The Unintended Consequences of Mandating Sprinklers in Multi-Family Buildings

[Brian J Allen]

The Worcester Fire Department, with support from District 5 City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj, has been advocating for the installation of sprinklers in multifamily buildings undergoing major renovations. While fire safety is undoubtedly important, a mandatory sprinkler requirement may have the opposite effect—discouraging necessary renovations and inadvertently making these buildings less safe.

No one disputes that sprinklers can help save lives in the event of a fire. However, the cost-effectiveness of such a mandate is highly questionable, and the resources required for compliance may be better spent elsewhere. The reality is that imposing expensive and time-consuming sprinkler installation requirements will drive property owners to either scale back necessary renovations or avoid permits altogether.

Currently, when owners propose substantial renovations, they are often informed that their projects will require sprinkler systems, which can cost around $45,000 for a typical three-decker. Additionally, the permitting and approval process for sprinklers can add up to three months to a project’s timeline. Faced with these burdens, many owners choose to limit their renovations to cosmetic work or, worse, proceed without permits to avoid triggering the requirement.

This raises a crucial question: which is safer—a fully gutted and renovated building with modern electrical and heating systems, rebuilt to 2025 code but without sprinklers, or a building where the original, outdated wiring and heating systems remain in place because owners chose to avoid triggering costly sprinkler requirements? The answer is clear: allowing full renovations without mandating sprinklers results in a far safer building than one that undergoes only superficial updates.

Furthermore, requiring sprinklers in more buildings will likely increase costs even further. With a limited number of qualified contractors available, additional demand will drive up prices and extend project timelines. Owners cannot recoup these costs through higher rents, meaning they are effectively being penalized for trying to improve their properties.

Instead of discouraging responsible property owners who follow the permitting process and invest in meaningful upgrades, we should be focusing our efforts on ensuring that all renovations are done legally and safely. More effort should go into enforcing existing permitting laws and cracking down on unpermitted work rather than imposing costly regulations that push property owners into avoidance tactics.

If the goal is to improve fire safety in Worcester’s aging multifamily housing stock, the best approach is to encourage full renovations that bring buildings up to modern safety standards—not to place additional financial burdens on responsible owners. Let’s prioritize practical solutions that promote compliance, affordability, and overall safety for residents.