Log in / Register All Boston UH only

Over-stuffed Brookline apartments

Channel 4 reported that Brookline fire officials helped get "nearly two dozen" residents out of that building that caught fire early this morning. Jim Conley checks with the town assessors office and learns the building is listed as a three-family structure:

... And guess who's in charge of seeing to it that occupancy and building code requirements are met in apartment buildings? The Brookline Building Department. Or should we start calling that office the Brookline Landlord's Extension Service? ...

|
Tags:

does occupancy really matter?

By Ron Newman | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 2:20pm

the building didn't burn down because 'too many' people were living in it.

No, it didn't

By adamg | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 2:27pm

But one might argue that having 24 people in a building designed for some smaller number is a safety issue. More people, more stuff, more chances that some poor visitor will get confused during an emergency.

This week is BU's Spring

By Anon (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 2:40pm

This week is BU's Spring Break, and most students who live in dorms have to leave during breaks. Maybe that had something to do with it either people staying over OR why there was a raging party on a Thursday night.

Minor nitpick

By Arborway | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 5:56pm

In my experience, the day of the week has little or no bearing on whether or not a lot of students decide to hold raging parties. A day ending in 'y' is reason enough.

Sucks for the rest of us who don't live that lifestyle, though.

Yes but...

By Anon (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 10:10pm

living in the midst of students for the last 10 years and of course being a student before then, I can tell you that while there is party-like activities on most nights, it's usually only Friday, Saturday and holiday nights where the parties get so big that it looks like a clown car.

It matters because the

By Jim Conley (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 2:58pm

It matters because the Brookline Building Department doesn't enforce occupancy requirements, including illegal apartments with no means of egress. It matters because of code enforcement which includes the use of open flames above the ground level. It matters because by logic the more people there are in a multiunit building the higher the probability of a fire.

Beyond sanitary conditions, what other reason would there be to limit the number of people living in a multi-unit building?

the original poster is

By Anon (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 3:34pm

the original poster is correct about overcrowding - rooming houses are all over the city and are tantamount to tenements. but it is very difficult to enforce the regulations on every building in the city unless something or someone draws the inspector's attention to that problem

BU spring break

By SwirlyGrrl (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 3:39pm

Ron, Student House always had 4 to 5 extra residents during BU Spring Break. Most MIT Ilgs did, at least in the 1980s.

BU closes the dorms on Friday night and does not allow students back until the following Sunday. If you do not have the money to go to Cancun or you are on a six-year MD program and have way too much home work and don't have the money to go back to Taiwan for the duration, you need to find a place to crash.

That means staying with friends who have apartments or considerate housemates or crashing in a dorm room with a friend at another school nearby.

BU needs to do some thinking about their crazy spring break policy. I'm suprised that it took this long to bite them. Not everybody there has the cash to just take a $2K vacation.

Not so crazy

By cynical | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 4:52pm

For the record, BU offers a very inexpensive vacation housing arrangement at a local hotel for any on-campus student who wants or needs to stay local over Spring Break. They have plenty of international students, not to mention those who live on the west coast or elsewhere who simply can't afford to go home, much less go on a fancy vacation, regardless of how much homework they may have. Still, residence hall staff at BU and all the other local schools deserve a break, too. Unlike some schools, though, at least BU does offer an alternative place for resident students to stay when the dorms close -- and not just for Spring Break but for other vacations, too.

Define "inexspensive" and

By SwirlyGrrl (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 5:40pm

Define "inexspensive" and "local".

Re: Define "inexpensive" and "local"

By cynical | Sun, 03/18/2007 - 4:24pm

They use different hotels for each vacation, but I believe BU was offering the Holiday Inn on Beacon St. in Brookline for $160 or $180 for the full week this year. I'm not saying it's nothing, but that's less than a round-trip flight to most places, and less than a single night in most city hotels, and it's for the full week, just a block or two from campus.

Hardly a solution

By BStu (not verified) | Mon, 03/19/2007 - 1:33pm

When I was in college, I stayed on campus for spring break my Freshman and Sophomore years. They can be run on a skeleton crew. Every residence hall staffer doesn't need to be on duty. What I believe BC did was require RA's to sign up to work one vacation duty shift. I think Spring Break was split into two and then Thanksgiving and Easter also qualified. In theory, they'd have 1/4 of the staff working at any given time during these break periods. Not bad at all, and hardly an imposition on paid staff and students who are getting free room and board for their service. If I'm a poor student given the choice of crashing on someone's floor or paying $200 for a hotel, I'm picking the floor. We see now how much of a problem this can be.

This person makes me sick ....

By John K (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 5:11pm

What a very angry person this is. How sad.

What a very weird thing to obsess about.

I'm sure the fire department(s) will find out if the building was up to code and if the landlord was following town (and state) regulations.

Seriously, the poster is kind of making me feel sick.

Two Dozen really isn't alot ..

By Gregg Lebovitz (not verified) | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 7:32pm

... for a three family. In most areas, a family can be up to three unrelated indiviuals. That means the building can house 9 people. If each family member invites one friend over, then that is 18 people or "less than 2 dozen."

The news reporters have been commenting on the inproper use of an open charcoal grille on an upper floor, which is against code in Brookline. Whether or not it was a code violation, I don't think it was negligent to grille on the upper floor. I believe other towns don't have the same restriction.

In the end, someone made a mistake and, sadly, it resulted in a loss of life and property. I am not sure that blaming BU or the Building Department will prevent future similar accidents.

Charcoal grilling

By Quintana | Fri, 03/16/2007 - 9:01pm

No one yet knows the cause of the fire, but using a charcoal grill on a balcony is an invitation for problems. While it might be a tempting convenience, the potential danger is far larger. If embers or hot ashes fall on something that ignites afterward, a fast moving fire can develop without anyone being aware of it. In some media reports of the fire, there has been mention of wooden balconies, increasing the potential hazard.

Using charcoal grills on balconies should be prohibited in fire codes, although people will continue to ignore common sense and use them anyway.

Your numbers are off, though

By eeka it won't let me log in (not verified) | Mon, 03/19/2007 - 12:30pm

Massachusetts actually doesn't have a state law restricting the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling. Local zoning ordinances in some communities include this clause, but it's been challenged it in court as discriminatory toward foster families, GLBT families, people with disabilities who have live-in aides, etc., so most communities have dropped it.

The state sanitary code only requires that a home have at least 150 square feet of floor space for its first occupant, and at least 100 square feet of floor space for each additional occupant. Bedrooms have to have at least 70 square feet of floor space and at least 50 square feet of floor space for each occupant.

My home, which is in a three-family building, could have 11 people based on square footage of the unit (1150). Though based on bedroom dimensions, we could legally only sleep 10 people. So we could legally have 30 people in our building, which is actually on the small side for a three-decker.

The building being discussed was likely not overcrowded by legal standards.

"Nearly" 2 dozen

By BStu (not verified) | Mon, 03/19/2007 - 1:40pm

I hardly ever see a college apartment that doesn't have at least 6 occupants. 3 family makes for 18 people. Frankly, I could see 18 becoming "nearly 2 dozen" in this context, though obviously one assumes there were additional people present either due to a party (hence the grill) or spring break refugees.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.