My point was not that it would be smart or economic. It was just to answer the question that Gary asked:
Quote:
Is it ever fire safe to cover a building in stuff that burns?
I also stated there that those things would not be my choice or recommendations playing advocate for the devil there.
It's like Mikey wrote, something like a tank would be the safest. My choice would be an APC like this though. A tanks tracks would not grant you a permit as those would wreck the road. An APC would stand a far greater chance of being permitted to be driven around. With the APC it is possible, though my current car is still a lot cheaper in tax, insurance and fuel consumption.
But even if those costs would be low enough I'd still not want to drive one of those as they are not practical. My line of sight would be too limited causing an increased chance to be part of an accident. I would in any accident be likely to seriously hurt or kill the other party. So I would not want one of those.
But just as for cars there are reasons to implement costly features to a construction that serve no other purpose then to draw attention and make a construction stand out from others.
We're not all living in large boring gray concrete apartment blocks as they used to build those in the eastern block.
The appearance is worth a whole lot, so is comfort. So to a certain degree additional costs to make a construction with uncommon materials something safe, in order to gain a different and unique look that will perhaps even turn a construction into a tourist attraction are defendable.
There are huge cost & technical differences b/w construction and retrofitting. Separate topics really. One starts from a blank piece of paper and the other must fit historical constraints ie. what's already there.
We don't have alot of high density development DownUnda. Plenty of land. The delivery of supporting infrastructure is the main worry ie. the fire design choices are lower order in cost. So if it costs $150K to connect a property to power then the steel vs. wood frame decision ( swing of $40K ) is minor. The fire topic is dominated by the environment in a way not seen in too many other places. My house survived a firestorm by design in 2009 : steel frame, brick veneer, non-flammable insulation and highly fire resistant interior dry wall. Plus a margin of trees that don't burn well. But even despite that we were also somewhat lucky on the day ( timely wind change ). But no cladding. So for Aussies the question : do you clad dwellings in things that burn is a true non-question ie. why would you & why do you ask ? However you can make your own luck in this regard by shifting the threshold for failure upwards. Much claim and counter-claim in such discussion depends upon the baseline choices ie. yes you can have flammable insulation but you then shift the burden of safety to sprinkler systems. Etc.
But that's not Grenfell Towers or London. It will be rather cheaper to build using existing techniques, industry attitudes and regulatory framework. Developers usually don't do bespoke cleverness in deep design but will be happy to make it look good regardless. So if your target is the lower portion of the rental market you'll do the bare minimum to be accepted for your Certificate Of Occupancy or equivalent regulatory permission. I don't want to sound personally rude to our dear English friends but I think it is sadly ironic that London, of all large cities, with it's centuries long history of dealing with fire is having this difficulty. You'd have to have tons of experience to draw upon here. Someone earlier raised the question of which expertise to utilise or place greater weight upon. It's already there : the fire services.
As for the central government taking over some local councils that is an outstanding idea in this scenario. Even the least incompetent/corrupt and most earnest councillors and administrators are going to have great trouble coping. We've had this more than a few times in our state, triggered by some events that disclose all the things we loathe about that level of government. Such councils have often been responding to some mantra like 'think global, act local' where basic & immediate governance is discarded out of trend resulting in massive loss of services, and of course ratepayer funds. Quite ominously many have taken up 'deficit funding' much beloved of larger sovereign entities ie. borrowing above income, indeed right through to bankruptcy when the creditors get an itch they can't scratch otherwise. Roughly 1/3rd of Melbourne councils are technically insolvent as we speak, the knock on the door just hasn't happened yet.
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
Perhaps it is because here is Southern California we also live in a bush/brush fire area I can't fathom putting fire starter on the outside of a building. While some rather stupid things are allowed on single family homes away from the wildlands, anything near the wildland interface has to be fire suppressive. Exterior must be continuous without gaps that allow embers to enter. Surfaces must resist ignition for 30 minutes of open flame. Brush and grass must be cleared for 100 feet around. This all for single family houses. Apartment buildings have more stringent requirements which include active fire suppression, such are sprinklers and automatic detection equipment wired to central alarm stations. All of this is checked by fire marshals who have the power of arrest.
I believe I was told one of our fire regulations, for tall buildings, which requires a helipad on the roof was a bit much. Just nose around a bit https://goo.gl/maps/MP9DDW25V5p and see how many helipads you can spot. They serve two purposes. One to get firefighters and equipment above the fire floor to contain vertical extent. Second, if required, a means of escape if the fire becomes to large.
I agree that London should have enough experience with fire that they should be a cut above. Obviously profits have come before lives. The entire process of fire regulation needs a total rethink.
As to councils, can't comment. With minuscule exceptions all housing is private ownership here. This of course lets fire regulations be written without any concern of the bottom line of the government. No pressure to make it easy because that would save money to the government constructing it.
@steel. Steel burns. Rust it the result. To get it to burn in a more conventional sense something needs to be added. See thermite. As to everything else, it you get it hot enough it eventually becomes plasma, but that isn't a typical exothermic oxidation process that we call fire.
New vs. Retrofit. Here generally any time you pull a permit to do construction you are required to bring things up to current code. Say replacing a failed hot water heater. Code many years ago allowed it to be connected without a drain line on the pressure relief valve. You would have to run that drain line now. It also may have allowed water connection without an expansion tank. You have to put in the tank today. (If you wonder what it is, most places now have a pressure regulator today and those don't water to flow back into the city pipe. As you heat a tank of water it expands and the pressure goes up. The expansion tank gives that water somewhere to go beside rupturing a pipe.) If you re-roof, you will have to put a roof on that meets current code.
Now here in Southern California earthquake retrofit was done a bit different. For any commercial building built before the 1935 codes to have any occupancy those had to be retrofitted. Those old codes created death traps, which was shown in the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The retrofit doesn't mean the building won't be a total loss, but it should let the people get out. Unfortunately this wasn't made a requirement on single family houses, so any number of them will slide off their foundations and crush anyone inside.
I don't want to sound personally rude to our dear English friends but I think it is sadly ironic that London, of all large cities, with it's centuries long history of dealing with fire is having this difficulty. You'd have to have tons of experience to draw upon here. Someone earlier raised the question of which expertise to utilise or place greater weight upon. It's already there : the fire services.
Don't worry Mike, no exception is being taken here :-) What has happened over the years is a catalogue of things all combining.
Firstly, Many public and private buildings were constructed in the 60's and 70's, Grenfell was designed in 1967, and completed in 1974. It was designed and constructed to the standards applicable at the time. You cannot blame the designers or contractors for that.
Secondly, time has moved on 50 years hence, Fire safety and Building standards have been increased and tightened. But there is no retrospective legislation that requires anything older than 7 years to be updated to modern standards.
Thirdly, the costs of doing refurbishment and upgrading across the board, at public buildings, hospitals, tower blocks, libraries, nursing homes etc etc would cost many Billions. Successive Councils and Governments have known that the money simply isn't there, nor is the alternative accommodation whilst it was to happen. It is a can of worms that nobody was willing to take the lid off.
Fourthly. disasters like Grenfell are thankfully fairly rare, so complacency creeps in with business as usual, Lackadaisical fire safety inspections etc. until the wake up call happens. It's now here, and the Public won't have it.
Fifthly The Fire Brigade have changed their role from being primarily a Fire Fighting Service to a Fire & Rescue service, where most of their time is spent on RTA's, terrorist attacks, and getting cats out of trees. There is a case for splitting the service into two halves.
As for the central government taking over some local councils that is an outstanding idea in this scenario. Even the least incompetent/corrupt and most earnest councillors and administrators are going to have great trouble coping.
In the Kensington case the Council was a cosy old boys club setup, with double barrelled names everywhere. OK it is fair to say that no single Council could have coped on its own with a Grenfell type fire. But many things are clear. The Council did not have, and does not have a credible disaster plan. They did not ask for local and Government help on day one when it must have been clear that they were overwhelmed.
Since then the Council leader, the Deputy Leader, and the CEO have all resigned as being incapable of holding down their jobs. A Government taskforce is being sent in to take over the Housing Dept and other Council functions. They should not have had to do that, but were forced to. How many other Councils will be found wanting if looked at too closely?? I bet my pension that my local one (Tory run) is sh*tt*ng themselves, especially with 4 x 15 storey tower blocks on their patch. and so they might.
Developers usually don't do bespoke cleverness in deep design but will be happy to make it look good regardless. So if your target is the lower portion of the rental market you'll do the bare minimum to be accepted for your Certificate Of Occupancy or equivalent regulatory permission.
Exactly so. At the other extreme, If you want to buy a £million Penthouse down in trendy yuppy London Docklands in converted old Wharves and warehouses or new build, you'll get what you pay for. Council income comes from Council tax on its residents and central government funding. Government funding drops every year and residents complain if you put the local taxes up. Meanwhile people breed and more housing is required at a minimal price, and schools..
Roughly 1/3rd of Melbourne councils are technically insolvent as we speak, the knock on the door just hasn't happened yet.
I can't give you equivalent figures for London, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/3 of London Councils are not fit for purpose. Grenfell could well be our knock on the door.
responding to some mantra like 'think global, act local'
Oh that is just junior management talk, "we need to think outside the box", "We need to take a helicopter view", "We need to leverage our assets". Usually pimply early 20's just out of the LSE.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
And what are the chances of a new council doing a better job? I expect the new one to do nearly the same thing taking the risk that a similar event will come again, that might cost them their jobs. But still the general public will be satisfied because the people responsible took the blame.
simple answer because once you own the land you own the sky above it rights too,
Only up to a point
Today in the UK thanks to the Civil Aviation Act of 1982, the generally accepted amount of air above one’s roof a person is entitled to is approximately 500-1,000 feet, though again this isn’t a hard definition. Likewise, the United States has a similar estimation of about 500 feet, though this has never been officially ruled on by the Supreme Court.
I would have thought that it was highly likely that a new Council would do a better job because they would be in the public eye considerably more that the previous one, and will have a stronger Government overview. I doubt also that the media will let this drop.
Nobody is looking for scapegoats here, not the general public, and least of all the survivors of Grenfell. People simply want answers to understandable questions.
1. What happened?
2. Why did it happen?
3. What can be done to stop it happening again?
4. What is being done to help the survivors re-build their lives, short term, and long term?
People resigning that are clearly not up to the job is simply part of the ongoing process to ensure that items 3 and 4 above can happen as quickly as possible.
As I have outlined in many earlier posts, the ongoing fallout from this tragic fire that entailed so much loss of life, will rumble on for some years yet. I expect and hope that the Fire Safety regulations will be overhauled as should be the building regulations for new builds. But it will mean serious government funding to address any retrospective upgrade plans.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
But it will mean serious government funding to address any retrospective upgrade plans.
There you have my point. This building was not new, so to prevent this from happening again requires a whole lot of money.
That money would need to be paid by someone, and would you be willing to pay significantly more tax so that this can be paid for? I doubt the majority will be willing and able.
In that case existing constructions will be left untouched meaning that nothing is done to prevent this from happening again. Yes, for new construction the rules might be even more strict but that won't stop any old buildings from catching fire.
So I won't expect any new council to make existing buildings much safer. New regulations will be more widespread in like a 100 years or so when most current buildings will be replaced by new ones. That will be a nice blame game, they'll say they want to but can't get the funding, blaming government.
While the fourth question is one primarily for the insurance. I see no reason why these victims should be treated any differently then other people who's houses and or relatives are lost by a fire.
With the greatest of respect my dear Sir. I wish to agree to disagree.
That money would need to be paid by someone, and would you be willing to pay significantly more tax so that this can be paid for? I doubt the majority will be willing and able.
I said before that in the current climate, if the Government proposed 1p on income tax to update all public and Council housing buildings I would judge that the electorate would go for it.
In that case existing constructions will be left untouched meaning that nothing is done to prevent this from happening again.
|i think that you can pretty much rest assured that public pressure will be applied to ensure that doesn't happen.
New regulations will be more widespread in like a 100 years or so
I would suggest that your timescales there are a rather unrealistic to say the least. Obviously I cannot speak for your country, but in the UK Various bodies and Government departments review the Country's laws every year and it is quite normal year after year to amend laws and regulations as time progresses. A quick look at Hansard will confirm that for you.
While the fourth question is one primarily for the insurance. I see no reason why these victims should be treated any differently then other people who's houses and or relatives are lost by a fire.
Grenfell House was housing accommodation provided by the local Council. As far as I'm aware there was no home ownership there, although there may have been an element of Housing Association involved. The Government has announced a minimum payment of £5500 to each and every Grenfell family that lost their home and possessions.
If you live in private rented accommodation then is is up to the tenant whether they wish to, or can afford to, insure their possessions against loss. If they choose not to do that , that is their decision, a private landlord has no obligation to reimburse them. Unless of course the landlord was negligent in causing the total loss, and can be sued for damages in court.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
I would suggest that your timescales there are a rather unrealistic to say the least
What is the average age of a building? And is that likely to change?
Here in Holland buildings of 80+ years are still very common. After what period of time will old buildings be replaced by new ones? If you would not force all buildings to be updated to today's building standards then after what amount of time will the old buildings be replaced by buildings constructed with these new regulations?
I would not expect the majority of those buildings from the 30's to have been replaced within 20 years. So in 20 years time we will have buildings of 100 years old still being common. With proper maintenance buildings could last nearly indefinitely. So if these new regulations are not going to be forced on old buildings then it will take a while before every building is going to be replaced.
My point was not that it
My point was not that it would be smart or economic. It was just to answer the question that Gary asked:
I also stated there that those things would not be my choice or recommendations playing advocate for the devil there.
It's like Mikey wrote, something like a tank would be the safest. My choice would be an APC like this though. A tanks tracks would not grant you a permit as those would wreck the road. An APC would stand a far greater chance of being permitted to be driven around. With the APC it is possible, though my current car is still a lot cheaper in tax, insurance and fuel consumption.
But even if those costs would be low enough I'd still not want to drive one of those as they are not practical. My line of sight would be too limited causing an increased chance to be part of an accident. I would in any accident be likely to seriously hurt or kill the other party. So I would not want one of those.
But just as for cars there are reasons to implement costly features to a construction that serve no other purpose then to draw attention and make a construction stand out from others.
We're not all living in large boring gray concrete apartment blocks as they used to build those in the eastern block.
The appearance is worth a whole lot, so is comfort. So to a certain degree additional costs to make a construction with uncommon materials something safe, in order to gain a different and unique look that will perhaps even turn a construction into a tourist attraction are defendable.
There's are huge cost &
There are huge cost & technical differences b/w construction and retrofitting. Separate topics really. One starts from a blank piece of paper and the other must fit historical constraints ie. what's already there.
We don't have alot of high density development DownUnda. Plenty of land. The delivery of supporting infrastructure is the main worry ie. the fire design choices are lower order in cost. So if it costs $150K to connect a property to power then the steel vs. wood frame decision ( swing of $40K ) is minor. The fire topic is dominated by the environment in a way not seen in too many other places. My house survived a firestorm by design in 2009 : steel frame, brick veneer, non-flammable insulation and highly fire resistant interior dry wall. Plus a margin of trees that don't burn well. But even despite that we were also somewhat lucky on the day ( timely wind change ). But no cladding. So for Aussies the question : do you clad dwellings in things that burn is a true non-question ie. why would you & why do you ask ? However you can make your own luck in this regard by shifting the threshold for failure upwards. Much claim and counter-claim in such discussion depends upon the baseline choices ie. yes you can have flammable insulation but you then shift the burden of safety to sprinkler systems. Etc.
But that's not Grenfell Towers or London. It will be rather cheaper to build using existing techniques, industry attitudes and regulatory framework. Developers usually don't do bespoke cleverness in deep design but will be happy to make it look good regardless. So if your target is the lower portion of the rental market you'll do the bare minimum to be accepted for your Certificate Of Occupancy or equivalent regulatory permission. I don't want to sound personally rude to our dear English friends but I think it is sadly ironic that London, of all large cities, with it's centuries long history of dealing with fire is having this difficulty. You'd have to have tons of experience to draw upon here. Someone earlier raised the question of which expertise to utilise or place greater weight upon. It's already there : the fire services.
As for the central government taking over some local councils that is an outstanding idea in this scenario. Even the least incompetent/corrupt and most earnest councillors and administrators are going to have great trouble coping. We've had this more than a few times in our state, triggered by some events that disclose all the things we loathe about that level of government. Such councils have often been responding to some mantra like 'think global, act local' where basic & immediate governance is discarded out of trend resulting in massive loss of services, and of course ratepayer funds. Quite ominously many have taken up 'deficit funding' much beloved of larger sovereign entities ie. borrowing above income, indeed right through to bankruptcy when the creditors get an itch they can't scratch otherwise. Roughly 1/3rd of Melbourne councils are technically insolvent as we speak, the knock on the door just hasn't happened yet.
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
Perhaps it is because here is
Perhaps it is because here is Southern California we also live in a bush/brush fire area I can't fathom putting fire starter on the outside of a building. While some rather stupid things are allowed on single family homes away from the wildlands, anything near the wildland interface has to be fire suppressive. Exterior must be continuous without gaps that allow embers to enter. Surfaces must resist ignition for 30 minutes of open flame. Brush and grass must be cleared for 100 feet around. This all for single family houses. Apartment buildings have more stringent requirements which include active fire suppression, such are sprinklers and automatic detection equipment wired to central alarm stations. All of this is checked by fire marshals who have the power of arrest.
I believe I was told one of our fire regulations, for tall buildings, which requires a helipad on the roof was a bit much. Just nose around a bit https://goo.gl/maps/MP9DDW25V5p and see how many helipads you can spot. They serve two purposes. One to get firefighters and equipment above the fire floor to contain vertical extent. Second, if required, a means of escape if the fire becomes to large.
I agree that London should have enough experience with fire that they should be a cut above. Obviously profits have come before lives. The entire process of fire regulation needs a total rethink.
As to councils, can't comment. With minuscule exceptions all housing is private ownership here. This of course lets fire regulations be written without any concern of the bottom line of the government. No pressure to make it easy because that would save money to the government constructing it.
@steel. Steel burns. Rust it the result. To get it to burn in a more conventional sense something needs to be added. See thermite. As to everything else, it you get it hot enough it eventually becomes plasma, but that isn't a typical exothermic oxidation process that we call fire.
New vs. Retrofit. Here generally any time you pull a permit to do construction you are required to bring things up to current code. Say replacing a failed hot water heater. Code many years ago allowed it to be connected without a drain line on the pressure relief valve. You would have to run that drain line now. It also may have allowed water connection without an expansion tank. You have to put in the tank today. (If you wonder what it is, most places now have a pressure regulator today and those don't water to flow back into the city pipe. As you heat a tank of water it expands and the pressure goes up. The expansion tank gives that water somewhere to go beside rupturing a pipe.) If you re-roof, you will have to put a roof on that meets current code.
Now here in Southern California earthquake retrofit was done a bit different. For any commercial building built before the 1935 codes to have any occupancy those had to be retrofitted. Those old codes created death traps, which was shown in the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The retrofit doesn't mean the building won't be a total loss, but it should let the people get out. Unfortunately this wasn't made a requirement on single family houses, so any number of them will slide off their foundations and crush anyone inside.
I don't want to sound
Don't worry Mike, no exception is being taken here :-) What has happened over the years is a catalogue of things all combining.
Firstly, Many public and private buildings were constructed in the 60's and 70's, Grenfell was designed in 1967, and completed in 1974. It was designed and constructed to the standards applicable at the time. You cannot blame the designers or contractors for that.
Secondly, time has moved on 50 years hence, Fire safety and Building standards have been increased and tightened. But there is no retrospective legislation that requires anything older than 7 years to be updated to modern standards.
Thirdly, the costs of doing refurbishment and upgrading across the board, at public buildings, hospitals, tower blocks, libraries, nursing homes etc etc would cost many Billions. Successive Councils and Governments have known that the money simply isn't there, nor is the alternative accommodation whilst it was to happen. It is a can of worms that nobody was willing to take the lid off.
Fourthly. disasters like Grenfell are thankfully fairly rare, so complacency creeps in with business as usual, Lackadaisical fire safety inspections etc. until the wake up call happens. It's now here, and the Public won't have it.
Fifthly The Fire Brigade have changed their role from being primarily a Fire Fighting Service to a Fire & Rescue service, where most of their time is spent on RTA's, terrorist attacks, and getting cats out of trees. There is a case for splitting the service into two halves.
In the Kensington case the Council was a cosy old boys club setup, with double barrelled names everywhere. OK it is fair to say that no single Council could have coped on its own with a Grenfell type fire. But many things are clear. The Council did not have, and does not have a credible disaster plan. They did not ask for local and Government help on day one when it must have been clear that they were overwhelmed.
Since then the Council leader, the Deputy Leader, and the CEO have all resigned as being incapable of holding down their jobs. A Government taskforce is being sent in to take over the Housing Dept and other Council functions. They should not have had to do that, but were forced to. How many other Councils will be found wanting if looked at too closely?? I bet my pension that my local one (Tory run) is sh*tt*ng themselves, especially with 4 x 15 storey tower blocks on their patch. and so they might.
Exactly so. At the other extreme, If you want to buy a £million Penthouse down in trendy yuppy London Docklands in converted old Wharves and warehouses or new build, you'll get what you pay for. Council income comes from Council tax on its residents and central government funding. Government funding drops every year and residents complain if you put the local taxes up. Meanwhile people breed and more housing is required at a minimal price, and schools..
I can't give you equivalent figures for London, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/3 of London Councils are not fit for purpose. Grenfell could well be our knock on the door.
Oh that is just junior management talk, "we need to think outside the box", "We need to take a helicopter view", "We need to leverage our assets". Usually pimply early 20's just out of the LSE.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
And what are the chances of a
And what are the chances of a new council doing a better job? I expect the new one to do nearly the same thing taking the risk that a similar event will come again, that might cost them their jobs. But still the general public will be satisfied because the people responsible took the blame.
simple answer because once
Only up to a point
Air rights
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
I would have thought that it
I would have thought that it was highly likely that a new Council would do a better job because they would be in the public eye considerably more that the previous one, and will have a stronger Government overview. I doubt also that the media will let this drop.
Nobody is looking for scapegoats here, not the general public, and least of all the survivors of Grenfell. People simply want answers to understandable questions.
1. What happened?
2. Why did it happen?
3. What can be done to stop it happening again?
4. What is being done to help the survivors re-build their lives, short term, and long term?
People resigning that are clearly not up to the job is simply part of the ongoing process to ensure that items 3 and 4 above can happen as quickly as possible.
As I have outlined in many earlier posts, the ongoing fallout from this tragic fire that entailed so much loss of life, will rumble on for some years yet. I expect and hope that the Fire Safety regulations will be overhauled as should be the building regulations for new builds. But it will mean serious government funding to address any retrospective upgrade plans.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Quote:But it will mean
There you have my point. This building was not new, so to prevent this from happening again requires a whole lot of money.
That money would need to be paid by someone, and would you be willing to pay significantly more tax so that this can be paid for? I doubt the majority will be willing and able.
In that case existing constructions will be left untouched meaning that nothing is done to prevent this from happening again. Yes, for new construction the rules might be even more strict but that won't stop any old buildings from catching fire.
So I won't expect any new council to make existing buildings much safer. New regulations will be more widespread in like a 100 years or so when most current buildings will be replaced by new ones. That will be a nice blame game, they'll say they want to but can't get the funding, blaming government.
While the fourth question is one primarily for the insurance. I see no reason why these victims should be treated any differently then other people who's houses and or relatives are lost by a fire.
With the greatest of respect
With the greatest of respect my dear Sir. I wish to agree to disagree.
I said before that in the current climate, if the Government proposed 1p on income tax to update all public and Council housing buildings I would judge that the electorate would go for it.
|i think that you can pretty much rest assured that public pressure will be applied to ensure that doesn't happen.
I would suggest that your timescales there are a rather unrealistic to say the least. Obviously I cannot speak for your country, but in the UK Various bodies and Government departments review the Country's laws every year and it is quite normal year after year to amend laws and regulations as time progresses. A quick look at Hansard will confirm that for you.
Grenfell House was housing accommodation provided by the local Council. As far as I'm aware there was no home ownership there, although there may have been an element of Housing Association involved. The Government has announced a minimum payment of £5500 to each and every Grenfell family that lost their home and possessions.
If you live in private rented accommodation then is is up to the tenant whether they wish to, or can afford to, insure their possessions against loss. If they choose not to do that , that is their decision, a private landlord has no obligation to reimburse them. Unless of course the landlord was negligent in causing the total loss, and can be sued for damages in court.
Waiting for Godot & salvation :-)
Why do doctors have to practice?
You'd think they'd have got it right by now
Quote:I would suggest that
What is the average age of a building? And is that likely to change?
Here in Holland buildings of 80+ years are still very common. After what period of time will old buildings be replaced by new ones? If you would not force all buildings to be updated to today's building standards then after what amount of time will the old buildings be replaced by buildings constructed with these new regulations?
I would not expect the majority of those buildings from the 30's to have been replaced within 20 years. So in 20 years time we will have buildings of 100 years old still being common. With proper maintenance buildings could last nearly indefinitely. So if these new regulations are not going to be forced on old buildings then it will take a while before every building is going to be replaced.