Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

How many tower blocks will be condemned?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2017 at 10:15 AM, Riedquat said:

If it's the cladding and not the blocks, not many? Cladding that's been put up can be taken down again.

The cheapest, quickest and best solution.

Share this post


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

Police should have a list of people reported missing.

That might give them a rough idea but no more than that. There will doubtless be lots of cases where someone hasn't seen a neighbour since the fire but they may have got out and be somewhere else now, they may have not even been in at the time, or they may not have escaped. And how many might there be where even the neighbours aren't sure how many are in a nearby flat?

Share this post


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

That might give them a rough idea but no more than that. There will doubtless be lots of cases where someone hasn't seen a neighbour since the fire but they may have got out and be somewhere else now, they may have not even been in at the time, or they may not have escaped. And how many might there be where even the neighbours aren't sure how many are in a nearby flat?

The other consideration is the fact that many flats will have more people living in them than are officially recorded, extended family and friends etc, a symptom of the housing crisis is massive over crowding where councils turn a blind eye remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That might give them a rough idea but no more than that. There will doubtless be lots of cases where someone hasn't seen a neighbour since the fire but they may have got out and be somewhere else now, they may have not even been in at the time, or they may not have escaped. And how many might there be where even the neighbours aren't sure how many are in a nearby flat?

That is the number which usually published in such situation (people reported missing). 100 people reported missing gives you a better idea of the scale than the number of 17 officially dead.  

Playing it down makes people even more angry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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. 

My gut feeling is that the rules weren't followed, but we'll have to wait and see.

The problem, however, is that the rules are "performance based" rather than prescriptive. In other words, there's nothing to say you can't use oily rags, instead, you have to prove that your materials and method of construction meet a certain level of safety performance (either by large scale testing, or by reference to pre-existing test databases).

If the rules weren't followed, then you have to ask why they were not enforced? Were buildings control negligent, or worse, complicit? Were BC staff inadequately trained for the job at hand? Is it that the "performance based" legislation is simply too complex to enforce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ChumpusRex said:

The problem, however, is that the rules are "performance based" rather than prescriptive. In other words, there's nothing to say you can't use oily rags, instead, you have to prove that your materials and method of construction meet a certain level of safety performance (either by large scale testing, or by reference to pre-existing test databases).

I don't think that's a problem. If you can somehow demonstrate that oily rags are safe then it should be OK to use them. Also a blanket ban or permission on certain materials wouldn't be a great idea either, since some are OK in one context but not another (would this cladding have been much of an issue if it was on a bungalow?)

Clearly something has failed, badly, but I'd be inclined to look at the details rather than the broad picture.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChumpusRex said:

If the rules weren't followed, then you have to ask why they were not enforced? Were buildings control negligent, or worse, complicit? Were BC staff inadequately trained for the job at hand? Is it that the "performance based" legislation is simply too complex to enforce?

The property managers seem to gave ignored common sense, rules, fires in similar properties they manage elsewhere and residents concerns:

https://grenfellactiongroup.wordpress.com/2016/11/20/kctmo-playing-with-fire/

It's not just about an engineer missing a fault on his tenth job of the day.

It's symptomatic of corruption in the UK property industry removing any meaningful responsibility from those in control.  If the bankers can get money for nothing, why shouldn't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sterling Loss said:

It's symptomatic of corruption in the UK property industry removing any meaningful responsibility from those in control.  If the bankers can get money for nothing, why shouldn't we?

This hits the nail on the head.

The whole property game is about milking as much as possible from the populous with as little accountability as possible from all aspects of the "industry".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the rich have to confront London dump, congestion, travel nightmare and general unpleasantness when they leave their luxury house - unless they use a helicopter to go outside of London and that would only be for the few super duper rich.  

I find it really hard to believe that even the "rich" are happy with what London has become (never mind the rest of the UK which is becoming ever more "London" with each day that passes).

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 7:56 AM, interestrateripoff said:

Given the recent tragic events, how many of the countries tower blocks have been clad in materials which makes them a death trap?

Social housing crisis looming?

Not to mention the lack of fire escapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, billybong said:

Even the rich have to confront London dump, congestion, travel nightmare and general unpleasantness when they leave their luxury house - unless they use a helicopter to go outside of London and that would only be for the few super duper rich.  

Agreed. It's a nightmare, which is why most are better off spending the winter months of the year in the Caribbean. Or some similar destination.

London in the Summer is just awful as well. So you need a nice house either in the country (Cornwall is stunning), or on the Riviera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite convenient if it writes off all high rises in London at a time when immigration (demand) is decreasing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, sprinkler systems are unnecessary and fire escapes for a 24 storey building are impossible -  they would quickly become a lethal smoke trap and trample hazard.  Zonal fire alarms might be feasible, but the main practice is containment by fireproof floors and walls and good doors.  It would have been fine in this tower except some idiot put a flammable wrapper on the outside of the building.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElPapasito said:

Look, sprinkler systems are unnecessary and fire escapes for a 24 storey building are impossible 

(1) What do you mean by 'unnecessary'? If that is the case, why do most of the modern tall office buildings in central London all have sprinklers? Surely if it saves 1 life it is 'necessary'?

(2) Fire escapes can be built externally, on the side of the building. Ugly, yes, but perfectly possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Errol said:

(1) What do you mean by 'unnecessary'? If that is the case, why do most of the modern tall office buildings in central London all have sprinklers? Surely if it saves 1 life it is 'necessary'?

(2) Fire escapes can be built externally, on the side of the building. Ugly, yes, but perfectly possible.

If the cladding caused the fire and all these tower blocks were find before hand then the sprinklers are unnecessary.  I think this tower blocks must have been safe before the cladding I can't believe there was never a fire in one before - so why in the past were fires contained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElPapasito said:

Look, sprinkler systems are unnecessary and fire escapes for a 24 storey building are impossible -  they would quickly become a lethal smoke trap and trample hazard.  Zonal fire alarms might be feasible, but the main practice is containment by fireproof floors and walls and good doors.  It would have been fine in this tower except some idiot put a flammable wrapper on the outside of the building.

 

I don't agree that fire escape or extra stairs are impossible as plenty of high buildings have them at specified intervals.  

I do agree that in a proper, responsible and wholistic assessment of a building and with follow up monitoring etc they might not always have to be introduced - similarly for sprinkler systems.

However I'm not even sure that they'll remove all the firelighter cladding from the remaining existing buildings or stop using that cladding for new buildings.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


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

I don't agree that fire escape or extra stairs are impossible as plenty of high buildings have them at specified intervals.  

I do agree that in a proper, responsible and wholistic assessment of a building and with follow up monitoring etc they might not always be necessary in small area buildings - similarly for sprinkler systems.

However I'm not even sure that they'll remove all the firelighter cladding from the remaining existing buildings or stop using that cladding for new buildings.

If I were in charge of a tower block, I would do so ASAP - who wants their name on the front page of the daily mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

If the cladding caused the fire and all these tower blocks were find before hand then the sprinklers are unnecessary.  I think this tower blocks must have been safe before the cladding I can't believe there was never a fire in one before - so why in the past were fires contained?

Yes, it's been widely reported that there have been thousands of fires in these sort of tower blocks and that were contained to the flat in which they started. The original design was sound and did its job. It seems pretty likely something has gone wrong following the renovation - and the cladding seems to be the obvious answer at this stage.

I think there could be some confusion over this cladding because the media are quoting someone from America where the company appears to have different names for the grades. In America the grade called Reynobond FR (Fire Resistant) seems to be made from mineral fibre - whereas in Europe Reynobond "FR" seems to be made from "fire resistant polythene" - the equivalent of the American "FR" grade is called " Reynobond A2" in Europe and is made from mineral fibre.

Share this post


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

Yes, it's been widely reported that there have been thousands of fires in these sort of tower blocks and that were contained to the flat in which they started. The original design was sound and did its job. It seems pretty likely something has gone wrong following the renovation - and the cladding seems to be the obvious answer at this stage.

I think there could be some confusion over this cladding because the media are quoting someone from America where the company appears to have different names for the grades. In America the grade called Reynobond FR (Fire Resistant) seems to be made from mineral fibre - whereas in Europe Reynobond "FR" seems to be made from "fire resistant polythene" - the equivalent of the American "FR" grade is called " Reynobond A2" in Europe and is made from mineral fibre.

Thanks for an interesting post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Thanks for an interesting post.

From what I can work out from these ratings on the manufacturers website, it looks like the mineral fibre version of Reynobond is the only type of Reynobond that is truly non combustible.

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/en/info_page/certified_fire_solutions_aluminium_cladding_facades_roofs.asp

 

 

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:   217 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.