By Terin Hopkins

NFSA Manager of Public Fire Protection

Across the country, especially in older high-rise residential buildings, automatic fire sprinkler retrofits remain the most effective, proven life-safety upgrade available. Yet every time policymakers consider requiring sprinklers in aging towers, opponents respond with the same pattern of inflated, fear-based cost projections. These estimates almost never align with real bid data, actual project experience, or the well-documented track record of safe and affordable high-rise retrofit work.

Recent debates in San Francisco provide a prime example. In opposition to a proposed sprinkler mandate for older residential high-rises, opponents circulated astronomical claims, including statements that installing sprinklers would cost up to $300,000 per unit. This number is not grounded in any verified bid, engineering analysis, or real-world retrofit project. It is simply the newest entry in a long line of exaggerated figures designed to scare policymakers and building owners away from taking action that would save lives.

Below are four of the most common ways these inflated estimates are manufactured and the facts that counter each one.

1. Inflated Asbestos Abatement Costs

One of the most persistent scare tactics is the claim that sprinkler retrofits will require full-building asbestos abatement at extraordinary cost, sometimes tens of millions of dollars in a single building. This is simply not how asbestos regulation works, and it is not how licensed abatement firms actually operate.

Fact:
Fire sprinkler retrofit typically requires targeted, spot abatement limited to small ceiling penetrations or chase access points, not whole-floor removal. NFSA’s contractor bid packages consistently show manageable abatement scopes integrated into the retrofit schedule.

Maryland’s HB 823 High-Rise Workgroup finding concluded the same finding:

Full abatement is generally not required; localized removal at points of work is the standard approach and can be performed safely in occupied buildings.

Opponents often present estimates assuming full-floor asbestos abatement, removal of every textured ceiling, or building-wide demolition. This is a manufactured worst-case scenario that does not reflect actual practice or regulatory requirements.

When retrofitting buildings with asbestos-containing materials (ACM), licensed abatement contractors simply follow established spot-abatement procedures, which are common, routine, and well-understood in the industry. This is why real retrofit case studies, documenting the many buildings retrofitted containing asbestos have been done safely and affordably while buildings remained occupied.

2. “Sprinkler Retrofit Cannot Be Done Safely in Occupied Units”

This argument is contradicted by decades of retrofit work across the United States. Thousands of residential high-rise retrofits from Honolulu to New York have been completed while fully occupied.

Sprinkler systems are specifically designed for installation in existing buildings, and contractors have well-established protocols for:

• resident communication and scheduling
• dust and containment control
• rapid unit-by-unit installation
• minimal temporary disruption

Most units require only a few hours of access, with residents often able to remain at home. NFSA contractors report that retrofits in occupied multifamily buildings are standard practice, not an exception.

In Hawaii’s Marco Polo, 39-story/572 unit $5-million dollar retrofit project, the largest high-rise retrofit ever completed in that state, contractors retrofitted sprinklers and upgraded fire protection, without any mass relocation of residents. The building remained fully occupied, functional, and safe throughout the entire process.

This project was originally estimated to cost $2-million, prior to the 2017 devastating fire which cost over $100-million in property loss, undisclosed legal settlements and claimed 4 residents lives.

The reality is this: if retrofits in occupied buildings were unsafe or unmanageable, the industry could not perform the volume of work it has completed nationwide. The claim is not based on evidence; it is based on fear-based messaging intended to discourage owners and policymakers.

3. Manipulating “Per-Unit Cost” to Inflate the Total

Opponents frequently attempt to frame high-rise sprinkler retrofits using exaggerated “per-unit” pricing, claims of $20,000, $30,000, or even the recent and completely unsubstantiated $300,000 per unit figure circulated in San Francisco, California. These numbers typically do not reflect actual contractor bids or add in non-required work. Instead, they rely on a simplistic, misleading tactic: multiply a dramatic per-unit number across hundreds of units to create an artificially inflated total that appears insurmountable.

This tactic is especially deceptive because the cost of retrofitting a high rise does not scale by individual dwelling units. The largest share of retrofit cost is tied to building systems, vertical distribution, risers, mechanical spaces, and common-area work, not the individual sprinkler heads and piping installed in each unit. In fact, structural enhancements associated with a retrofit (e.g., pump room upgrades, main riser pathways, standpipe integration, electrical improvements for the fire pump, or seismic bracing for common-area piping) are building-wide improvements often funded from common-area reserves or capital budgets. These enhancements benefit the building holistically, not individual units, and should not be inaccurately broken down on a per-unit basis.

In condominium structures, this distinction is especially important. Condos typically divide responsibility between common elements and unit interiors, meaning the majority of sprinkler retrofit costs, risers, mains, pump rooms, stairwells, corridors, mechanical spaces are paid for by building-common funds, not individually by unit owners. Only a small portion of the work (usually the branch lines and sprinkler heads inside the unit) is attributable to the individual dwelling space. When opponents apply a “per-unit” cost to the entire project, they blur this legal and financial reality and create the false impression that every homeowner will personally bear an enormous, unit-specific cost.

Co-ops, however, operate under a different legal and ownership structure. Because co-op shareholders hold an interest in the entire building rather than individual fee-simple units, some buildings may allocate retrofit costs differently. Shareholders may carry a higher obligation depending on how their board finances capital improvements. Even in these cases, though, the underlying math does not change: the bulk of the cost remains in shared systems, not in the units themselves. The exaggerated per-unit numbers still come from the same inflation tactics, padding the estimate with unrelated upgrades, assuming full-building asbestos abatement, or misrepresenting common-area work as unit-specific.

The simple truth is this: high-rise sprinkler retrofit costs should not be inappropriately or ethically expressed as “per unit.” Doing so ignores the actual cost drivers, misrepresents how buildings finance improvements, and intentionally inflates the perceived financial impact on residents. It also hides the economies of scale that make larger buildings more cost-efficient per dwelling, not less.

Opponents rely on per-unit scare pricing because it produces the largest, most intimidating number possible. But when retrofit costs are evaluated correctly using real contractor bids, understanding how common-area work is funded, distinguishing between apartments, condos and co-ops, and separating required life-safety upgrades from optional enhancements, the numbers consistently fall within a predictable, manageable range supported by NFSA’s national dataset and decades of retrofit experience.

“Per-unit” pricing is misleading for several reasons:

1. Sprinkler costs scale with square footage and system layout not unit count.
2. A significant portion of the cost is fixed (pump room work, common areas, standpipe floor connections, and permitting).
3. Larger buildings reduce per-unit cost due to economy of scale.
4. Real bids on occupied high-rise retrofits routinely come in at $2,000–$7,000 per unit, depending on construction type and geographic region.

NFSA’s national dataset, including bid packages for 8-, 12-, 18-, and 25-story occupied retrofit projects consistently shows that opponents almost always inflate costs by multiplying a grossly exaggerated “per-unit” figure across the entire building.

A typical 12-story, 125-foot, 120,000sf occupied retrofit from NFSA’s 2025 contractor bid package came in at $725,000 total, not the multimillion-dollar opponents claim. Even adding pump upgrades or alarm modernization does not come close to the inflated estimates circulated by lobbying groups or associations seeking to avoid mandates.

4. Adding Unrelated, Non-Required Upgrades to the “Sprinkler” Estimate

Another common tactic is bundling unrelated capital improvements into the sprinkler cost estimate to make the project appear unaffordable. These items often include:

• Full alarm replacement
• Corridor renovation
• Electrical upgrades unrelated to sprinkler demand
• Fireproofing or structural work not triggered by code
• Asbestos removal unrelated to sprinkler penetrations
• Complete ceiling replacement
• Integrated voice communication systems
• Smoke control systems
• HVAC modernization
• Smoke alarms/detection
• Heat detection

None of these are required for a code-compliant sprinkler retrofit. Yet opponents repeatedly include them as though they are mandatory.

Sprinkler retrofit requires:

• Installation of piping and sprinklers
• Connection to an adequate water supply
• A fire pump (if needed)
• Dedicated alarm, interface for waterflow and supervisory signals

That is the scope. Everything else is optional and should never be presented as a mandatory cost.

This tactic is particularly common in jurisdictions considering retrofit ordinances, where associations and management companies attempt to create sticker shock by turning a straightforward sprinkler project into a full-building modernization list.

The Bottom Line: Sprinkler Retrofit Is Affordable, Achievable, and Proven

Every year, modern sprinklered high-rises experience dramatically fewer fire deaths and significantly lower property losses. The data is clear: retrofit works, and the cost of not installing sprinklers is far higher than the cost of installing them.

Opponents rely on inflated asbestos estimates, misleading cost models, and claims not supported by real-world retrofit experience. Policymakers and building owners should rely instead on:

• Verified contractor bid data
• Documented retrofit case studies
• NFSA’s national cost analyses
• State workgroups such as Maryland’s HB 823 Workgroup report
• Actual code requirements, not fear-based assumptions

Sprinkler retrofit is not a theoretical idea; it is a proven, cost-effective upgrade that has been successfully completed in thousands of occupied high-rise buildings across the country.

When the myths are stripped away, the truth is simple: the most expensive retrofit is the one delayed until after the fire.

More about the Author:

Terin Hopkins brings over four decades of fire service and public safety experience to his current role as Manager of Public Fire Protection for the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA). Beginning his career in 1981 as a Volunteer Firefighter/EMT, Terin went on to serve 25 years with the Prince George’s County (MD) Fire/EMS Department, retiring as station officer in 2010. He then continued his commitment to protecting communities with the Howard County Department of Fire Rescue Services, Office of the Fire Marshal. In 2018, Terin joined NFSA and now serves as a national resource for fire departments, code officials, and policymakers. He represents NFSA on several key NFPA and UL committees, including NFPA 1, NFPA 14, UL 47, and NFPA 13E, shaping the standards firefighters depend on. Terin remains dedicated to bridging the gap between the fireground and the codebook. His mission is to ensure that the voices of firefighters are heard in the standards-making process, while advancing fire protection systems that improve both firefighter safety and civilian survivability.

Have Questions: Just ask Chat EOD!