see, again: i'm not getting malice. he's legitimately interested in "getting it to code". and, the idea that recycling air between apartments is not a good one did make sense once i pointed it out: we're talking disease, smell, smoke, food, sound and anything and everything else going through the vents. he seemed to be most concerned about the value of the apartment given that change, and it alone might be enough to get him to patch the holes back up.

but, i'm still not sure he's getting the abstraction that this is an apartment and not a home. running through the fire code, it seemed to be that the regulations become increasingly strict depending on how many people are involved - which is itself just flat out stupid, but it reflects the (very stupid) dominant ideology in capitalism about risk and consequence.

if you own a detached house with one occupant (probably you), there are almost no rules about where to put the furnace. as a single occupant, you're allowed to take on as much risk as you'd want. risk to the neighbours doesn't seem to be factored in.

but, as the size of the apartment grows and the people that the landlord is taking risks *on behalf of* increases, the regulations increase. in other words, the legal reason he can't put a furnace in the kitchen is because he's not allowed to take that risk on my behalf (and the behalf of the other tenants).
but, i can't explain it like that because i'll be asked to waive the risk. it'll be viewed as negotiable. i don't own the risk, myself, it's collective in the building. i suppose the building could vote on it, but i'm more interested in what the fire code expert says about the nature of the risk.

he just kept going back to "normally, in a house..." and "the house code says..", despite repeatedly pointing out that these aren't the right codes.

but it's not malicious. he wants it done right, too.