Upon the face of it I have to agree with what you say Gary, the list of fire safety requirements that you state seem perfectly sensible to me. Perhaps a helipad is a bit OTT though.
Obviously we cannot pre-judge the findings of an official public enquiry, nor should we, but what seems to be coming to light is that the Building Safety standards, and Fire Safety requirements in force at the time, were met by the contractors. There is doubt however whether this PE cladding was approved for use or not, and it is becoming apparent that some Fire Safety inspections were not thorough enough.
As of this morning I hear that some 95 buildings have failed cladding tests, still another 505 to go.
Apparently some are more concerned with profits than they are human life.
I don't think that is quite true although it is tempting to think so, but of course budget constraints are a part of modern life. We should be asking who wrote the standards that were met, why were they not higher and more stringent? The answer will likely be that at the time they were deemed adequate.We should be asking why did the LFB issue advice to stay put in case of fire? The answer there will be that the "expected" type of fire was something like a chip pan and confined to one flat. It was not expected to apply if the whole building was aflame.
Indeed one guy interviewed on BBC and that his family were in their flat when the Fire brigade banged on the door and told them to get the hell out as quickly as possible. They only just made it. All the regulations and advice in place did not envisage nor cater, for an inferno of that type, as it had never happened before. Now that it has with such tragic results, the standards have been found wanting.
It would not surprise me if the standards all round are substantially upgraded as a result of this tragedy, and far more stringent safety inspections being made mandatory. And of course higher standards will mean higher costs, which will filter down to higher rents. Much of high rise housing is local Council owned and a high proportion is social or Housing Association with subsidised rents. Higher rents mean extra central government funding to Councils, which mean tax rises or cuts elsewhere.
But it is the continual fall out and backlash from all this that is as much concerning as the 79 people who lost their lives in the fire. It won't be long before Council tenants will refuse to live in tower blocks and demand re-housing elsewhere. Where will Councils put them without a massive new build program? Who will finance all that? Some tenants are refusing to move out holding up the re-cladding work. It could end up with court orders to move them out. They say we lived through refurbishment before, why can't we do it again? Fair question.
Have you read the Washington Post article, the USA still has high rise fires in older buildings. Grenfell was designed in 1967 and built in 1974. There is no legislation requiring retrofitting sprinkler systems in buildings older than 7 years. I suspect that will now change.
The Grenfell Tower is 67M tall. The largest aerial platform nearest to London was the Surrey Fire Brigade's 42M aerial platform which was used to fight the fire.
The problem also is the space needed to put the aerial ladder truck in front of the buidling, it needs to be at a max angle of about 70 degrees for climbing up and down, otherwise people think the damn thing is too vertical and they have a very hard time climbing. That means that a 100 foot ladder can NOT read the 10th floor of a building, high rises are roughly 10 feet per floor, but instead only the 5th or maybe 6th floor due to the offset and max angle. The offset being the distance away from the building needed to extend the jacks etc to keep it from toppling over. The standard is to extend all the jacks the vehicle has but NO LESS than the ones on the side the ladder will be operated off of. Some can easily extend more than 10 feet outwards meaning ALOT of space is required to use the things, and alot of parking space is given up 'just in case'. That means there are very often trade-offs made when buildings are designed, which are then often abused by people parking in areas the fire trucks need saying 'I'll only be a minute'.
We used to be able to give out tickets, at $100US each, for parking in a Fire Lane or on a fire hydrant, one time we saw a guy at the ATM machine who had parked on the fire hydrant because there was no other parking nearby, my boss yelled out 'better move your car' and the guy responded 'Ill only be a minute I'm getting some cash', my boss yelled back 'get an extra hundred because you'll need it to pay the fine' and promptly put a ticket on the windshield! Needless to say the guy at the ATM was NOT a happy camper and we were no longer on his Christmas list!!
I see reports that 38 hospitals have suspect cladding. And I wouldn't be surprised if many student accommodation blocks at universities also need checking. Just looked via street view at the Renold building and Chandos house at Manchester university (ex UMIST buildings).
I've just finished watching PMQ in the House of Commons via parliament TV. The PM said that 120 towers have now failed fire tests. The point that she made was why have these cladding panels been fitted across all parts of the country when they clearly fail fire safety and building regulations?
*blink* It's when I come across posts like these that I get an image of someone flogging a dead horse then trying to pass off what's left of it, as a slice of ham ;) I don't know why.
Thank you for all the links and progress reports here, people. Sobering stuff :/
edit: I couldn't get the quote thing to word then - so I got rid of it in the end because it turned my reply into a hyperlink - which it wasn't.
Please wait here. Further instructions could pile up at any time. Thank you.
Simple truth? Both were no good at their jobs. But the PM couldn't officially sack them as they were democratically elected Councillors. Only a vote of no confidence could have done that. But they went before they were pushed.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Upon the face of it I have to
Upon the face of it I have to agree with what you say Gary, the list of fire safety requirements that you state seem perfectly sensible to me. Perhaps a helipad is a bit OTT though.
Obviously we cannot pre-judge the findings of an official public enquiry, nor should we, but what seems to be coming to light is that the Building Safety standards, and Fire Safety requirements in force at the time, were met by the contractors. There is doubt however whether this PE cladding was approved for use or not, and it is becoming apparent that some Fire Safety inspections were not thorough enough.
As of this morning I hear that some 95 buildings have failed cladding tests, still another 505 to go.
I don't think that is quite true although it is tempting to think so, but of course budget constraints are a part of modern life. We should be asking who wrote the standards that were met, why were they not higher and more stringent? The answer will likely be that at the time they were deemed adequate.We should be asking why did the LFB issue advice to stay put in case of fire? The answer there will be that the "expected" type of fire was something like a chip pan and confined to one flat. It was not expected to apply if the whole building was aflame.
Indeed one guy interviewed on BBC and that his family were in their flat when the Fire brigade banged on the door and told them to get the hell out as quickly as possible. They only just made it. All the regulations and advice in place did not envisage nor cater, for an inferno of that type, as it had never happened before. Now that it has with such tragic results, the standards have been found wanting.
It would not surprise me if the standards all round are substantially upgraded as a result of this tragedy, and far more stringent safety inspections being made mandatory. And of course higher standards will mean higher costs, which will filter down to higher rents. Much of high rise housing is local Council owned and a high proportion is social or Housing Association with subsidised rents. Higher rents mean extra central government funding to Councils, which mean tax rises or cuts elsewhere.
But it is the continual fall out and backlash from all this that is as much concerning as the 79 people who lost their lives in the fire. It won't be long before Council tenants will refuse to live in tower blocks and demand re-housing elsewhere. Where will Councils put them without a massive new build program? Who will finance all that? Some tenants are refusing to move out holding up the re-cladding work. It could end up with court orders to move them out. They say we lived through refurbishment before, why can't we do it again? Fair question.
Have you read the Washington Post article, the USA still has high rise fires in older buildings. Grenfell was designed in 1967 and built in 1974. There is no legislation requiring retrofitting sprinkler systems in buildings older than 7 years. I suspect that will now change.
Washington Post
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
You may think what you wish,
Thank you, I did Sir :-))
http://wikidiff.com/validity/veracity
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Chris S_2 wrote:The Grenfell
The problem also is the space needed to put the aerial ladder truck in front of the buidling, it needs to be at a max angle of about 70 degrees for climbing up and down, otherwise people think the damn thing is too vertical and they have a very hard time climbing. That means that a 100 foot ladder can NOT read the 10th floor of a building, high rises are roughly 10 feet per floor, but instead only the 5th or maybe 6th floor due to the offset and max angle. The offset being the distance away from the building needed to extend the jacks etc to keep it from toppling over. The standard is to extend all the jacks the vehicle has but NO LESS than the ones on the side the ladder will be operated off of. Some can easily extend more than 10 feet outwards meaning ALOT of space is required to use the things, and alot of parking space is given up 'just in case'. That means there are very often trade-offs made when buildings are designed, which are then often abused by people parking in areas the fire trucks need saying 'I'll only be a minute'.
We used to be able to give out tickets, at $100US each, for parking in a Fire Lane or on a fire hydrant, one time we saw a guy at the ATM machine who had parked on the fire hydrant because there was no other parking nearby, my boss yelled out 'better move your car' and the guy responded 'Ill only be a minute I'm getting some cash', my boss yelled back 'get an extra hundred because you'll need it to pay the fine' and promptly put a ticket on the windshield! Needless to say the guy at the ATM was NOT a happy camper and we were no longer on his Christmas list!!
I see reports that 38
I see reports that 38 hospitals have suspect cladding. And I wouldn't be surprised if many student accommodation blocks at universities also need checking. Just looked via street view at the Renold building and Chandos house at Manchester university (ex UMIST buildings).
I've just finished watching
I've just finished watching PMQ in the House of Commons via parliament TV. The PM said that 120 towers have now failed fire tests. The point that she made was why have these cladding panels been fitted across all parts of the country when they clearly fail fire safety and building regulations?
Good Question
As yet there is not a good answer.
I haven't heard yet about the hospitals.
Late edit - OK found it Hospitals
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Winterknight wrote:I see
Decided not to enter this contest.
robl wrote:Decided not to
I get moments of indecision
I get moments of indecision too, but it's always nice to see you, robl - whatever brings it about :)
Thank you, I did Sir :-))
http://wikidiff.com/validity/veracity
*blink* It's when I come across posts like these that I get an image of someone flogging a dead horse then trying to pass off what's left of it, as a slice of ham ;) I don't know why.
Thank you for all the links and progress reports here, people. Sobering stuff :/
edit: I couldn't get the quote thing to word then - so I got rid of it in the end because it turned my reply into a hyperlink - which it wasn't.
Please wait here. Further instructions could pile up at any time. Thank you.
I get an image of someone
I do hehehe :-)
Yes it is, very much so :-(
There is a knack to learn here at Einstein. Write your post first and only put the quotes in at the end where reqd. Else everything gets in quotes.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
At last. Why did it take so
At last. Why did it take so long?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40461581
The Deputy Leader has resigned as well.
Simple truth? Both were no good at their jobs. But the PM couldn't officially sack them as they were democratically elected Councillors. Only a vote of no confidence could have done that. But they went before they were pushed.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now