Tower block fire - london

dowie · 14 Jun 2017 at 17:58

Cern said:
"Clearly dangerous" you say? Not according to the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who refused to listen to residents' concerns and allow an independent fire safety review.

And besides, it seems to have been made far more dangerous by a refurbishment that clad the building in flammable materials.

It boggles the mind that you would be trying to make a case for gentrification of "prime real estate" at such a time. Really?

why does it boggle the mind that I'd advocate an outdated building be re-developed? Especially when you've seen it is clearly dangerous?

this was the original point:

dowie said:
the price of land ought to make it easier to get rid of buildings like that one... frankly if we managed social housing on a London wide basis then we could easily sell off tower blocks like that in prime locations to developers and build far more homes further out

that the price of real estate ought to make it easier to get rid of buildings like that

Cern · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:01

dowie said:
why does it boggle the mind that I'd advocate an outdated building be re-developed? Especially when you've seen it is clearly dangerous?

Because you're not advocating pulling down an outdated building and replacing it with something better for the SAME occupants. You want to move them elsewhere and gentrify the location. And you're also avoiding the point that the building seems to have been made MORE dangerous, not less, by the refurbishment work.

Cern · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:02

dowie said:
the whole thread is people discussing various aspects - what is wrong with pointing out that we'd be better off without dangerous buildings like that in the first place? How is that heartless?

I think your usage of the term "prime real estate" in this context tells us all we need to know.

JohnnyG · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:03

Terminal_Boy said:
The same cunning ruse is used to call the eastern edge of Shepard's Bush "West Kensington'.

Exactly

dowie said:
It is pretty much prime real estate, I'm not sure that a high rise like that has really served the community well, it was clearly dangerous and could have been sold/knocked down and better housing built elsewhere with the proceeds - given the proximity to Notting Hill this would be absolutely fine for re-developement

It's proximity to Notting Hill has no bearing on it at all, you'd need to go there to understand the topography.
Knocking down all the social housing in an area that isn't that expensive then building more in an area that isn't that expensive is pointless, you would have to renovate a massive area to make this part of London exclusive or appealing to developers as there's just so much of it.

dowie · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:03

Cern said:
Because you're not advocating pulling down an outdated building and replacing it with something better for the SAME occupants. You want to move them elsewhere and gentrify the location. And you're also avoiding the point that the building seems to have been made MORE dangerous, not less, by the refurbishment work.

Yes I do, that is kind of the whole point that makes it feasible to fund such a thing. The building/land is valuable and economically viable for a new development. I'm not avoiding the point that the building has been made ore dangerous - it is rather irrelevant if the point being discussed is knocking it down!

Above&Beyond · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:13

The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.

JohnnyG · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:17

Calm down all.

ZG002 · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:19

Above&Beyond said:
The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.

In this fire, yeah. But this isn't how it's supposed to burn in the event of a flat fire, the design is that the fire will be contained within that flat or at least that floor with fire breaks between floors.

Often these blocks have one staircase, in which the fire service need access as its planned the fire will be fought from inside.

It's a complete failure of the building in terms of the spread of fire.

Caged · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:23

If the existing building was built (refurbished) to code (which it allegedly was) then just building a new one to the same codes doesn't make it inherently safer. Either the codes have not kept up with modern building methods and materials used, or the work is not being inspected properly.

Abraxaz1 · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:23

Jesus what did I start.

I love how 5 live are saying "why does it take a disaster like this to change things, do we not care about people" obviously have never been near industry. It took multiple tragedies to bring in the multiple regulations we have, i.e. flixborough disaster and piper alpha brought in the dsear regulations.

Unfortunately you cannot regulate for every possible situation as it would mean no work would be done. There is a risk vs cost involved in all work. If the risk is low then there is no point spending a large amount of money on it

Rroff · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:28

Abraxaz1 said:
Unfortunately you cannot regulate for every possible situation as it would mean no work would be done. There is a risk vs cost involved in all work. If the risk is low then there is no point spending a large amount of money on it

A low but foreseeable risk to human life is another matter really.

Mynight · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:30

Has it been confirmed the cause then?

The speculation I've seen could have been prevented and I'm fairly sure are covered under regs already.

Cern · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:31

Above&Beyond said:
The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.

That advice was based on assessments that a fire would most likely spread relatively slowly internally. Flats have fire doors etc. But of course a fire spreading rapidly externally via newly installed cladding (if this turns out to be the cause) rather invalidates that 'stay put' policy.

dowie · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:39

Above&Beyond said:
The advice to stay in your house seems to be rather poor if this sort of fire takes hold. The cladding is looking the likely culprit as to why it spread so quickly.

probably advice that was put in place before the (seemingly) dodgy cladding was installed

Nasher · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:42

As always, some billionaire will be behind the corner cutting. There will be a token hearing, they will throw some cash at people and they will get away with it :/

Caged · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:44

For anybody interested in the engineering part of this, you will find this interesting https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Adam_Curtis_-_The_Great_British_Housing_Disaster

robfosters · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:48

Abraxaz1 said:
Jesus what did I start.

I love how 5 live are saying "why does it take a disaster like this to change things, do we not care about people" obviously have never been near industry. It took multiple tragedies to bring in the multiple regulations we have, i.e. flixborough disaster and piper alpha brought in the dsear regulations.

Unfortunately you cannot regulate for every possible situation as it would mean no work would be done. There is a risk vs cost involved in all work. If the risk is low then there is no point spending a large amount of money on it

Every episode of Aircrash investigation I've watched always ends with new procedures and regulations being brought in to prevent the incident happening again.

adolf hamster · 14 Jun 2017 at 18:50

robfosters said:
Every episode of Aircrash investigation I've watched always ends with new procedures and regulations being brought in to prevent the incident happening again.

i think the issue here is this wasn't some amazingly new issue we'd discovered as is often the case with air accidents (for example the comet disasters really brought about the notion that fatigue is an important trait of a material).

it was very preventable.

Dis86 · 14 Jun 2017 at 19:01

adolf hamster said:
i think the issue here is this wasn't some amazingly new issue we'd discovered as is often the case with air accidents (for example the comet disasters really brought about the notion that fatigue is an important trait of a material).

it was very preventable.

Potentially very preventable. We don't know the cause.

silverblack · 14 Jun 2017 at 19:09

Does it matter if the cause was exploding fridge,heating system,somebody falling asleep with a lit fag ?
The real crime here is the cladding being made from the same material as fire lighters.