INTRODUCTION
Choices... As individuals – and as consumers – people make numerous choices every day. For example, people make choices about where they live, where they work, where their children will attend school, and what goods they purchase. Many of these choices involve fundamental principles of economics. Individuals, families, and businesses make economic choices every day when they allocate their scarce resources on the basis of the perceived value of the goods and services that they purchase. When these decisions are made, people compare the costs and benefits of alternative courses of action. Because people make decisions by comparing costs and benefits, their behavior may change when the costs or benefits change, i.e., people will generally respond to incentives. In some cases, however, the costs and benefits are not readily apparent or measurable. In addition, decisions are frequently not "black and white," but usually involve many shades of gray.

Like individuals, families, and businesses, elected officials make choices to determine the level of safety for their communities when they adopt legislation concerning building and fire safety regulations. Many communities have been well-served by adopting model codes promulgated by the International Code Council and NFPA International that provide comprehensive, coordinated technical regulations affecting the broad scope of building designs and occupancies. The code development processes of the two model code organizations are such that the resulting regulations generally reflect the national consensus about society's "acceptable" level of safety. In reality, however, the resulting level of safety from the adoption of a model code or regulation is rarely quantified or specified. Hence, consideration of any alternatives and performance-based designs may lead to protracted debates about the adequacy of safety or the resulting safety factor. In a number of cases, the adoption of such model codes is further complicated when a state or local government includes amendments to reflect the specific local practices and conditions of a jurisdiction.

This article examines the code-development process leading to the adoption of an ordinance requiring fire safety improvements in existing high-rise buildings in the City of Chicago and the economic considerations which helped determine the scope of the ordinance. The following analysis focuses on the major requirements of the ordinance, specifically the requirements for voice communication systems, automatic sprinkler protection, stairway enclosures, and Life Safety Evaluations.

BACKGROUND
Like many other cities in the United States, the City of Chicago amended its building code in the mid-1970s to include provisions specifically applicable to new high-rise buildings. The current edition of the Chicago Building Code (CBC) defines high-rise buildings as those having a height of 80 feet (24 meters) or more. The high-rise provisions require automatic sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, occupant and fire department voice communication systems, stairway unlocking systems, and other passive and active systems similar to the provisions found in the model building codes. While the current high-rise provisions also include a " compartmentation option" that may find ready application in residential buildings, few or no buildings built after 1975 have exercised that option. At the present time, the City is very close to adopting new fire protection provisions based upon the 2003 edition of the CBC, including a local amendment to require automatic sprinklers in buildings having occupied floors greater than 35 feet (11 meters) above grade.

At various times since 1975, the City has considered regulations that would have required automatic sprinklers and other fire safety improvements after several infrequent – but attention-getting – fires in high-rise buildings. As recently as 1999, a multi-interest-sponsored high-rise building sprinkler retrofit proposal was developed but ultimately not supported by the real estate owners because of cost considerations.

Without diminishing the tragic consequences of each lost life, the frequency of fatal high-rise fires and the resulting number of fatalities are, fortunately, relatively low compared to low-rise buildings, as is the case with other municipalities. It is acknowledged, however, that the risk to high-rise building occupants is greater because of the well-known physical characteristics of high-rise buildings and the larger number of persons at risk. The number of fatal fires and total fatalities in Chicago, from 1946 to 2003, is shown in Figure 1. The total number of fatalities over the 57-year period is: 14 in office buildings, 57 in residential buildings, and 77 in hotel occupancies. In the 1980s, the City addressed hotel fire safety through an ordinance requiring a complete fire detection system in hotel occupancies (or a reduced level of detection in fully sprinklered buildings), and fire fatalities in hotels since then have dramatically declined.

The Chicago Department of Construction and Permits estimates that there are approximately 1,700 high-rise buildings in the City. Of these, approximately 1,300 were built before 1975 and 400 were built after 1975. Of the 1,300 pre-1975 buildings, it is estimated that 1,100 buildings are primarily of residential occupancy. With the exception of New York, no other U.S. city has as many high-rise residential buildings and dwelling units as Chicago. In recent years, owners of high-rise buildings have been subject to a number of ordinances which have had a major financial impact upon some of the buildings. These ordinances require exterior building facade inspections and repairs (1996, 2003), emergency generators (2000), and evacuation plans (2001). Some building owners have reported expenses of millions of dollars to comply with these previously adopted ordinances. Clearly, there was a heightened sensitivity to an additional ordinance that may require costly fire safety improvements.

ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT
In response to a multiple-fatality fire in the Cook County Administration Building on October 17, 2003, Chicago officials considered a number of proposals and began development of an ordinance to address fire safety for existing high-rise buildings in a comprehensive manner. The objective of the ordinance was to provide a reasonable level of safety for the occupants of high-rise buildings and to do so in a manner that sustains the City's economic strength, and preserves jobs and business opportunities. The City staff and its consultant reviewed the criteria in the national model codes, reviewed the experience of other cities and jurisdictions adopting similar legislation, and considered issues including practicality, effectiveness, experience, new technology, and costs. This work resulted in a comprehensive proposal developed by the City's administration.

The issue of safety for existing buildings is especially difficult because of practical difficulties and costs involved in making improvements in these buildings. Accordingly, the proposed ordinance was limited in its scope to fire safety features judged to be of basic fire safety importance. While some cities elected to essentially require their existing buildings to meet the same fire safety criteria required of new buildings, such was not the case in Chicago. For example, costly smoke control and pressurization systems, supplied by emergency power, were not deemed as minimum required features given automatic sprinkler protection for commercial buildings and the degree of compartmentation included in residential buildings.

Shortly after the fire and before the development of a comprehensive draft ordinance, the Chicago City Council adopted an ordinance that prohibits stairway doors locked against re-entry into the building unless such doors are equipped with automatic and manual unlocking systems. (A temporary provision allowed locked stairway doors on certain floors, similar to the criteria included in the NFPA Life Safety Code, until January 2005.)

Two proposals were presented to the Chicago City Council. One proposal by one of the City's aldermen would have required the provision of automatic sprinklers throughout all existing high-rise buildings within five years. The administration's comprehensive proposal, however, provided a reasonable balance between safety and the costs, and consisted of the following major elements:

• Evacuation plans for all high-rise buildings electronically filed with the City's 911 center;
• Prohibiting stairway doors locked against re-entry, except for automatic and manual unlocking systems, in all buildings with stairways serving four or more stories;
• Voice communication systems for occupant notification and fire department communication in high-rise buildings;
• Automatic sprinkler protection for commercial high-rise buildings;
• Life Safety Evaluations (LSE) to verify a minimum level of fire safety for nonsprinklered high-rise buildings;
• Modification of material and installation criteria to allow more economical installations and encourage optional fire protection improvements; and,
• A requirement for a minimum one-hour fire-resistive stairway enclosure in residential buildings.

Following development of the proposed ordinance, it was posted on the City's Web site and was the subject of a series of public hearings and community meetings, at which the proposal was discussed and comments from affected parties were received. Stakeholders included regulatory officials, elected officials, contractors, building owner organizations, labor organizations, real estate interests, trade associations, and citizens. Not surprisingly, the testimony of many citizens reflected the perception that fires are rare events, that they feel adequately protected, and that they do not need to spend substantial sums of money on fire protection improvements, particularly sprinklers. Issues such as the cost of sprinkler installations, the need for improved life safety, and potential insurance savings were frequently raised.

In addition, certain buildings were evaluated per the criteria in the ordinance, and cost estimates were obtained for compliance with the ordinance. As a result of the public comments and trial building evaluations, the ordinance was subsequently modified and was adopted on December 15, 2004. A second ordinance concerning broadening the application of the previously adopted building evacuation plan ordinance is pending.

The major elements included in the ordinances are discussed in the following sections.

EVACUATION PLANS
The proposed ordinance requires the owners of all high-rise buildings to file certain information about their buildings' systems and occupants, and electronic copies of evacuation plans with the City's 911 Center. The filings are to include typical floor plans and the locations of disabled persons to facilitate on-site search-andrescue operations by communication with the 911 Center personnel. The City is also studying technology to allow the display of the information in fire department vehicles on the fireground.

STAIRWAY DOOR LOCKING
Prior to October 2003, a number of pre-1975 high-rise buildings maintained locked doors from the stairway side of the stair enclosure in the interest of maintaining building security. While prohibited for high-rise buildings constructed after 1975, the Chicago Building Code was silent on the application of such requirements in pre-1975 buildings. Shortly after the fire, the City Council adopted an ordinance that prohibited locking of stairway doors that would not allow occupants to re-enter the floors of the building, except when equipped with automatic/manual unlocking systems. The ordinance was subsequently revised and allowed temporarily locking of certain doors until January 1, 2005.