New Chicago firehouse

[mack]

The pattern of locating fire houses in most of our cities was laid out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This pattern depended upon the range of the fire horses. A strong horse pulling a steamer or ladder truck could expect to gallop at most a half mile. Consequently, fire houses were located approximately 3/4 of a mile from each other, which provided overlap in the response area. The improved mobility and range of today’s fire apparatus has rendered that old pattern obsolete. In some cases one engine can effectively cover an area that used to require two.
Nobody wants to see fire companies close, but in some cases it makes sense to do so. As the former mayor of New York City used to say, everybody wants a firehouse on their block but nobody wants to pay for it.

Horse-drawn apparatus have been gone for 100 years. Cities adjusted for motorized apparatus decades ago. Cities initially had adjusted from hand-pulled apparatus to horses as it "made sense" a long time ago. Current apparatus locations are the result of reductions, relocations, negotiations, fire activity, budget problems, risks, neighborhood pressure, politics, etc. There are agreements and understandings with unions. But history has shown over and over that things change and will continue to change.

A city with a budget crisis make cuts in fire service - lay-offs, staffing, training, apparatus, OT, equipment - and company closures. Today's fire companies in most cities (e.g. - FDNY) are much busier today, even if fires are down, because of EMS, emergencies (e.g. - gas, electrical and water failures in aging infrastructures), HAZMAT and the public's desire for immediate help when needed. And we still need fire companies available for fire incidents that will continue to occur regardless of fire frequency.

So concern should be noted when firehouses are closed and companies are co-located - because it may eventually be used to a claim "redundant" companies are unneeded by Chiefs under pressure, or to convince a neighborhood that they still have sufficient fire protection because their new firehouse is still open, even if there are fewer firefighters to help them.

 

[fdhistorian]

Horse-drawn apparatus have been gone for 100 years. Cities adjusted for motorized apparatus decades ago. Cities initially had adjusted from hand-pulled apparatus to horses as it "made sense" a long time ago. Current apparatus locations are the result of reductions, relocations, negotiations, fire activity, budget problems, risks, neighborhood pressure, politics, etc. There are agreements and understandings with unions. But history has shown over and over that things change and will continue to change.

A city with a budget crisis make cuts in fire service - lay-offs, staffing, training, apparatus, OT, equipment - and company closures. Today's fire companies in most cities (e.g. - FDNY) are much busier today, even if fires are down, because of EMS, emergencies (e.g. - gas, electrical and water failures in aging infrastructures), HAZMAT and the public's desire for immediate help when needed. And we still need fire companies available for fire incidents that will continue to occur regardless of fire frequency.

So concern should be noted when firehouses are closed and companies are co-located - because it may eventually be used to a claim "redundant" companies are unneeded by Chiefs under pressure, or to convince a neighborhood that they still have sufficient fire protection because their new firehouse is still open, even if there are fewer firefighters to help them.

Counting firehouses is not the best way to evaluate fire resource deployment. Too many assumptions about company availability, staffing, roads and traffic, and types of responses have changed over time. Saving hundred year old stable buildings can be done by repurposing them as shops, restaurants or residences. Firefighting requires modern equipment and workplaces.

Stations are still disproportionately influenced by political, financial pressures and misapplied statistics. Busy stations are favored over slow stations as if more incidents are better than less. Stations opened to 'reduce response times' have been closed a few years later with 'no impact on response times.' Few cities deploy 'peak demand' units on a daily basis, very few cities even try to address simultaneous availability (G-man effect).

Chicago has been eliminating very old firehouses but they have been redeploying companies from engines to ladder and EMS units with a small net increase of units, since 2004.

 

[skiLB]

Counting firehouses is not the best way to evaluate fire resource deployment. Too many assumptions about company availability, staffing, roads and traffic, and types of responses have changed over time. Saving hundred year old stable buildings can be done by repurposing them as shops, restaurants or residences. Firefighting requires modern equipment and workplaces.

Stations are still disproportionately influenced by political, financial pressures and misapplied statistics. Busy stations are favored over slow stations as if more incidents are better than less. Stations opened to 'reduce response times' have been closed a few years later with 'no impact on response times.' Few cities deploy 'peak demand' units on a daily basis, very few cities even try to address simultaneous availability (G-man effect).

Chicago has been eliminating very old firehouses but they have been adding companies since 2004.

Always gr8 info