stickittotheman

That sure looks like a basement. Fir 2x10 joists to hold up the roof? I thought the main floor had really high ceilings? The first pic shows the cross bracing typically used to stabilize floor joists, also the floor boards are visible. If this was a ceiling it would be insulated. Oh yea, i forgot , they dont have a basement! Also double headers around what appears to be an old stairwell.

24Rainier7

Looks can be deceiving, you stand on a floor joist, you look up at a ceiling joist, same same. At first glance that may appear to be a stairwell. Look at the picture https://www.flickr.com/photos/55533504@N08/16501935549/in/faves-76789827@N03/ , note the ridge peak in the sheathing and the sister framing member is twice as tall as the ceiling joist ( consistent with skylight). What's really interesting is that there seem to be more interior shots including daylight photos with the skylights uncovered than there were before, but I don't really know how all this flickr stuff works, got other stuff going on . And some of those shots, wow what a dive.

stickittotheman

They dont use those crossbraces on ceiling joists (the Xs between the joists) the purpose of those are so when one steps on one joist the load is transferred to the next 2 joists. They are only used on floor joists, not on ceiling, i just asked a framer friend and he confirmed this. Also where is the insulation if thats a ceiling? Its clearly a floor above them, you can see the floor boards as well.

DietCokehead1

OP, you are a genius! Proper fire safety code measures are ESPECIALLY impoartant to highlight right now, given the recent Oakland warehouse fire, the MA fire, and the TN wildfires!

24Rainier7

Thank you for the compliment, just remember genius has its limits, stupidity is boundless. On that note, if you can help round up documentation such as permits, as-built drawings and other such things I would gladly look at them.

grlldcheese

I love this.

Cramer says the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Firinmahlazer

Depending on the age of the building they could have been grandfathered in if the code at the time didn't require those things. Not sure if this is the case or that the law would support that idea but it's something to consider.

Codewow

I'd assume business law would require some sort of extinguisher, but we aren't getting a video tour of this place, so we won't know if there really is one. Also, these images are from 2011.

Firinmahlazer

You would think but code laws are a funny matter. It could all change depending on when the building was built, if it was renovated, where it's built at, the size, really a lot of different variables. Again, it's worth taking into consideration before you/we run with the idea that it's not up to code because for all we know they may not be required to have sprinklers or hose lockers or an alarm system.

Codewow

There should be some sort of OSHA regulation though, no?

Firinmahlazer

OSHA deals with working folks. They might have a rule for what goes on in the kitchen but ot wouldn't dictate the entire building. I guess you would have to look here at the NFPA and then look at local code laws to see if there is anything in addition to federal law.

24Rainier7

My learning curve or the post?

24Rainier7

Sorry about that, it's a steep learning curve.

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Dig into who would have been paid off to categorically exclude CPP from any fire code compliance requirements.

l23r

Is it a "historical property" ? You would think they would want to preserve it and protect it from any possible fire, but maybe that designation (if they have it) lets them get away with having less than regular buildings need to be up to code.

amCassandraAMA

it is not, it was some thai room business a decade ago, we were digging on the preowners, although I forgot the exact sale date.

24Rainier7

Ideas, leads, examples?

THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES

Health inspector for DC area or the Fire Code inspector.