, and
(c) not more than 5 storeys above ground level in other occupancies.
Most of the class (including myself at first!) read the 2nd point in this article as:
If it is impractical to provide one or more of the exit facilities listed in Article 3.4.1.4.
However, the word used in this subsection is impracticable, NOT impractical. Impractical would be fairly subjective. The client “would like to” maximize floor space. It would be expensive and/or unfortunate to install internal stairs. This would not maximize floor space. It’s impractical! But…what it is NOT is impracticable, which is a fancy word for IMPOSSIBLE.
So, the right answer is that, though the client cannot install the lower cost and more convenient fire escape, perhaps an exterior stairway that meets all of the requirements under Subsection 3.4.6. Types of Exit Facilities (which I won’t go into here, but requires much more space to build) is an option. If not, suggesting a way to cleverly maximize the remaining space would be in order!
This type of exterior stairs: enclosed, built with concrete and steel, using proper lighting, separated by fire walls, with exit signage and code-compliant hand rails is more in line with what would work for Ontario Building Code.
Language matters.
Personally, I’m unsure why the word “Impracticable” is used here as opposed to impossible, unfeasible, unworkable, etc as it can be easily misread. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone use the word in a sentence. It’s ironic that the legalese that is often used to ensure clarity is what makes it difficult to understand a regulation. If put into plain words, it would be much more clear.