# Occupancy (fixture) calculations for Indoor Climbing Gym



## climb64 (Oct 13, 2012)

Plumbing fixture count is our issue, not egress.  According to our architect (and based on my own careful reading of the Chicago code), we will be classified as "large assembly" with specific occupant use as "health club."  Ratio of 1/20 is specified for "recreation rooms."  Makes sense to me.  Building footprint is about 15,000.  We have a huge padded space in front of main rope wall on 1st floor, some other climbing areas on a partial 2nd floor with ropes, and some for bouldering (without ropes).  A small yoga room, fitness room, party room on partial third floor.  Some offices, etc.  Subtract out things the code says to subtract out from Sq. Footage (stairwells, bathrooms, vestibules, cafe etc.), and we come up with 18,280 sq. ft.--about 3/4 of which is padded "belaying zone" for rope walls and padded "landing/spotting zone" for bouldering walls.  Using Chicago code, we get 914 occupancy for calculating fixture count (457 men, 457 women).

Chicago plumbing code says . . .  Men: 1WC per 30 occupants up to 90, 1 per 50 over 90;  Women: 1 per 25 up top 100, 1 per 30 over 100.  This works out to 10 WC for Male locker room and 16 wc for Female (I know we can do 50% urinal for men).

My issue is that these are HUGE bathrooms for a climbing gym.  We don't want/need to dedicate the space.  I've been in the business 20+ years, and been to dozens of major gyms around the country and none of them have anything even remotely close to these numbers.  For instance, the largest climbing gym in the country, in Atlanta, has approx. 28,000 sq. ft. of floor space (allocated almost exactly as ours is allocated), and their locker rooms have 3 WC + 4 urinals for men and 6 WC for women.  I know other gyms slightly smaller than ours with  3 WC for women, 2 WC for men.

What are we missing?  Is it the fact that the "landing areas" around the climbing walls shouldn't be counted as 1:20 space??  Is that how the local indoor tennis clubs or volleyball/soccer field houses or gymnastics gyms get away with not having 16WC for women?  How might we instruct our architect to approach this with CIty of Chicago planning/permitting?  Please help.  Thank you!

PS- I often work out in a gymnastics gym in the city that is roughly 9,000 sq. ft. and it has only 2 single unisex bathrooms.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 13, 2012)

Welcome to the forum climb64.

You'd do best to go meet with the plans examiner and/or building official in the jurisdiction. The would be the one that would/could approve a lesser occupant load for you fixture calcs. I personally would not have a problem looking at fewer fixtures, based on the actual use. At the worst, I would be looking at exercise rooms at 50/gross per occupant, but even that would be excessive in my opinion. Go see the AHJ and let us know what you find out. I'm sure others will chime in here shortly.

Again, welcome aboard.

Exception in 1004.1.1;

Exception: Where approved by the building official, the

actual number of occupants for whom each occupied

space, floor or building is designed, although less than

those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be

used in the determination of the design occupant load.

Not sure how the Chicago code reads, but the fixture table in the IBC would give you one fixture for 200 as a gymnasium. (under the A-3 laundry list)


----------



## ICE (Oct 13, 2012)

The padded area does not fit with the occupant load of a recreation area in that the purpose of the padded area is to provide a landing zone for those people that are climbing the walls.  The occupied space is 2' (3.5' for fatboy) in front of the climbing wall.

For the most part, the people not climbing the walls will avoid loitering below those people that are.  They would probably leave the building if they spot fatboy on the wall.

A deduction of one half of the wall area  sounds reasonable to me. (3/4 for fatboy)  But then of course what's the odds of getting fatboy high up a wall.....wait a minute, I drive fatboy up a wall.

What takes place beyond the landing pads?  Tables and chairs, benches, anything with fixed seating that would produce a number?  You know what I mean, a lounge type atmosphere where fatboy could swallow banana cream pies.

Much the same as a bowling alley would not count the lanes, you should be allowed accommodation for the landing pad.  The number you give the AHJ needs to be based on sound reasons and I would also present real world examples; framed as "Here is what works".


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

What building code and edition is this designed to??

1/20 seems wrong

Hopefully the architect has figured an occupant load for each room

1/50 seems a little better to use, without seeing any plans

And like said above set down with ahj to see if they will do a different calc


----------



## climb64 (Oct 13, 2012)

Thanks so much for all your help, guys. Everyone's thinking is about the same as mine. I will pass all this along to architect.

_      "What takes place beyond the landing pads?"_

Outside of the padded area is mostly just space to move along the length of the building (15 ft. on main floor, 10' walkway with railing looking out at main wall along length of partial second floor, same on third floor), along with other rooms I have mentioned like offices, small cafe, small yoga and weights room, employee locker room, b-day party room, storage, etc.) . . . this "space" is provided specifically so one does not have to--as is very relevant to this discussion--congregate or move to other parts of the wall/gym by doing so through the padded belay/landing zone.

_     "Hopefully the architect has figured an occupant load for each room"_

He has, and some rooms were 1:50 or 1:100 as per our code, but the vast majority of sq. ft. in the building is simply the open climbing areas. . . . accounting for 636 of 914 people as calculated (using 1:20)

Our architect has expressed (and it has certainly been my experience in the CIty of Chicago just with my own residence, and 2nd hand info) that it is usually *very* difficult to get any "exceptions" to the code, and that they usually "read it" very strictly.  And that it often slows down the approval and permitting process significantly (which would really hurt us).  Everything is insanely slow here as it is, and delays are one of the variables that could really put our new LLC at risk in terms of cash flow, competitors, etc.

But with that said, it seems like trying to get a meeting with someone to discuss may be the only way to go.

What is the "AHJ," please?

Here's the relevant section of the Chicago code:

13-56-310  Assembly units and open air assembly units – Occupancy content.

     •For assembly units and open air assembly units, the occupancy content shall be based on the capacity of the rooms or spaces used for assembly purposes and shall be determined as follows:

     (a)     In rooms or spaces with fixed seating, the occupancy content shall be the actual number of seats provided. When no divisions between seats are provided, fixed seating shall be computed at 18 inches per person.

     (b)     In rooms or spaces without fixed seating, the occupancy content shall be determined by the dividing of the net floor area (excluding the areas occupied by elevators, toilet rooms, stairways, other shaft enclosures, and by permanent fixtures such as bowling alleys, bars, cigar counters, exit facilities, entrance vestibules, lunch counters and serving spaces for same, etc.) by the floor area per person established in the following table:

•Occupancy     Floor Area Per Person*     (1)     School classrooms (other *

*     than open plan schools) and recreation rooms     20 sq. ft.*     (2)     Open plan schools, school 

     laboratories and shops     30 sq. ft.

    (3)     Museums, libraries and similar uses     20 sq. ft.

     (4)     Restaurants     15 sq. ft.

     (5)     Other assembly uses     6 sq. ft.

     (6)     Exhibition areas     20 sq. ft.

     (7)     Day care center – Class I     35 sq. ft.


----------



## ICE (Oct 13, 2012)

climb64 said:
			
		

> Our architect has expressed (and it has certainly been my experience in the CIty of Chicago just with my own residence, and 2nd hand info) that it is usually *very* difficult to get any "exceptions" to the code, and that they usually "read it" very strictly.  And that it often slows down the approval and permitting process significantly (which would really hurt us).  Everything is insanely slow here as it is, and delays are one of the variables that could really put our new LLC at risk in terms of cash flow, competitors, etc.


Chicago is a big town so there must be other climbing emporiums available.  What have they got for toilets?



> What is the "AHJ," please?


I'm guessing that you don't know the secret handshake either.

Who let this guy in?


----------



## climb64 (Oct 13, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Chicago is a big town so there must be other climbing emporiums available.  What have they got for toilets?I'm guessing that you don't know the secret handshake either.
> 
> Who let this guy in?


Alas, there are NOT other climbing emporiums in the city . . . thus our project!  But as I mention in my original post, around the country, no gym has more than 6 WC for women (the bigger issue than men).

I know "*a*" secret handshake . . . but sadly, probably not "_*the*_" secret handshake.


----------



## ICE (Oct 13, 2012)

> Alas, there are NOT other climbing emporiums in the city


Go with what you know....you're from Chicago....there's nothing on the dark side of the Moon so perhaps New York City or Rockford.



> no gym has more than 6 WC for women (the bigger issue than men).


I don't think that I would mention that.  The bigger issue will certainly be men.  One in a hundred women want to climb walls.  They generally want to come down off the wall.



> I know "a" secret handshake . . . but sadly, probably not "the" secret handshake.


Sawhorses get a graphic.

By the way, I am from Rochelle.


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

Authority having jurisdiction - Chicago city

I do not see an occupant load calc for gymnasium ???? Which is where the 1/50

With all due respect to architects you might hire a code consultant that knows the code and knows how to play with it sometimes


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

Forgot again welcome

Check out this similar thread

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/9417-indoor-skatepark.html


----------



## climb64 (Oct 13, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Go with what you know....you're from Chicago....there's nothing on the dark side of the Moon so perhaps New York City or Rockford.I don't think that I would mention that.  The bigger issue will certainly be men.  One in a hundred women want to climb walls.  They generally want to come down off the wall.


The youth team I coach is surprisingly 70% girls!   Adult usage is definitely more men than women . . . but more like 60/40, not like the 90/10 that one might expect.

I mention the women's WC issue simply because code requires more fixtures, and we can't substitute urinals for 50% - so it's the women's locker room that is really eating into our potential climbing space:

_Looking at originals calcs - having 5 urinals and 5 WC is a doable locker room for us (even though excessive), but having 16 WC for women--ouch!_



So you think I should just reference other gyms?  I can easily do that.  I can get overall Sq. Ft. and fixture counts from gyms in Indianapolis, Milwaukee, MAdison, DesMoines, Ann Arbor, etc. (local Midwest).  All are a bit smaller than our project, but they also only have 2-4 WC!

I could also get same info from very similar size gyms in more distant locales (Boulder, Salt Lake, Seattle) . . . which do you think would be more helpful?  Should I just get both?

Thanks again!


----------



## climb64 (Oct 13, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Authority having jurisdiction - Chicago cityI do not see an occupant load calc for gymnasium ???? Which is where the 1/50
> 
> With all due respect to architects you might hire a code consultant that knows the code and knows how to play with it sometimes


That's the total list.

Yes, I thought about that.  I have several code consultant companies bookmarked already!

Trying to avoid the expense if possible,  as cash flow is such an issue for us (out of pocket until LLC is finalized and investor/bank loan money starts to flow (which, of course, can't happen without building design and estimates, etc.!)

Thanks for the Skate park reference . . . I did find and have read that thread.  Seems very relevant!!


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

'"""So you think I should just reference other gyms? I can easily do that. I can get overall Sq. Ft. and fixture counts from gyms in Indianapolis, Milwaukee, MAdison, DesMoines, Ann Arbor, etc. (local Midwest). All are a bit smaller than our project, but they also only have 2-4 WC! ""

Would suggest Chicago

Well options are

Add all facilities required, lose space pay money

Argue with Chicago, who knows what will happen

Hire a consultant pay up front, maybe cut the restrooms, and add desired space

I am not a consultant just seen people in your place many times

Maybe the consultant can find an occupant load factor for a gymnasium


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

If this is current looks like you have an argument for at least 1/40

(13-56-300) Health clubs & fitness centers policy

This establishes values for assembly uses which are not specified in Table 13-56-310(b) to calculate occupancy.

In fitness centers and health clubs, the occupancy content for running tracks or for exercise areas primarily occupied by fixed equipment shall be calculated at 40 square feet per person (gross). Recreation areas (i.e., for aerobics, yoga, etc.) shall to be calculated at 20 sq. ft. per person, and locker rooms shall be calculated at 6 sq. ft. per person, net area (not including the floor area covered by lockers). Swimming pools shall be calculated at 15 sq. ft. per person, which is consistent with 77 IL. ADM. Code 820, the Illinois Swimming Pool and Bathing Beach Code, Section 820.200 (b), and pool deck areas shall be calculated at a rate of 50 square feet per person (gross). In accordance with Section 3(13-84-410), an occupancy sign shall be obtained and posted in each space, stating the maximum number of persons, which may occupy that area.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/bldgs/general/Building%20Code/3UseOccupancy2311.pdf


----------



## ICE (Oct 13, 2012)

16 WC is based on 914 occupants.  Fatboy's suggestion results in 365.  Where do you figure the attendance level will be?  Plan for the best and hope the business takes off. Keep it realistic and validate your assumptions.  Perhaps other operators will share information.  Visit several with a counter and find out.   914 sounds way high and 365 is optimistic.  Determine what the number will be with the best evidence that you can find and present that to the AHJ.

The activity requires a large space for not that many people.  Similar to paint ball courses, go-cart tracks and skydiving.  Not so much like a health club or gymnausium.


----------



## cda (Oct 13, 2012)

the chicago building code looks worse then trying to fiqure out obamacare

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il

Rocket NXT

was o in the chicago building dept at one time???


----------



## Architect1281 (Oct 14, 2012)

2 cents - when desegining sports or athletic / training facilities other than gymnasiums that would accomodate spectator sports which would clearly be A3 A4

I use B- Business traing and skill development and calculate occupancy loads at 50 to 100 sf / occupant.

places like dance studio, martial arts, yoga weight, aerobic and the like -

the A 15/ sf is insane to apply to those.

recently reviewed and approved a university rock climbing training facility at just such a use class.

everything works out fine.


----------



## cda (Oct 14, 2012)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> 2 cents - when desegining sports or athletic / training facilities other than gymnasiums that would accomodate spectator sports which would clearly be A3 A4I use B- Business traing and skill development and calculate occupancy loads at 50 to 100 sf / occupant.
> 
> places like dance studio, martial arts, yoga weight, aerobic and the like -
> 
> ...


have you tried to read the chicago buildingbama code??

yes nice to use common sense!!!!!


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 15, 2012)

climb64,

Also, welcome aboard to the Building Codes Forum! If you already know

that the City of Chicago will take the "hard line" on interpretation of the

Chicago building codes, as a suggestion, you might want to schedule a

meeting with the city's Economic Development person (if there is one)

first, before going to the BO & Plans Examiner. How receptive is the city

to your "new" business? If they take a hard line on the Occ. Load &

fixture calcs. per person, have you got a Plan B location in mind, ..saaaay,

in the `burbs outside of Chicago. Some of the smaller jurisdictions are

more receptive! Also, as a suggestion, try not to overwhelm the city with

data from other cities. A few neighboring cities will set the tone of you

locating in Chicago versus locating in a nearby suburb. (i.e. - you're

providing another revenue stream to them, or maybe to a suburb).

As you already know, the data you submit should be factual and current

with "like sized" facilities.

As others have stated, .."AHJ" stands for the Authority Having

Jurisdiction. In your case, it's the city of Chicago!

Keep us informed if you can.

.


----------

