Terin Hopkins

Manager of Public Fire Protection

High-rise buildings represent one of the most complex and unforgiving fire safety environments in the built world. Height, population density, vertical egress, and reliance on multiple interconnected systems mean that no single feature can be relied upon to protect occupants and firefighters.

Instead, high-rise safety depends on a layered approach to fire protection, one that integrates construction features, automatic detection and alarm systems, emergency power, smoke control, standpipes, and, critically, automatic fire sprinklers, all supported by consistent inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) program initiated by building owners.

When these layers work together, fires are controlled, evacuations are orderly, and firefighters operate in survivable conditions. When layers are neglected or allowed to deteriorate, even a small fire can escalate into a major life-safety event.

January 19, 2026, fire at 204 East Joppa Road in Towson, Maryland, and the legal judgment against the building owners, provides a clear case study of both the value of layered protection and the dangers created when maintenance responsibilities are ignored.

A Small Fire That Tested a Large Building

The fire originated on the third floor of a twelve-story, 215-unit residential high-rise. Yet despite its limited size, the incident produced extensive smoke conditions on upper floors, displaced residents, and required a substantial fire department response.

This outcome highlights a fundamental truth of high-rise fires: smoke spreads vertically far faster than fire spreads horizontally. Stairwells, elevator shafts, mechanical chases, and construction penetrations allow smoke from a single apartment fire to affect dozens or hundreds of occupants in just minutes.

What prevented this incident from becoming far worse was the presence of automatic fire sprinklers, which controlled the fire until firefighters completed extinguishment. This is not incidental; it is precisely how sprinklers are designed to function. They limit heat release, reduce smoke production, and keep conditions tenable long enough for occupants and responding crews to survive.

Without sprinklers, a third-floor fire in a high-rise can grow unchecked, overwhelm standpipe operations, and expose firefighters to untenable conditions before water is ever applied at the seat of the fire.

The Missing Layer: Maintenance and Accountability

While the fire demonstrated the value of sprinklers, the broader context surrounding the building revealed a more troubling reality. In December 2025, just weeks before the fire, the Baltimore County Board of Appeals affirmed a judgment (Case No. CBA-26-008) against the building owners for widespread life-safety compliance.

The Board found numerous violations, including generator failures, unsafe electrical conditions, restricted access for inspections, work performed without permits or inspections, and ongoing functional issues with the sprinkler system. Some deficiencies had been identified months earlier and were allowed to persist. The Board concluded that the deterioration of vital life-safety systems was “unconscionable” and affirmed civil penalties while authorizing the County to take further action to protect residents.

This ruling reinforces a critical point: fire protection systems only protect lives when they are maintained. A sprinkler system that is impaired, a generator that does not function, or an alarm system that is not tested regularly is not a layer of protection, it is a liability.

The Added Risk of Pre-1975 High-Rise Buildings

The events at 204 East Joppa Road also reflect a broader national challenge. Thousands of high-rise residential buildings constructed before 1975 were originally exempt from automatic fire sprinkler requirements. At the time, codes relied heavily on compartmentation, manual firefighting, and assumptions about early detection that no longer align with today’s realities.

These legacy buildings often do not meet even the minimum expectations for existing buildings today, particularly when maintenance is inconsistent or deferred. Many lack:

• Automatic fire sprinklers in dwelling units or common areas
• Automated fire alarm systems
• Emergency communication systems
• Modern smoke control or compartmentation integrity
• Redundant, reliable emergency power systems

The hazard is not simply the age of these buildings. The risk arises from a convergence of legacy design assumptions and modern fuel loads, compounded by aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance. Today’s furnishings burn faster and release more heat, while contemporary high-rise fire scenarios increasingly rely on occupants sheltering in place as fire departments confront fires that grow more rapidly and produce far greater volumes of smoke than were assumed in earlier design eras. In an unsprinklered pre-1975 high-rise, a fire like the one on January 19 could quickly escalate into a multi-floor, tragic event.

Why Layered Protection Matters More Than Ever

High-rise fire safety has always depended on redundancy. Codes assume that systems may fail and therefore require overlapping layers: fire-resistive construction, automatic alarms, emergency power, standpipes, and sprinklers. But redundancy only works if each layer is functional at the moment it is needed.

Inspection, testing, and maintenance (ITM) is the glue that holds the entire system together. When ITM is neglected, redundancy collapses.

The Board of Appeals decision at 204 East Joppa Road documented exactly this type of systemic breakdown. Generator failures compromised emergency lighting and egress. Electrical hazards threatened system reliability. Sprinkler deficiencies persisted despite repeated notice. These were not paperwork issues; they were real impairments affecting life safety.

In a fully sprinklered building, these failures are serious. In pre-1975 buildings without comprehensive sprinkler protection, they represent an unacceptable risk.

Sprinklers as Risk Reduction

The January 19 fire illustrates the difference sprinklers make. A low-level fire remained controllable. Smoke spread was limited. Firefighters operated largely in survivable conditions.

In an unsprinklered high-rise, that same fire could have:

• Grown beyond the room of origin before fire department intervention
• Produced untenable smoke conditions on multiple floors and egresses
• Required aggressive interior attack under extreme heat and zero visibility
• Resulted in injuries or fatalities among occupants or firefighters

This is why sprinkler retrofits in older high-rise buildings should be understood as risk-reduction infrastructure minimum, not punitive mandates. They restore balance to a layered fire protection strategy that was never designed for today’s hazards.

The Responsibility of Ownership

Owners of legacy high-rise buildings inherit more than aging structures; they inherit a heightened duty of care. When a building lacks modern baseline protection, maintenance and modernization are not optional budget items; they are the primary means by which risk is managed.

The lesson from 204 East Joppa Road is not merely that sprinklers work, though they clearly do. The lesson is that fire safety is a system, and systems fail when any layer is ignored.

Layered fire protection saves lives. In pre-1975 high-rise buildings, it is often the only thing standing between a routine incident and a preventable tragedy.

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.