Riedquat Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 hour ago, mowlem said: Green issues also played a part. The chalcot estate has the same cladding. The architect was so proud of the cladding..... http://www.building.co.uk/chalcot-estate-altered-towers/3113501.article CO2 reduction was part of the initial strategy, says Sean Lockie, director at Faithful + Gould, the project manager on the scheme. “The 30% figure came about once we had looked at all the options that were open to us in terms of the cladding technologies, as well as the heating, lighting and power loads.” How do you figure that green issues played a part, just because someone chose the wrong solution? Unless there was a general push from the green lobby to use this particular stuff, applied in this particular manner, that doesn't really stand up. The question is who knew about the risks (and was what was ordered what was got) - whoever did that then OKed it anyway is responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattW Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 When they were designed, were these tower blocks supposed to last 40 years? I think they have reached the end of their life cycle. For safety's sake tear 'em down and rebuild with low rise flats. And that's from someone who apprecaiates brutalism Was it really an 80k refurb cost per flat? Holy crap, I bet that new build homes could have been built for less than that on council owned land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brexitishope Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 9 hours ago, geezer466 said: It would be cheaper to evict, knock the blocks down and tell the people to rent in the private sector..... Reports that LFB had trouble with the dry risers in the building as someone had nicked parts of it..... I just read that the fire brigade are no longer told to inspect these building on a yearly basis like they used to. This would have been picked up in previous times. Money before people yet again. Still at least the foreign aid budget is safe, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1 minute ago, MattW said: When they were designed, were these tower blocks supposed to last 40 years? I think they have reached the end of their life cycle. For safety's sake tear 'em down and rebuild with low rise flats. And that's from someone who apprecaiates brutalism Was it really an 80k refurb cost per flat? Holy crap, I bet that new build homes could have been built for less than that on council owned land. I don't think anyone's said the building was fundamentally unsound because of its age and original design, sounds more like poor foresight and bodges done later that have caused all the problems (something sure as hell sounds iffy at 80k per flat!). A 40 year lifespan for housing sounds very short, people can easily live in the same place for longer than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highcontrast Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca13 Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Great excuse to cleanse LONDON knock the towers down and build luxury empty investment properties.. poor people can live in Birmingham.. what we need is investment.. if anything at least it would make the trains less crowded.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) It seems a bit of a stretch trying to allocate all the blame to the Conservative Party when this type of cladding was used under NuLabour as well and the original building was built in 1974 so presumably the fire escapes now are the same as then. No doubt the Conservatives deserve some blame and their fair share of the blame. All in it together. That is unless there's something specifically Conservative related that caused the fire and about fire escapes etc. I believe the fire risks were known even under NuLabour. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-fire-and-cladding-dangers Edited June 16, 2017 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 2 hours ago, billybong said: It seems a bit of a stretch trying to allocate all the blame to the Conservative Party when this type of cladding was used under NuLabour as well and the original building was built in 1974 so presumably the fire escapes now are the same as then. No doubt the Conservatives deserve some blame and their fair share of the blame. All in it together. That is unless there's something specifically Conservative related that caused the fire and about fire escapes etc. I believe the fire risks were known even under NuLabour. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-fire-and-cladding-dangers True. But the Tories have been in for the past 7 years. It's impossible for them to dodge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olliegog Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 EU rules europa.eu/youreurope/business/public-tenders/rules-procedures/index_en.htm By law they have to tender it out; and not just to UK, but any company in the EU. They also aren't even allowed to specify we want 'x' cladding by 'x' company. You can only say we want 'pink cladding to BSxxxx' (British Standards codes) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherProle Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) The problem appears to be that as the property vampires spread over the once working class areas of London the poor are just an annoyance to thier profits. The builders of the gentrified blocks built close to the tower of tradgedy demanded that something was done to the poor blocks appearance so it didn't spoil their views, hence we have the cheapest solution possible and multiple deaths as a result. Literally saving £2 per square meter using the dangerous cladding rather than the extra cash for the fire safe solution is typical of the type of evil in charge of this horror. No human should be living in these buildings, any multiple occupancy building that has residences not reachable by a fire hose or with the most up to date fire prevention systems should be torn down, the sickening and casual attitude towards peoples lives shows the true colours of those in charge of housing this in the UK and particularly London. I really hope this actually promotes some type of change of attitude towards social housing once and for all, time to start building real homes again, not cramming people into dangerous accomodation to satisfy the rentier demand for profits. I have no doubt that the figures are going to climb into the three figures as the days go on and the people are angry, I can only imagine how those left in these type of buildings must feel right now especially if you have kids. Edited June 16, 2017 by JustAnotherProle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherProle Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, fru-gal said: The problem is that if everyone wants to live in London and they cannot really afford it then they will be put in these cheap high rises by the council as the cheapest option. As we all know, there are not thousands of cheap properties for those in work, let alone those not working or poorer people so where is everyone supposed to live? The capital has become and overcrowded, disparate and dangerous nightmare. Indeed, succesive governments policy is now coming home to roost. Everything from immigration to housing policy has effectively destroyed the city for all but the super rich. It wouldn't be so bad if they had created the needed housing outside the city with good links to places of work, but no, we have the nightmare now apparent to all of us based on the greed of the few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sterling Loss Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 20 hours ago, LC1 said: Insane. Shouldn't that read: it was all about throwing taxpayer money to corporate chums and party donors. Meanwhile you could genuinely invest in social housing? Hang the lot of them. Exactly. Residents were complaining about safety before the fire, because the work had been done on the cheap. Fireproof cladding would have cosy 5k more; sprinklers 200k. Where did the 10 million go?? The public enquiry will almost certainly bend over backwards trying to avoid asking this question. Residents and families will have no right to ask their own questions in an attempt to find a publicly acceptable scapegoat. For 10 million, the block should have been safe. I don't doubt that funds will be made available to replace similar cladding fitted elsewhere, that the work done will be equally shoddy, and money disappear to the benefit of the same people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideysid Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) As stated previously these botched refurbishments are done as cheaply as possible. I worked in the area for years and saw it happening all over. Aesthetics before saftey and function to pander for the primary need of being less of an eye sore to the typical K&C resident. What makes this even more nauseating is that most of these people claim to be liberal, and are all very self-congratulating for voting as such. Ivory towers and all that. Edited June 16, 2017 by sideysid . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, sideysid said: As stated previously these botched refurbishments are done as cheaply as possible. I worked in the area for years and saw it happening all over. Aesthetics before saftey and function to pander for the primary need of being less of an eye sore to the typical K&C resident. What makes this even more nauseating is that most of these people claim to be liberal, and are all very self-congratulating for voting as such. Ivory towers and all that. IMO there's a reasonable assumption that anything permitted for use for that type of job shouldn't be capable of going up in smoke like that, so whilst cheap may be nasty in other ways this shouldn't be one of them. If everything was fitted in accordance with the rules then you've got a wider issue there. The direction that the anger is going in "Oh it's all those nasty rich people not caring if the poor get burned" looks very misplaced. And aesthetics are very important (although with such a block anything you do is trying to polish a turd). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankief Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2017/06/16/20-london-high-rises-with-grenfell-cladding-system Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slawek Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Riedquat said: IMO there's a reasonable assumption that anything permitted for use for that type of job shouldn't be capable of going up in smoke like that, so whilst cheap may be nasty in other ways this shouldn't be one of them. If everything was fitted in accordance with the rules then you've got a wider issue there. The direction that the anger is going in "Oh it's all those nasty rich people not caring if the poor get burned" looks very misplaced. And aesthetics are very important (although with such a block anything you do is trying to polish a turd). If the rules were followed then that is even worse. It means that the whole system (government, councils, construction companies, fire safety organisation) is corrupt or highly incompetent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherProle Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Riedquat said: IMO there's a reasonable assumption that anything permitted for use for that type of job shouldn't be capable of going up in smoke like that, so whilst cheap may be nasty in other ways this shouldn't be one of them. If everything was fitted in accordance with the rules then you've got a wider issue there. The direction that the anger is going in "Oh it's all those nasty rich people not caring if the poor get burned" looks very misplaced. And aesthetics are very important (although with such a block anything you do is trying to polish a turd). I think it's more the attitude that the wealthy don't want to be reminded that they have poor people living around them so they went for a cosmetic solution that ended in multiple deaths. I'm afraid that this just highlights the massive gulf between the wealthy and the poor in London and the lack of intelligence about social housing and mass immigration from central government. The people in charge are so far removed from the reality of life that the vast majority of us experience it's no wonder they are caught on the back foot when these things happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, JustAnotherProle said: I think it's more the attitude that the wealthy don't want to be reminded that they have poor people living around them so they went for a cosmetic solution that ended in multiple deaths. I'm afraid that this just highlights the massive gulf between the wealthy and the poor in London and the lack of intelligence about social housing and mass immigration from central government. And fine, even that shouldn't be a negative to the people in that block. It's not as if anyone wealthy would want it to burn either, whatever it looked like before it looks even worse now after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slawek Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Are the government playing down the number of fatalities in this tragedy? There is no official number of missing, number published by the Sun is around 70, there are however unofficial reports coming apparently from police/firemen that total number could be up to 150. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, slawek said: If the rules were followed then that is even worse. It means that the whole system (government, councils, construction companies, fire safety organisation) is corrupt or highly incompetent. No system is perfect and trying to make it so can end up with a suffocating, cloying, horribly over-regulated world, which is a direction we've gone too far down already. Cockup is usually a more plausible explanation than conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that every cockup should be shrugged off either, someone needs to end up in deep, deep trouble for this. Who that actually is remains to be seen - was it fitted properly and was fundamentally unsafe, or is it OK if used properly but someone took shortcuts, and if so should they have been spotted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, slawek said: Are the government playing down the number of fatalities in this tragedy? There is no official number of missing, number published by the Sun is around 70, there are however unofficial reports coming apparently from police/firemen that total number could be up to 150. Probably because there's no way of knowing for sure just how many are missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherProle Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, slawek said: Are the government playing down the number of fatalities in this tragedy? There is no official number of missing, number published by the Sun is around 70, there are however unofficial reports coming apparently from police/firemen that total number could be up to 150. Almost certainly, I understand that the 150 figure is closer to the truth, lets hope it isn't but right now they can't even access some of the building due to structural concerns. The government is probably extremely worried about a major back lash or even unrest if the figures were made public, the anger on the media by the locals against the council and govenrment is justifiable. I suspect they are mobilising police etc for a potential backlash before they announce the true scale of this disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slawek Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Riedquat said: Probably because there's no way of knowing for sure just how many are missing. Police should have a list of people reported missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 22 hours ago, crashmonitor said: At the end of the day it was more about what they put in( insulation) than what they didn't put in. And I am amazed that 80k per unit is supposed to be cost effective in our battle against global warming. No way would a private household want or have the means to spend a fraction of that unless you are Caroline Lucas. +1 you could spend that money in much more energy efficient ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 On 15/06/2017 at 8:15 AM, dougless said: Personally I would condemn most of them because they seem an inhuman way to live without thinking about the safety issues. As far as a Social Housing crisis, that has been growing nicely since 1979. This block was built in 1974. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.