Fire in London- everyone ok?

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 13:26

I'll be on shaky ground here, and I don't have all the facts... I'm relying on BBC news (Which for an allegedly pro-tory stance, they seem pretty critical of current tory actions).

After the recent tower-block disaster, 600 other towers are having their cladding checked.

To me, this feels like knee-jerk reaction to calm the public, just like taking your shoes off at the airport, and increased police presence at the bridges of UK cities because terrorists killed people at a bridge in London (Seriously? Bridges? Those terrorists must be in hysterics).

The news reports I've seen have emphasized the word "current" in all their reports.

The cladding does not meet 'current' fire safety standards.

They are also being criticized for not testing the 600 buildings quickly enough.

This raises the question of why are they testing the buildings at all? The refurbishment work is recorded and documented along with the materials used. Why isn't the batch number or version number or whatever just being tested against the current standard, instead of taking a sample of every single building and testing it?

Ignoring all that (maybe they want to be 'sure' that these buildings are actually cladded in what they are supposed to be cladded, they were built by the lowest bidder after all. I can accept that.

But why the emphasis on the word "current"? Is it ass-covering so they can say "At the time of building, the materials were of sufficient quality and met all the safety requirements".

These buildings are not going to suddenly burst in to flames just because the safety standards have changed. The new cladding they want to use is inevitably going to be ruled unacceptable in 5-10 years time as new standards are developed... Does that mean people should not move back in? In 5 years time we are going to be having the same situation with people talking about "Current" safety standards.

Is it the councils responsibility to tear it all out and replace it all every few years as new standards are introduced? I'm guessing half the stuff in my house doesn't meet some modern requirement or the other. I had to have a new fuse-box and breaker thingy installed just to get an extension cleared, even though no work was done on that. I've no doubt it is probably already obsolete 5 years later.

<Post merged with ongoing tower block discussion thread. Alan Phipps>

Post by **CBJ** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 14:58

Morkonan wrote:As the investigations continue and these buildings are examined, I imagine that we're going to see more and more faults exposed, from this cladding issue, to sprinkler system problems, to general fire safety/containment issues and even more.

I take it you missed the part where it was mentioned that this block, like many others, never had a sprinkler system. Also possibly the part where it was mentioned that the fire doors on the escape path were normally kept wedged open because they were in such regular use due to the poor reliability of the lifts (elevators to you

).

I have no doubt that safety standards were compromised (maybe within the letter of the law, maybe not) in the name of saving money, but that wasn't what you were implying in your original description. I find it quite plausible that there were some ulterior motives in the fitting of cladding (or perhaps more accurately in the process of setting financial priorities for upgrades to the block) but I don't find it plausible that there was any deliberate intent to indirectly engineer the removal of the blocks.

Post by **Alan Phipps** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 15:25

Jericho wrtote "Is it the councils responsibility to tear it all out and replace it all [cladding] every few years as new standards are introduced?"

I suspect the answer will always be that they have to comply with the 'current' legal safety standards and would have to react to a scheduled inspection finding those legal standards are not being complied with. The only alternative route would be a formal concession granted by an expert oversight body and based upon other relevant factors or practices. (One assumes that these blocks do have regular fire and safety inspections by a competent authority?)

A trivial parallel is that it seems that every year my daughter has to buy a new (expensive) competition riding hat because the British Horse Society demand compliance with the 'current' related British Safety Standard (that seems to change every year) before you can compete in their events and/or be insured. There may be nothing physically wrong or unsafe about the previous year's hat, but it doesn't have the right BS sticker and so is considered legally 'inadequate'.

Post by **UniTrader** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 17:13

isnt there some kind of "Bestandsschutz"? (guess right of continuace is the most accurate translation)

is basically means Buildings have to be built according to the current building Codes, but they dont have to be updated immediately when the building Codes change. You have to update everything to the current Building Codes when you do a renovation though. (for example we still have Asbestos in many older Buildings, but its always removed when changes are done to the Building)

@Alan are you sure the Helmets are changed and not just the Stickers? or maybe there is a need to make a yearly safety check to the helmets to get a current Sticker, but most think they need a new helmet every year?

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 17:55

Breaking news: the company that makes the cladding used (Reynobond PE) has discontinued it for use in tower blocks.

Memnoch · Post by **Memnoch** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 17:56

Looks like the company, Arconic, that sold the cladding has pulled the cladding from global sale:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -worldwide

Share prices for Arconic take a tumble:

https://www.ft.com/content/0106b7af-b9e ... 01f4eef7b2

Government faces £600m bill:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... -grenfell/

Redvers Ganderpoke · Post by **Redvers Ganderpoke** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 18:31

Memnoch wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... -grenfell/

If the information is correct in that article it looks like the cladding was used "out of manufacture recommendations" (only on buildings up to 10m).

Interesting read as well.

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/ACM_cladding

Bishop149 · Post by **Bishop149** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 19:01

Morkonan wrote:Right now there exists perhaps the most powerful "righteous cause" that could be used in order to get rid of this housing, entirely. It would be very easy for people in power to use this disaster as an excuse to rid their communities of what some consider to be undesirable developments in favor of increasing property and land value while providing opportunities for real-estate developers and construction.

Indeed, I saw an interview with a resident in which he said "I'm not entirely sure this was an accident", going on to state that it has indeed provided an excellent excuse to simply bulldoze this and other buildings like it. Now I don't for a second think that this fire was all a dastardly plan to politically legitimise social cleansing, however you have to acknowledge how completely and utterly unwelcome the people living in these places have been made to feel that they might think such a thing.

Combine that with the fact that there is DEFINITELY much precedent for:
- Demolishing old social housing for "redevelopment"
- Promise that just as much (new and shiny!) social housing will form part of the new development.
- Ooops turns out that for [insert convoluted financial and legal reasons] the development will be 100% private after all, sorry!
You can certainly understand the scepticism.

Alan Phipps wrote:Until the official report comes in there are perhaps just too many variables at play to just assume outright malicious or illegal corner-cutting.

I dunno if this was directly what was being referenced but Camden council have come out and said that in the case of the buildings they evacuated the cladding fitted was definitely not the cladding they ordered, and they have the receipts to prove it.

I'm not at all surprised, this is utterly utterly standard issue building industry malpractice / corruption.
- Quote customer for expensive product X.
- Supply much cheaper and superficially indistinguishable product Y.
- Ha! they'll never notice, pocket the difference.
It happens on literally every building project ever to some degree or another. This time however it's potentially lethal.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 19:49

Redvers Ganderpoke wrote:If the information is correct in that article it looks like the cladding was used "out of manufacture recommendations" (only on buildings up to 10m).

Interesting read as well.

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/ACM_cladding

So... The faces of the building were covered with aluminum coated... plastic?

That's just brilliant... Why didn't they just go ahead and use something safer like styrofoam or wood?

Bishop149 wrote:... however you have to acknowledge how completely and utterly unwelcome the people living in these places have been made to feel that they might think such a thing.

Combine that with the fact that there is DEFINITELY much precedent for:
- Demolishing old social housing for "redevelopment"
- Promise that just as much (new and shiny!) social housing will form part of the new development.
- Ooops turns out that for [insert convoluted financial and legal reasons] the development will be 100% private after all, sorry!
You can certainly understand the scepticism.

Absolutely. That's exactly the sort of thing that I think people need to watch out for. There will definitely be people looking to push their own political, social or financial (personal interests) agenda, here, and they will jump at the chance to use this tragedy as a way to legitimize their goals and bring them about through public consensus based on a false "righteous cause."

Memnoch · Post by **Memnoch** » Mon, 26. Jun 17, 20:49

Another interesting one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upViHb8z4wY

Not so much a prediction really. More like "If you do this people will die." kind of thing.

Skism · Post by **Skism** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 01:59

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01896.html

Apparently some people are not happy with Grenfell tower residents being rehoused in their area...

Bigotry of the Rich.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 09:11

Skism wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01896.html

Apparently some people are not happy with Grenfell tower residents being rehoused in their area...

Bigotry of the Rich.

Not sure if it's all the "rich." By that, I mean that it's not necessarily money-bigot, since it might just be "old people who don't like change and want what they want." It appears to be an upscale housing/retirement/development sort of place. There are probably a lot of people there who moved there with certain expectations. That is understandable, from a certain point of view. Not a particularly humanitarian point of view, though..

But, the incompetence picking such a site, though... OK, they're going to move these people into an upscale development that has community facilities like a gym, theater, concierge, pool, etc.. and, since these people are "poor" and should basically be thankful that they're getting any housing at all coupled with the fact that it appears that they were burned out of their homes and lost friends and loved ones because of either greed or incompetence, since nobody gives two dry farts about poor people and immigrants....

It's a friggin riot waiting to happen.

These people are going to be standing across the street while all the privileged people, that can easily serve as surrogates for the oppression and disenfranchisement they, go to the gym to maintain their fit, healthy, bodies, swim in a nice pool and have fun, call the concierge to make dining arrangements and walk to the theater to see the newest screenings...

It's gonna turn into a powderkeg and social-justice-warriors are going to flock to the place like Mecca just to throw fuel on the fire.

"We're going to move you to a really nice place since it's obvious we screwed up and a bunch of people died and all your stuffs got burned up. But, your place isn't going to be as nice as the places real human beings live and you can't use their gym, their theater, their concierge, their pool or anything that is theirs. Oh, but don't worry - You can watch them use those things and then you can stick a thumb up your butt and spin and won't that be nice..."

felter · Post by **felter** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 10:48

Skism wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01896.html

Apparently some people are not happy with Grenfell tower residents being rehoused in their area...

Bigotry of the Rich.

Karma can be a bitch.

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 10:58

Skism wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01896.html

Apparently some people are not happy with Grenfell tower residents being rehoused in their area...

Bigotry of the Rich.

Not so much the area, but the fact that they just paid £x-Million for an apartment and their new next door neighbor got it free.

They had no choice but to house them there. After Lilly Allen's public outrage and attempt to stir up civil unrest with her claims of 150 people murdered, she didn't even take in a single family and give them shelter. At least she didn't apologize on behalf of the whole of the UK.

My dad was a fireman all his working life, and has been to all the big blazes in London in post-war asbestos cheap housing. Never once did he ever tell a 'fire' story because they were always too awful.

He was happy to talk about the times they'd find random body parts where people had dismembered bodies and tried to burn them in different locations to cover the crime. Limbs and torsos don't really burn away just because you put a bit of petrol on them. Apparently that is happy bedtime story stuff for children compared to putting out fires in bulk-public housing.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 18:11

Skism wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 01896.html

Apparently some people are not happy with Grenfell tower residents being rehoused in their area...

Bigotry of the Rich.

Not sure if it's all the "rich." By that, I mean that it's not necessarily money=bigot, since it might just be "old people who don't like change and want what they want." It appears to be an upscale housing/retirement/development sort of place. There are probably a lot of people there who moved there with certain expectations. That is understandable, from a certain point of view. Not a particularly humanitarian point of view, though..

But, the incompetence picking such a site, though... OK, they're going to move these people into an upscale development that has community facilities like a gym, theater, concierge, pool, etc.. and, since these people are "poor" and should basically be thankful that they're getting any housing at all coupled with the fact that it appears that they were burned out of their homes and lost friends and loved ones because of either greed or incompetence, since nobody gives two dry farts about poor people and immigrants....

It's a friggin riot waiting to happen.

These people are going to be standing across the street while all the privileged people, that can easily serve as surrogates for the oppression and disenfranchisement they might feel, go to the gym to maintain their fit, healthy, bodies, swim in a nice pool and have fun, call the concierge to make dining arrangements and walk to the theater to see the newest screenings...

It's gonna turn into a powderkeg and social-justice-warriors are going to flock to the place like Mecca just to throw fuel on the fire.

"We're going to move you to a really nice place since it's obvious we screwed up and a bunch of people died and all your stuffs got burned up. But, your place isn't going to be as nice as the places real human beings live and you can't use their gym, their theater, their concierge, their pool or anything that is theirs. Oh, but don't worry - You can watch them use those things and then you can stick a thumb up your butt and spin and won't that be nice..."

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 18:23

- the list so far..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng- ... sts-mapped

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 21:12

Looks like it's time to invest in heavy equipment manufacturers in the UK... You know, the ones that make bulldozers and wrecking balls.

It's coming. I can feel it in my cladding...

Memnoch · Post by **Memnoch** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 22:02

I wonder what's going to happen to the cladding they pull down. I noticed that they seemed to be taking great care when removing it. Seriously though, I hope they aren't going to try and sell this on to some poor unsuspecting mark.

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 22:58

- they've also found faulty gas connections to the building as well
- feed-pipes inefficiently cladded..

- there will be an official Government enquiry..

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 27. Jun 17, 23:51

Memnoch wrote:I wonder what's going to happen to the cladding they pull down. I noticed that they seemed to be taking great care when removing it. Seriously though, I hope they aren't going to try and sell this on to some poor unsuspecting mark.

There's nothing wrong with the cladding, itself. It's just not designed for tall buildings. It's fine for shorter buildings, even with the poly core. (AFAIK)

Since a great deal of it is aluminum, it might recycle well, too. Since it's reclaimed material, it also might be worthy of buying at that price for other projects.

I knew a guy that bought all the metal doors that were replaced at a university. He built a complete "armored survival shelter" out of all of them... Go figure, eh?

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Fire in London- everyone ok?

"Current" fire saftey standards, and tower blocks