MANY buildings and restaurants do NOT remodel just so they do NOT have to comply
And you cannot force them either, unless you like to see some bankruptcy that is. At some point the cost of upgrading will need to be weighted against the risk of loss of life on the other hand.
And then where will the burden be placed, who will be required to pay and will they be willing and able to pay?
You can go into tons of old buildings and see things that would NEVER pass todays codes if they were updated,
In the UK there is no legislation that requires older buildings to be updated if planning permission is not sought for refurbishment. Many public buildings, Town Halls, Libraries etc, were constructed when building regulations did not require disabled access. Many now have been hotchpotched with bad amendments as it is a public access area.
In the US we have an ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, that says that anytime you remodel a building you must provide allowances for the handicapped. MANY buildings and restaurants do NOT remodel just so they do NOT have to comply with that, wider doorways, handicapped ramps, etc, etc. They choose to serve the demographic they already have rather than expand their customer base.
There is some truth in that. A little way from me a private detached house was extensively rebuilt into a pair of semi-detached houses. Both have wheelchair ramps up to the front door and wide access toilets etc. Despite the fact that disabled people might never ever live there, that or not get Council planning permission. There was a time when quite wrongly, disabled people were unfairly discriminated against, but has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
You can go into tons of old buildings and see things that would NEVER pass todays codes if they were updated,
In the UK there is no legislation that requires older buildings to be updated if planning permission is not sought for refurbishment. Many public buildings, Town Halls, Libraries etc, were constructed when building regulations did not require disabled access. Many now have been hotchpotched with bad amendments as it is a public access area.
In the US we have an ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, that says that anytime you remodel a building you must provide allowances for the handicapped. MANY buildings and restaurants do NOT remodel just so they do NOT have to comply with that, wider doorways, handicapped ramps, etc, etc. They choose to serve the demographic they already have rather than expand their customer base.
There is some truth in that. A little way from me a private detached house was extensively rebuilt into a pair of semi-detached houses. Both have wheelchair ramps up to the front door and wide access toilets etc. Despite the fact that disabled people might never ever live there, that or not get Council planning permission. There was a time when quite wrongly, disabled people were unfairly discriminated against, but has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
Don't ask, but you did. I know of a old, built 1924, two story building, commercial use that only has staircases. A mandatory earthquake retrofit - unreinforced masonry - required all the second floor bathrooms to be made wheelchair accessible. Never mind there NEVER will be a person who needs a wheelchair on that second floor. They would have required an elevator too, but that cost was over the dollar amount that they could require for mandatory ADA retrofits, especially as the building was never envisioned with an elevator so there is no shaft all of which would have to be engineered to meet modern earthquake code. It would have made it into a tear down.
Left hand and right hand don't talk.
But as to cladding, lets ask the really dumb question which must take a super IQ brain to answer. Is it ever fire safe to cover a building in stuff that burns? Apparently a lot of people can't answer that question intelligently as there sure seems to be enough idiots willing to say if you use this kindling material and install it that way it is safe.
But as to cladding, lets ask the really dumb question which must take a super IQ brain to answer. Is it ever fire safe to cover a building in stuff that burns? Apparently a lot of people can't answer that question intelligently as there sure seems to be enough idiots willing to say if you use this kindling material and install it that way it is safe.
Maybe we could get them to read The Tale Of The Three Little Piggies, at least for starters. Work up from there through DumbShit 101 and beyond.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I think that question can be answered. And of course I feel I now need to play advocate for the devil! So what is below is not what I'd do or recommend!
As even gypsum can burn I'd say you can cover a building in stuff that is sufficiently fire retarding and still capable of burning at extreme temperatures.
But even using something silly like straw can be safe! If the right counter measures are taken, like an advanced sprinkler installation that will put even the worst fire out in seconds. With fallback systems in place.
For any problem there is a solution.
It can even be completely hidden from view, so a constructions esthetics do not have to suffer.
Even covering a building in stuff that is on fire can be safe, if it's empty and the building is being demolished for example. Probably not the most efficient way but it might be spectacular! If it can be safe in a fireplace inside, then it can be safe on the outside as well, again if properly designed with the right counter measures.
A wall on fire could be safe, if you for example put proper cooling on the inside of the wall with air ventilation that will continuously blow cold air out of the wall to create a cold air barrier between the fire and the rest of the wall. Implement proper counter measures. Design it in a way that if you for example cut a gas supply that the fire will auto extinguish instantly, without using the counter measures.
We're using fire all around us, any combustion engine is constantly using fire in a safe manner.
I see absolutely no reason why that would not be possible in other ways like on some building exterior with similar safety. If a certain design is not safe enough, that would only be a reason to go back to the drawing table to update your design to make it safer.
A wall on fire could be safe, if you for example put proper cooling on the inside of the wall with air ventilation that will continuously blow cold air out of the wall to create a cold air barrier between the fire and the rest of the wall. Implement proper counter measures.
I am not sure of your reasoning there? Air flow, cold or hot, provides oxygen which encourages combustion. The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic. People in tower blocks want to know that they are safe and also want to live there as well.
I also think it is a nonsense to construct 24 storey tower blocks when the Fire Brigade only have access to 16 storey platforms. Yes twin staircases will put ip the cost of high rise living, but can you, or should you put a price on lives?
This business of sprinklers comes in time and time again. OK take a 2 bedroom flat, living room, bathroom, Kitchen, 5 sprinkler heads one in each room. If there is a chip pan fire in the kitchen do the others go off as well? So the sprinkler or sprinklers get activated by their heat sensing heads, what turns them off once the fire is out? 5 minutes of water from just one head will ruin all the carpets in a flat, and likely damage the ceiling of the flat below as well.
Usually in a block of flats that has them there is a very loud fire gong in the entrance lobby linked to the sprinkler system. That is activated by water flow in the system when a sprinkler head goes off anywhere. Do they have control panels that says which flat the fire is in? How does anyone know when to turn the pressure off?
Also bear in mind that generally people living in high rise tower blocks are likely to be in the lower income bracket than not, Will they all have adequate contents insurance? Retro fitting sprinklers is a total nightmare. And it is being said that Grenfell tenants didn't want them. That should come out in the public enquiry.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
My reasoning is quite simple, a fire won't likely go in against hard winds, it will blow with it. So yes, you can create a cold air barrier between a wall on fire and the rest of that wall. If it's safe or not depends on how it's designed.
If you put an outer layer of straw on a building with a sprinkler installation behind that, so not in the rooms but on the exterior, then such a straw cladding can be perfectly safe! You can have all that straw soaking wet in a second!
You state that:
The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic.
I simply state that if you use proper counter measures anything can be perfectly safe. Not that I'd recommend it, why seek the trouble, but it could. Again, playing advocate for the devil here. Another use would be an insulating material between the cladding and the wall, if it can burn simply apply counter measures like a sprinkler installation CO2 spraying or vacuum suction.
Even an explosive cladding can be safe! It's actually used in the military to damage and deflect incoming objects before they get to penetrate armour. So even a C4 cladding could be safe! It's only a matter of how you design things. Not the most economic for a building, probably not safe for it's surroundings either, but that is not my point (that too is a matter of design).
I predicted that the fallout and repercussions from this fire would be much more far reaching than the fire itself. I am not over the moon to be seemingly proved right. Both in lackadaisical fire inspections and lacking Building regulations. How many more Councillor resignations will be forthcoming after this? Each Councillor represents a Ward with others, usually 3 in total, in their Constituency. The last thing the Boroughs residents want is a plethora of by-elections at this present time.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
My reasoning is quite simple, a fire won't likely go in against hard winds, it will blow with it. So yes, you can create a cold air barrier between a wall on fire and the rest of that wall. If it's safe or not depends on how it's designed.
If you put an outer layer of straw on a building with a sprinkler installation behind that, so not in the rooms but on the exterior, then such a straw cladding can be perfectly safe! You can have all that straw soaking wet in a second!
You state that:
The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic.
I simply state that if you use proper counter measures anything can be perfectly safe. Not that I'd recommend it, why seek the trouble, but it could. Again, playing advocate for the devil here. Another use would be an insulating material between the cladding and the wall, if it can burn simply apply counter measures like a sprinkler installation CO2 spraying or vacuum suction.
A combustible cladding material may indeed be "safe" as you define it, but it is neither practical, nor economic to use. As a landlord or building owner, I would would be very adverse to having to replace a burned-up exterior (along with whatever interior damage also occurred) after a fire.
The requirements for combustion are: fuel + oxygen + heat. Remove any one of those three and the fire goes out. So yes, cold air (if cold enough...probably liquid Nitrogen temps...I don't know) just might put it out, but the damage to the combustible cladding has already occurred. And depending on the design/implementation of that cladding, it could be very expensive to replace...much more so than a non-combustible cladding that wouldn't have been damaged in the first place.
My reasoning is quite simple, a fire won't likely go in against hard winds, it will blow with it. So yes, you can create a cold air barrier between a wall on fire and the rest of that wall. If it's safe or not depends on how it's designed.
If you put an outer layer of straw on a building with a sprinkler installation behind that, so not in the rooms but on the exterior, then such a straw cladding can be perfectly safe! You can have all that straw soaking wet in a second!
You state that:
The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic.
I simply state that if you use proper counter measures anything can be perfectly safe. Not that I'd recommend it, why seek the trouble, but it could. Again, playing advocate for the devil here. Another use would be an insulating material between the cladding and the wall, if it can burn simply apply counter measures like a sprinkler installation CO2 spraying or vacuum suction.
A combustible cladding material may indeed be "safe" as you define it, but it is neither practical, nor economic to use. As a landlord or building owner, I would would be very adverse to having to replace a burned-up exterior (along with whatever interior damage also occurred) after a fire.
The requirements for combustion are: fuel + oxygen + heat. Remove any one of those three and the fire goes out. So yes, cold air (if cold enough...probably liquid Nitrogen temps...I don't know) just might put it out, but the damage to the combustible cladding has already occurred. And depending on the design/implementation of that cladding, it could be very expensive to replace...much more so than a non-combustible cladding that wouldn't have been damaged in the first place.
To be perfectly clear there are almost zero 'fire proof' things in life, everything burns at some point, even solid steel melts. The problem comes down to cost savings versus expense to make it safe, if you don't balance them together than nothing will ever get built. Why are YOU not driving a tank, it's one of the safest vehicles on any road anywhere, yet almost no one drives one...COST versus reward is the easy answer. We chose to pick our cars with a purpose in mind and then buy one accordingly within our budget. Sure a tank is safer and cool but I can't afford to drive or even pay to park the darn thing let alone insure it, so I drive something else and hope that nothing bad happens to me, and if it does hopefully I'll be able to walk away and make another choice again for the next time.
Same thing when people build buildings, someone said why build buildings higher than fire ladders can reach, simple answer because once you own the land you own the sky above it rights too, and it's cheaper to build up then buy more land and build lots of shorter buildings, dozens of them in some cases. As Will Rogers once said...'the one thing they aren't making any more of is land'. Once a landowner knows you limit the height of your buildings his land will increase in cost exponentially because YOU have limited yourself to NEEDING more land to fulfill your own rules. Alexandria Virginia is a prime example of that, nothing can be built that is higher than the George Washington Masonic Temple in Old Town, unless you are outside the Old Town 'district' which they are expanding. Meaning any land within the District is exponentially higher in cost than land just the other side of the street which is outside the District. That has made remodeling much cheaper than buying new so people are leaving one or two sticks in a building and tearing down ALL the rest of it and rebuilding a new structure there, 'remodeling' because they left one or two sticks, instead of buying a new piece of land and building brand new on it. The land itself is worth millions more than any 'remodeling' costs due to the height restrictions in the District.
mikey wrote:MANY buildings
And you cannot force them either, unless you like to see some bankruptcy that is. At some point the cost of upgrading will need to be weighted against the risk of loss of life on the other hand.
And then where will the burden be placed, who will be required to pay and will they be willing and able to pay?
You can go into tons of old
In the UK there is no legislation that requires older buildings to be updated if planning permission is not sought for refurbishment. Many public buildings, Town Halls, Libraries etc, were constructed when building regulations did not require disabled access. Many now have been hotchpotched with bad amendments as it is a public access area.
There is some truth in that. A little way from me a private detached house was extensively rebuilt into a pair of semi-detached houses. Both have wheelchair ramps up to the front door and wide access toilets etc. Despite the fact that disabled people might never ever live there, that or not get Council planning permission. There was a time when quite wrongly, disabled people were unfairly discriminated against, but has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
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: You can go
Don't ask, but you did. I know of a old, built 1924, two story building, commercial use that only has staircases. A mandatory earthquake retrofit - unreinforced masonry - required all the second floor bathrooms to be made wheelchair accessible. Never mind there NEVER will be a person who needs a wheelchair on that second floor. They would have required an elevator too, but that cost was over the dollar amount that they could require for mandatory ADA retrofits, especially as the building was never envisioned with an elevator so there is no shaft all of which would have to be engineered to meet modern earthquake code. It would have made it into a tear down.
Left hand and right hand don't talk.
But as to cladding, lets ask the really dumb question which must take a super IQ brain to answer. Is it ever fire safe to cover a building in stuff that burns? Apparently a lot of people can't answer that question intelligently as there sure seems to be enough idiots willing to say if you use this kindling material and install it that way it is safe.
Gary Charpentier wrote:But as
Maybe we could get them to read The Tale Of The Three Little Piggies, at least for starters. Work up from there through DumbShit 101 and beyond.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
I think that question can be
I think that question can be answered. And of course I feel I now need to play advocate for the devil! So what is below is not what I'd do or recommend!
As even gypsum can burn I'd say you can cover a building in stuff that is sufficiently fire retarding and still capable of burning at extreme temperatures.
But even using something silly like straw can be safe! If the right counter measures are taken, like an advanced sprinkler installation that will put even the worst fire out in seconds. With fallback systems in place.
For any problem there is a solution.
It can even be completely hidden from view, so a constructions esthetics do not have to suffer.
Even covering a building in stuff that is on fire can be safe, if it's empty and the building is being demolished for example. Probably not the most efficient way but it might be spectacular! If it can be safe in a fireplace inside, then it can be safe on the outside as well, again if properly designed with the right counter measures.
A wall on fire could be safe, if you for example put proper cooling on the inside of the wall with air ventilation that will continuously blow cold air out of the wall to create a cold air barrier between the fire and the rest of the wall. Implement proper counter measures. Design it in a way that if you for example cut a gas supply that the fire will auto extinguish instantly, without using the counter measures.
We're using fire all around us, any combustion engine is constantly using fire in a safe manner.
I see absolutely no reason why that would not be possible in other ways like on some building exterior with similar safety. If a certain design is not safe enough, that would only be a reason to go back to the drawing table to update your design to make it safer.
A wall on fire could be safe,
I am not sure of your reasoning there? Air flow, cold or hot, provides oxygen which encourages combustion. The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic. People in tower blocks want to know that they are safe and also want to live there as well.
I also think it is a nonsense to construct 24 storey tower blocks when the Fire Brigade only have access to 16 storey platforms. Yes twin staircases will put ip the cost of high rise living, but can you, or should you put a price on lives?
This business of sprinklers comes in time and time again. OK take a 2 bedroom flat, living room, bathroom, Kitchen, 5 sprinkler heads one in each room. If there is a chip pan fire in the kitchen do the others go off as well? So the sprinkler or sprinklers get activated by their heat sensing heads, what turns them off once the fire is out? 5 minutes of water from just one head will ruin all the carpets in a flat, and likely damage the ceiling of the flat below as well.
Usually in a block of flats that has them there is a very loud fire gong in the entrance lobby linked to the sprinkler system. That is activated by water flow in the system when a sprinkler head goes off anywhere. Do they have control panels that says which flat the fire is in? How does anyone know when to turn the pressure off?
Also bear in mind that generally people living in high rise tower blocks are likely to be in the lower income bracket than not, Will they all have adequate contents insurance? Retro fitting sprinklers is a total nightmare. And it is being said that Grenfell tenants didn't want them. That should come out in the public enquiry.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
My reasoning is quite simple,
My reasoning is quite simple, a fire won't likely go in against hard winds, it will blow with it. So yes, you can create a cold air barrier between a wall on fire and the rest of that wall. If it's safe or not depends on how it's designed.
If you put an outer layer of straw on a building with a sprinkler installation behind that, so not in the rooms but on the exterior, then such a straw cladding can be perfectly safe! You can have all that straw soaking wet in a second!
You state that:
The only answer is non combustible cladding materials that are also aesthetic.
I simply state that if you use proper counter measures anything can be perfectly safe. Not that I'd recommend it, why seek the trouble, but it could. Again, playing advocate for the devil here. Another use would be an insulating material between the cladding and the wall, if it can burn simply apply counter measures like a sprinkler installation CO2 spraying or vacuum suction.
Even an explosive cladding can be safe! It's actually used in the military to damage and deflect incoming objects before they get to penetrate armour. So even a C4 cladding could be safe! It's only a matter of how you design things. Not the most economic for a building, probably not safe for it's surroundings either, but that is not my point (that too is a matter of design).
Breaking news - Grenfell
Breaking news - Grenfell Tower: Government sends in 'taskforce'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40504145
I predicted that the fallout and repercussions from this fire would be much more far reaching than the fire itself. I am not over the moon to be seemingly proved right. Both in lackadaisical fire inspections and lacking Building regulations. How many more Councillor resignations will be forthcoming after this? Each Councillor represents a Ward with others, usually 3 in total, in their Constituency. The last thing the Boroughs residents want is a plethora of by-elections at this present time.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Jonathan_76 wrote:My
A combustible cladding material may indeed be "safe" as you define it, but it is neither practical, nor economic to use. As a landlord or building owner, I would would be very adverse to having to replace a burned-up exterior (along with whatever interior damage also occurred) after a fire.
The requirements for combustion are: fuel + oxygen + heat. Remove any one of those three and the fire goes out. So yes, cold air (if cold enough...probably liquid Nitrogen temps...I don't know) just might put it out, but the damage to the combustible cladding has already occurred. And depending on the design/implementation of that cladding, it could be very expensive to replace...much more so than a non-combustible cladding that wouldn't have been damaged in the first place.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RandyC wrote:Jonathan_76
To be perfectly clear there are almost zero 'fire proof' things in life, everything burns at some point, even solid steel melts. The problem comes down to cost savings versus expense to make it safe, if you don't balance them together than nothing will ever get built. Why are YOU not driving a tank, it's one of the safest vehicles on any road anywhere, yet almost no one drives one...COST versus reward is the easy answer. We chose to pick our cars with a purpose in mind and then buy one accordingly within our budget. Sure a tank is safer and cool but I can't afford to drive or even pay to park the darn thing let alone insure it, so I drive something else and hope that nothing bad happens to me, and if it does hopefully I'll be able to walk away and make another choice again for the next time.
Same thing when people build buildings, someone said why build buildings higher than fire ladders can reach, simple answer because once you own the land you own the sky above it rights too, and it's cheaper to build up then buy more land and build lots of shorter buildings, dozens of them in some cases. As Will Rogers once said...'the one thing they aren't making any more of is land'. Once a landowner knows you limit the height of your buildings his land will increase in cost exponentially because YOU have limited yourself to NEEDING more land to fulfill your own rules. Alexandria Virginia is a prime example of that, nothing can be built that is higher than the George Washington Masonic Temple in Old Town, unless you are outside the Old Town 'district' which they are expanding. Meaning any land within the District is exponentially higher in cost than land just the other side of the street which is outside the District. That has made remodeling much cheaper than buying new so people are leaving one or two sticks in a building and tearing down ALL the rest of it and rebuilding a new structure there, 'remodeling' because they left one or two sticks, instead of buying a new piece of land and building brand new on it. The land itself is worth millions more than any 'remodeling' costs due to the height restrictions in the District.