In CA a rule like this came into effect several years ago and it also applies to significant remodels. We have ~4700sqft and were required to add one, however the cost of design+install was much less than you're quoting - and we are building in one of the most expensive areas in the country. It would have been much more however if we had had to upgrade our water service line from the street, which we did not have to do so I guess ymmv wrt infrastructure.

It's a much less expensive venture with city water...

We had to put in sprinklers. We were upset until I did a little research. Having sprinklers lowers your risk of dying in a house fire quite dramatically. Doesn't mean I like being told what to do or how to spend my money but it did make me feel good about having sprinklers...

Residential sprinklers only cost about $1.50 per sf to install. (presuming you use BlazeMaster CPVC or PEX pipe)

For a 4500 sf house that's only $6750.

There is little significant price difference even if you are not on city water.

The only difference is that you will need to install a 270 gallon plastic tank to hold the required sprinkler water when there is no municipal water supply.

In fact, even if you are on municipal water, the best installation uses a tank anyhow.

Why?

Because if heads go off on municipal water they will run continuously until someone shuts off the municipal water supply.

This can prove disastrous if you are away.

Worst case scenario with a tank system is you get 270 gallons of water damage and nothing else.

Manhattan, thanks for the price quote. That price is definitely what I expected for the straight install... Honestly not bad. In addition to the tank, I would need a pump and generator. City water is gravity fed and would feed the sprinkler continuously, but well water would need a pump from the tanks. That pump would need serious horsepower..... Am I missing another installation option here?

Living in MN I also worry about attic sprinkler pipes freezing. Just a lot more that can go wrong with minimal upside.

"Just a lot more that can go wrong with minimal upside."

If you consider your house burning to the ground or people potentially not dying "minimal upside", I guess your correct.

We had to install one in Washington State. Our water is on well but we have a 1000 gallon storage tank in our well house that alleviated the requirement for an auxillary tank for the sprinkler system. Your concern re: freezing sprinkler heads is very valid. My husband is a floor covering contractor and a good portion of his clients are Fire/Water Damage General Contractors. Every winter he gets several new projects from frozen/cracked spinkler pipes in unconditiioned spaces.

As such, we were able to convince our fire marshall to pipe for sprinkler heads in our uncondidtioned attic (1,000 sq. ft. above the garage) in the event of future build out but they did not connect to the main system and are dry at this time. If/when we do build out and condition that space, it's an easy connection as both end are stubbed out about 4" from eachother. My husband and the Fire Marshall did have a very candid conversation about the number of people in our area that install the system because it is a permit requirement but then drain them after they get the permit signed off for this very reason. Luckily for us, he listened to reason and we both agreed on a solution we were happy with.

Our system can in around $6,600 for a 3500 sq ft house

Residential sprinkler systems are not designed to put out house fires, they are designed to operate for 10 minutes which in concert with your smoke detectors, is just long enough to get people out of the house once a fire starts.

NFPA13D is the residential sprinkler design standard referenced by the International codes.

NFPA13D designs only require that 2 sprinkler heads maximum will operate during a typical house fire.

These heads put out 13.5 gallons of water per minute, and are only required to operate for 10 minutes maximum.

This means a 270 gallon water tank is all that is required to operate the system.

This tank can be pressurized by compressed air tanks or operate on a simple pump with a small battery back up.

No generators are required.

No power is required at all if you opt for a compressed air design.

That is what makes such systems so affordable and simple to install.

Millworkman, a BMW is a lot safer than my Toyota pickup and would potentially save my family from perishing in an accident, but I don't think the government should force me to buy a $60k bmw. It's all about managing risk.

"Living in MN I also worry about attic sprinkler pipes freezing."

Attics are not required to have sprinklers unless they contain mechanical equipment.

Simple solutions to keep sprinklers from freezing can be as easy as:

-do not install mechanicals in an unheated attic space therefore no sprinkler required in that area

-heat and insulate the attic space or portions of the space where the mechanical equipment and sprinklers will be installed

-install the mechanicals in an unheated attic near a location where a dry pipe sprinkler head can be installed.

-install an antifreeze, not water based, sprinkler system in the entire house or just those areas subject to freezing (If permitted).

Its not a BMW; it's cheap insurance. The difficult part is finding an honest experienced residential sprinkler contractor who can explain the options to you.

I recommend conditioning an attic unless it is huge in which case I recommend revising the design.

If it's such cheap insurance, why don't people install them already without code requirement?

Also, why is there a sf limit? Is a person in a 4400sf house substantially less at risk than in a 4500sf house?

Asking why people don't install them without the code is sort of like asking why people didn't just buy cars with seatbelts before they were mandated. Most people who build are not building 100% custom homes, nor do most people educate themselves about each and every risk imaginable or the pros and cons of each building decision.

The building codes exist to provide a baseline level of safety.

Sure, it would be ridiculous to insist you buy a 60k BMW. But to require the addition of a feature that maybe costs an additional 1%? Not so ridiculous. Your Toyota's seatbelts cost what? $100? I don't know; nowadays it's just assumed to be there. I'm sure there was uproar about the nanny state forcing people to pay for seatbelts in their new cars when that law was new.

As for the square footage limit....would you feel better if it was for all new homes, regardless of size? I assume that the DLI was attempting to strike a balance between safety and concerns about affordability. Or maybe the reasoning was that to escape a fire, a person in a 4500 square foot home has to travel twice as far as a person in a 2250 square foot home if they're in the center of the home?

The DLI has the rules on their site. Doesn't seem complicated to me, unless perhaps you're trying to figure out how to skirt the rules. Yes, they do make THAT difficult to figure out.

I remember well the fight to install seat belts in cars. My first seat belts were installed by a seat cover shop in1959. The belts were made by the Rupert Parachute Company. Then there was the fight over air bags. I read that a woman in Texas survived a head on crash in a used car that, unknown to her, had an experimental bag. I bought the first car that offered them as standard equipment.

People naturally assume they will never be the victim of a fire or a crash but if you live long enough you stop thinking that way. Bad things do happen. My next door neighbor and my brother in law had to rebuild their houses after a fire and they each had to fight for over a year to get the insurance company to pay for less than the full cost.

I would not build a house for myself without sprinklers and I wish I had them in my current home. Its not just a matter of cost and safety; my house could not be restored to its present state.

To the two previous posters: why don't you retrofit sprinklers in your own house? Is your life not worth this investment?

Renovator,

Again, it's all about risk management. If, for you, the risk justifies the cost of maintenance, leaks and install then go for it!

My issue is with the state judicial system (not even legislature) forcing me to make this decision. Are the lives in a 4,400 square ft home not work protecting the same? Is there an epidemic with 5,000 sq ft brand new homes burning to the ground?

Government out of control, folks.

I'm also in MN and recently had a chat with a contractor about this topic. His opinion was that it came about as a result of lobbying by pipefitters special interest group. Who knows if that's actually the case.

I couldn't agree with you more on that last statement. Less and less freedom to choose for yourself and more and more government knows best. Kind of like the gawd awful gas cans we're now forced to use.

SLURPEES WILL KILL YOU ALL! BAN THEM!

Insurance companies had the greater lobbying effort with the code writing groups. Those groups are not lawmakers in the usual sense of the word. They write a code with an effective date of some time in the future. Lawmakers can adopt it or not as law. If they want to adopt part of it, they must rewrite it for that purpose. It is easier for them just to adopt it as originally written.
The folks who write the codes get to have their wishes made into law without having to get elected or have the headaches of serving in office plus they get money from the sale of the published codes. Sweet, huh?

Most fires occur at home.

Most fires occur at night when the occupants are asleep, and if awakened, are disoriented and prone to panic while gasping for air and cannot see because of smoke.

Because of that most deaths occur in residential fires because of toxic smoke inhalation, not from being burned.
-------------------------
If one does not have working smoke detectors, the chances of surviving a house fire are slim.

If one has a sprinkler system but faulty smoke detectors, chances are emergency responders will find your and your family's wet but still dead corpses.
---------------------
That does not mean residential sprinkler systems are not important and should not be installed.

They are.

Newer building materials burn faster and hotter and emit more toxic chemicals and gases than house fires in the past.

Because newer building materials burn faster, fire responders are trained to not even enter newer residential buildings after 20 minutes from the first call.

Why?

Because the floor, roof and wall structures are ready for collapse by then, and firemen are going in except to retrieve bodies at a later time.
---------------------
Sprinklers can buy you that time in the 20 minutes of life safety you need to get out.

One major purpose of residential sprinklers is to subdue the toxic gases emitted by fires by dousing the fire and smoke in order to escape.

Another purpose is to prevent 'flash over', the characteristic of a fire causing it too explosively combust when all the burnable materials in a room catch fire simultaneously when they reach ignition point.

--------------------
That said, the chances of surviving a house fire without smoke detectors is slim.

The chances improve with smoke detection.

The chances improve even more with sprinklers.
------------------
Some already used the automobile analogy.

Imagine if cars had no safety features:

-no brakes
-no headlights
-no taillights
-no turn signals
-no air bags
-no seatbelts/shoulder harnesses
-no anti lock braking systems
-no driver controlled locks so kids can't fall out the door
-no sensors warning that systems have failed
-no safety glass
-no steel reinforcement to protect occupants in a crash
-no emergency release button if your kid gets locked in the trunk
-no locking steering wheel and gear shifts to keep kids from putting the car in gear
-no parking brake
-no baby seats
-no GPS and OnStar systems
-no impact resistant gas tanks
-no bumpers
----------------

It's almost impossible to imagine cars without these features.

Some here as old as I DO remember autos without most of those safety devices.

Few would drive vehicles without all these items as standard equipment today.
----------------------
I'll save my comments about the 'politics' of how codes get adopted and amended and distorted by state legislatures for another thread.

But regardless of whether or not residential sprinklers are required for all homes, required on only some homes, or not required at all...there is no reason they should not be installed...even voluntarily...if the life you save is your own.

Can't imagine a car buyer trading off a convertible roof for a car without working brakes....but some would.

Can't imagine a homebuyer trading off fire sprinklers for upgrades on finishes, counter tops, fixtures and appliances...but most do...choosing what looks pretty over what can save their lives.
--------------------------

I guess if given the choice, many home buyers would eliminate costs by getting rid of the safety glass in their doors and windows, the pressure relief valves on water heaters and boilers, carbon monoxide and low oxygen sensors built into combustion equipment, circuit breakers in electric panels, GFCI receptacles and Arc Fault protected circuits, backflow preventers on water supplies, the flame spread and smoke develop limits on building materials, walls and roofs built to resist local wind loads, grounded electrical systems, anti-tip mechanisms on appliances, non-toxic refrigerants in their AC and refrigerators, lead removed from their paint,
fire retardants in their furniture and floor coverings, asbestos in the insulation, etc...

It's human nature to want what looks good more than what will keep one safe.

But it's really dumb.

No arguments about the safety aspects. But the increased costs lock some out of home ownership.
At one time, many years ago, we were incredibly poor. Bought some property, cut enough trees from it to make enough lumber to frame up a house. Moved in with just the exterior completed, like a Jim Walter shell. No plumbing, but dedicated space for a bathroom later Completed the interior one room at a time as money became available. Added central heat and then the plumbing. Never a mortgage on the house.
Few regulations then.
We completed the house with the money that would have gone for rent with today's regulations. Why not let people decide for themselves how much safety they wish to purchase?

Well, we are building a house right now, and if the permitting office requires it, we'll add the sprinklers in.

If you're so dead set against the sprinklers, buy an existing house. That way, there's all kinds of safety devices you won't be forced to pay for by the codes required by the big bad government. You won't have to pay for code inspectors or permits required by the mean old government. You can't build new and insulate with horsehair and newspaper like you used to be able to in 1914. And that's not even a "saving lives and property" issue.

You have a choice. If you CHOOSE to build new, you have to comply with the laws around building new. Those laws are more stringent than those that apply to pre-existing housing stock. The details may change, but that basic idea has been true for decades. Why is this suddenly an outrage and a shock?

You could also choose to build your home somewhere that doesn't have these code requirements. Heck, you could build somewhere that doesn't even have a functioning government if you don't want to have to do anything that doesn't fit your own personal risk calculus.

"if the permitting office requires it, we'll add the sprinklers in."
Why not install the sprinklers even if it is optional? After all, the safety value is the same whether required or not.
As for those who cannot afford it, the words of Marie-Therese, the wife of Louis XIV, (not Marie Antoinette!) come to mind: "Let them eat rich, expensive, funny-shaped, yellow, eggy buns."

In my case, it's primarily because we, probably like most people, are not building a custom home. We are building a tract home in a development. We have a set list of options we can choose from. The builder picks that list of options, and a sprinkler system is NOT offered. Of course, if code requires it, the permitting office will require that the builder install it. Otherwise, I will have to wait to see what the cost is to retrofit.

I am not an expert in safety features as it relates to home building. I think that most people aren't, and that's part of why we have codes and inspectors. Not everyone is expert in everything. Frankly, I didn't even consider fire sprinklers probably because I haven't seen them very often. Thanks to this thread, I've been prompted to do some research, and I am actually very interested in having them installed.

Seatbelts is a fun comparison. I doubt they cost $100. They save about 30,000 lives a year.

House fires kill about 2400 people a year (2012)

I forget what sprinklers save - 70%. So I'll round up to 2000 a year.

Estimate that there are about as many cars as houses - 100 million

So if you go with $5000 vs $100, then sprinklers cost 750 times what a seatbelt costs for life saved.

This completely neglects injury which favors seatbelts more. And it completely neglects that a house fire is majority of time the occupants fault - ie smoking, stupid electrical decisions, inadequate wiring etc. A greater proportion of house fires are caused by old houses than car accidents are by old cars and that should also factor in the risk/benefit.

The mortalty rate of a code house built just before sprinkler requirements in a non smoking household is astonishingly small. And I bet people who build/buy new houses smoke a lot less than the general population.

But hey - If I smoked, I'd want a sprinkler system

A lot of code rules aren't just to protect you, but to protect future owners of the house. I personally wish the government didn't insist on telling us how to live, but there is a point that future owners could be at risk because you built a sub-par home. Insurance companies also drive many things, although I have been told that sprinkler systems won't save significantly on insurance because of false trips causing a lot of damage, and the fact that the sprinklers aren't designed to save the building.

There should be a provision that you should be allowed to build whatever you want on your own land, providing that it doesn't negatively affect neighboring properties, and that you can't sell the home unless it meets all current codes. That way, people like me could build a shack out in the boonies, but couldn't pass it along to a future owner without fixing it up to meet code.

The MN requirement for sprinklers in residences comes from the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC). Since this code is the basis for most state building codes in the US, each of those states will eventually be forced to accept the sprinkler requirement or pass legislation to amend the code if it hasn't already done so (the requirement was also in the 2009 IRC) Currently I believe only California, Maryland and DC have allowed the sprinkler requirement to become law unmodified.

MN adopts the IRC after review and amendment and it has recently amended the 2012 IRC to exempt houses smaller than 4,500 s.f. Since the average size of a single family home in the US is 2,700 s.f. the rule appears to allow most single family homes in MN to be built without sprinklers. However, the building area includes all "conditioned space" so it can include conditioned lower levels and bonus rooms even if those spaces are unfinished. Even so, it seems easy enough to avoid the requirement if you really don't want sprinklers.

The ICC has strongly advocated home sprinklers since 2006 when the requirement was included as an option to be adopted locally. The fight over including the requirement in the IRC has always been between home building associations (and the NHAB) and fire fighter associations (and the NFPA).

A very small percentage of homeowners die in fires each year so the home buying public understandably cares more about price than sprinklers but about 45% of firefighter deaths occur in those home fires so the sprinkler code fight is basically between homebuilders and firefighters.

Manhattan and Renovator: Can you suggest some websites to learn more about residential sprinkler systems, please? Since these systems are not common I need to be educated in order to be able to talk intelligently with an installer.

We will be building in a rural setting in SC and I've thought about adding a sprinkler system. Besides the obvious safety factor, I thought it might help with insurance costs. too.

We used a local company, Columbia Fire, they have a good FAQ section and explaination of codes. www.columbiafire.net

I am not in Minnesota but the info is still good I believe.

Code-mandated battery-operated Exit lights in theaters must then be a money-grab of the battery industry foisted upon beleaguered theater chains.
And "yearly" cost vs. savings factor is inaccurate if the life of the system is 15 or 20 years; you have to divide the initial cost by the system's lifespan. And does it have a benefit of lowering one's insurance rate? Like proximity to a fire hydrant?
Casey

Typically insurance companies lower the cost of homeowner insurance by 10% for a full multi-family NFPA 13R system and 5% for a residential 13D system (no heads in small closets and small bathrooms or attics).

Those discounts make no sense but their goal is to maximize profits and until there are enough sprinklered houses there is little risk of losing a customer by offering unfair discounts.

An insurance company is not an eleemosynary organization.