They had better get something going fast, because it takes quite a bit of planning and permitting to get this done. They will need to bring a high pressure main into the building, which requires digging up the street, and that is only allowed on an emergency basis after Nov 15th.

Unless they do something to placate the Fire Dept quick, they are goign to be in quite a pickle. I had sprinkers installed in a space I lease...$40,000, but the peace of mind is worth it.

For those of you who have been forced to sprinkler under questional circumstances, please check out the Perkins Post at 859 E 4th St, South Boston. They had an occupancy capacity of 418 and they are rent-free in a city-owned building. The commander is a firefighter (Billy Miller) and the building is not fire safe (open abatements at time of exemption). The Post collects mucho bucks from an illegal commercial business (in this city-owned building)(where is the rent money going) and the fire escape blocks the only basement egress to the outside. Guess what? The fire department exempted them from the Sprinkler Requirements. What a shock!!!!! This is fire safety Boston style. Follow the paperwork and anyone can be exempt. Talk to the neighbors of the Post - the crowds get pretty rowdy

My guess would be that restaurants tend to have more square footage per customer then bars.

Thus restaurants are, by their nature, both ‘large’ and somewhat ‘empty’. Admittedly much of that ‘large’ space is filled with tables, but they’re usually navigable around.

Also perhaps restaurant customers, on average, are eating more & drinking less then in bars. Thus one can expect restaurant customers to react, as an aggregate, more constructively.

So in case of a fire restaurant customers might find it easier to get away from an immediate danger and then make their way to an exit.

My hope would be there is some set of numbers out there showing that restaurant fires are indeed less likely or less hazardous or less mitigated by sprinkler systems.

As to the venues closed by this code change, frankly, I doubt their viability. This requirement was well known far in advance, the deadlines highly publicized, there is no excuse for ignorance or inaction.

These venues have been extraordinarily negligent in their operation to be caught out like this, and I can’t imagine that state of affairs isn’t reflected in other areas of safety & service.

Why should restaurants and bars be exempt from having sprinklers installed
any more than other businesses? They shouldn't, imho. It's unbelievable how so few people have really and truly learned any lessons from the past here, namely the Station club fire down in Warwick, RI, and the Coconut Grove fire, back in the 1940's.

I agree that businesses must comply. However, some businesses - especially independent ones, do not have tens of thousands of dollars for the cost of the sprinkler system and the installation. In at least one case, a pub that had been in busines for 30 years would have had to have the city street dug up in front of his business to install new water pipes to support the new sprinkler system. The owner just did not have the money. It's rather flippant to post - 'why should I give you my business if you don't value my safety?', assuming that all of these business owners are simply bastards flush with money who just don't give a damn about public safety.

Quite frankly, I've never felt that my safety was in danger at Milky Way. If you're frightened, then don't patronize them.