See my other response. Plus more people will always end with more risk in a total loss scenario. End states 7 and 8 skew the study. I am curious to see results from 4, 5, and 6.

My personal opinion is the conclusion of the study was already set by the assumed buildings. Developers in my area of the country maximize floor plates. They don’t choose a 6,000 sqft plate if they have 40,000 available. A more equal comparison may have been similar size/occ point access blocks.

The residents of Wang Fuk Court may disagree (yes I realize it had scissor stairs). If you define risk as compromised occupants/fire event a larger floor plate will have higher risk given the assumed end states 7 and 8 of the study where no occupants evacuate. This was a foregone conclusion.

Thank you for the clarification!

FD’s rarely, if ever, weigh in on zoning code. That’s the job of planners. To Jonathon’s point, upzoning in rural areas can conflict w/ FD codes and regs when there isn’t compliant infrastructure (roads and water supply). FD should assess code compliance, not if a bldg is safer than its replacement

There’s no mention of construction type so I’m assuming Type VA is allowed? No mention of stair rating so assuming follow 707 and 1023? Other single stair codes take either a passive (fire resistive ratings) or active (pressurization, enhanced sprinkler) approach. Which is employed here?