you were sure someone WAS guilty before the facts are in... Not only that you WANTED that to be the case in absence of the facts being established
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
you were sure someone WAS guilty before the facts are in... Not only that you WANTED that to be the case in absence of the facts being established
Ok you need to consider this with a slightly less emotive perspective (difficult I know). But when many residents are asked what upgrades they would like to see, Aesthetic improvement comes very high on the list. People want to feel proud of where they live and its a fact that visible improvements come hand in hand with a reduction in crimes. Now you might be correct in that the works were initiated because of visible impact of the surrounding area, but we don't know.
Secondly reducing heating bills is something that is also very high in occupiers "wish lists" and under UK law you can not over clad a residential building without increasing the insulation levels. The reason that cladding used is because in comparable terms its a very lightweight material and more often that not 50's and 60's concrete towers were built relatively close to their structural limits. On the office block over clad projects I've been involved in our choices were very limited due to loading issues on the existing concrete frame / spandrels.
Something has gone spectacularly wrong here though, it went from the fourth floor to the eighteenth in under 10 minutes, that is so unusual that the cladding might not be the only reason that it spread so fast. Again though it's not known until the investigation is complete.
Our regulations are very robust but something that we have spoken about for years in the office is how long it takes in the construction industry to change legislation in reaction to live scenarios. If you compare the industry with something like the aviation industry, we move at almost glacial speeds. In a air disaster there is an investigation, the findings are then rolled out by the Aviation authority and within weeks / months those changes are live, in the construction industry it can take years!
This is for one reason only, the building regs are an Act of Parliament and anything involving government takes an incredible length of time complete and they often become political (as this case is clearly showing).
What has been needed for years is an independent body (like the aviation authority) to take control of the construction industry, with the authority to make changes faster than the house of commons, in response to expert testing.
The fact is this report has been sat on because politically it was a time bomb in a time of government led austerity. It would have been a political disaster to have forced the cost of additional upgrades on to strapped LA’s, and people have died for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
do you honestly, genuinely believe that?
We can probably, quite reasonably, expect our tower blocks to not go up like a tinderbox when a fire starts in a single flat. Surely?
No you can't expect nothing bad to happen. You can expect an enquiry to find out what went wrong to see if anything can be done about it
Well in my professional opinion as a desk chair expert it doesn't look very fire resistant
.In this instance Asim18, you are wrong. Especially in older properties domestic policy is stay and wait and exit routes are designed with this in mind. In commercial environments, which includes hotels etc they operate on a total evac policy and exit planning is designed accordingly. That is the reason that you don't see stampedes in those environments, the stair cases are designed to accommodate the flow of people, in domestic scenarios the stairwells would cause issues because they weren't designed to take a 100% occupancy exit flow.
I find it quite worrying that anyone could think a fire in one flat engulfing an entire hirise in duck a short time is ok.
Edited simply should not have gone up so quickly.
The residents should have been safe in their flat for some time. But that kind of goes out the window when there's no fire alarm or the external walls themselves are on fire.
NHBC!?
Not so sure central government cuts would be the root cause. People rightfully very angry and looking for people to blame so naturally going right to the top.
I think perhaps the management company and the contractor they hired to refurb the block might be where the buck stops. Most of these management companies operate purely for profit, not the well being and maintenance of the people and properties they look after. There's genuinely very little regulation on them and they can quite literally hold residents/councils hostage with unexpected bills for emergency works needed that only came about due to them not maintaining the property over a period of years. Proper regulation would at least mean they can be held to account.
They'd appoint the contractors to do the work for x amount, taking a % as a project fee themselves (despite the fact they are already paid to, you know, manage the property - so no real incentive for them to get the best value either, can only imagine the shady deals going on the win contracts. The contractor will then do the work as cheaply as possible so they've got as much profit leftover as possible. Seems they've gone with the cheapest cladding you'd get away with.
If other countries had banned it then really Britain should have. Possibly should have been an EU wide law for the same standards.
I think perhaps the management company and the contractor they hired to refurb the block might be where the buck stops. Most of these management companies operate purely for profit, not the well being and maintenance of the people and properties they look after. There's genuinely very little regulation on them and they can quite literally hold residents/councils hostage with unexpected bills for emergency works needed that only came about due to them not maintaining the property over a period of years. Proper regulation would at least mean they can be held to account.
They'd appoint the contractors to do the work for x amount, taking a % as a project fee themselves (despite the fact they are already paid to, you know, manage the property - so no real incentive for them to get the best value either, can only imagine the shady deals going on the win contracts. The contractor will then do the work as cheaply as possible so they've got as much profit leftover as possible. Seems they've gone with the cheapest cladding you'd get away with.
If other countries had banned it then really Britain should have. Possibly should have been an EU wide law for the same standards.
But the £8.7m was spent by the management company on renovations to promote revenue, not make the make the place safe.
A prime example of budget cuts is making landlords responsible for fire safety relieving the local fire service of the budget required. Of course it's cheaper (for the taxpayer as it's then factored into rent), but...
Nice House Badly Constructed ?
Personally no, they are little more than a warranty outfit.
I don't think its 'ok' I just don't think everything is avoidable. A lot of materials uses in building construction are flammable as fire retardance is not he only quality needed......
unfortunately we have the usual social media lynch mob in full effect who are all to keen to appoint blame (at their political opponents in the main) before we know even half the facts
Yes but they issues guidelines and best practice on building schemes / technical specifications for things like this?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,726
That's very true, but you have to remember we are posting in GD which requires an element of rashful thinking
Dwellings need fire safety certificates to get insurance if nothing else therefore they need inspections by the Fire service amongst others.
Why do we not have concrete numbers yet of people that are still missing?
Is it not rather straightforward to get a list of those that were registered as living in the building and then getting all those still alive cross referenced and checked off.
Is it not rather straightforward to get a list of those that were registered as living in the building and then getting all those still alive cross referenced and checked off.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
Come on, stop trying to be clever.
Of course you can't plan for everything and there is potential for some stuff to go wrong.
But in this very specific incident, it is completely okay for us to plan and design for this to never happen. Something has gone wrong and it was completely avoidable.
No there are design codes, guidance documents from CIRIA, BSI and many other professional bodies and organisations far more reputable than the National House Builders Council.
Unfortunately there could have been visitors, peoples away (perhaps on holiday), illegal lodgers. Exact number will probably never be known.