Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

How many tower blocks will be condemned?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :blink: Holy crap, I bet that new build homes could have been built for less than that on council owned land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :blink: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by JustAnotherProle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JustAnotherProle said:

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.

It's not just greed though. We have a really dysfunctional benefit system which means people who don't work can get huge amounts of housing benefit to pay the rent which means a) rents have a floor in the form of housing benefit and slum landlords can always find a tenant and don't get punished for having shit quality properties and b ) those not receiving housing benefit have to pay from their own pocket and compete for housing with those that get it subsidised. Of course in theory London should be open to all but it seems to me that at the moment only the very rich and those on benefits or in council homes can afford to live in London (the latter normally living in pretty grim and dangerous slumholes especially if they are on benefits and in private rentals). It is a combination of the worst excesses of both capitalism (greed and exploitation) and socialism (unlimited welfare) imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by sideysid
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.