The Fire Safety Debate of 1904
Tacoma building owners argue that 'fireproof' construction renders fire escapes redundant, but city officials stand their ground.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Shall fireproof buildings be equipped with fire escapes? This was the question considered by a number of city councilmen last night prior to the council meeting. Building Inspector Sherman has recently ordered the owners of the Provident and Fidelity buildings to construct several fire escapes. Last night, I. Kauffman and Henry Longstreth, agents of these buildings, approached a number of the councilmen on the subject. They claim that, as their buildings are fireproof, it is useless to build fire escapes. The councilmen expressed various opinions on the matter, but held that neither the Provident nor the Fidelity block would be exempt if the building inspector ordered fire escapes to be erected.
“They claim that, as their buildings are fireproof, it is useless to build fire escapes.”
The tension between developers seeking to bypass safety costs and city inspectors mandated to protect the public is a timeless Tacoma struggle. While modern fire codes are absolute, the 1904 friction over the Provident and Fidelity buildings highlights the era's transition toward the strictly regulated urban environment we navigate today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.