Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[emanymton]

Interesting exert from the Metro: Number of people confirmed dead in Grenfell Tower fire rises to 17

Meaning someone is frantically double checking the plans against the regulations to make sure they did.

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[squirrelp]

As I understand it, meeting fire regulations legally is not simply a box-ticking exercise as buildings have unique circumstances and you have to do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate the risk. It is inflexible to simply dictate a minimum standard across each aspect, instead an overall responsibility is charged and if there is an unsolvable weakness in one area you are obliged to make up for it with improved standards elsewhere.

I cannot understand how tower blocks with such obvious weaknesses re: escape / no sprinklers can warrant anything but the highest standards of fire resistance in building materials.

 

[EastEnder]

Sure I read something about a burst gas main complicating things earlier?

I heard that too, but couldn't tell whether it was a causal factor or a side effect of the fire.

 

[pinkmonkey]

The pictures are astonishing, how can every floor both internally and externally be going up with such ferocity in such a short period of time? When you look at other fires where the cladding has been a contributory factor the damage is nowhere near as bad. The building has gone up like its made of tinder, everything has burnt apart from the original concrete structure.

Looks like an air gap in the cladding which made the whole of the outside of the building act like a giant, hot chimney, funelling flames upwards and into the next flat where it would set it all alight. Horrifying. All those people.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Sure I read something about a burst gas main complicating things earlier?

 

[quimcunx]

View attachment 109395

Is that something that they would have been able to get legal aid for previously?

 

[mauvais]

Here's a statement of the obvious: over the next weeks and indeed years as this develops through reviews and inquiries, the tories are going to try and get it running down separate tracks. One will be whether 'lessons were learned', previous disasters at home and abroad, regulations and, to some extent, management systems (without ever getting into the political project that lead to arms length management and the like). The other which they will do their damnedest to keep separate will be social cleansing, the housing of the poor, the relationship to the surrounding affluent housing - and the fucking contempt the people in this block were met with. They'll hang their heads for a day or two on that, but even within a week they'll pushing out the propaganda on the modernisation of the housing stock, how much as been spent etc.

Usually, governments are very good at managing these things, making sure heads only roll down the foodchain. It's our job to stop the cunts doing it this time. This is going to be massive.

Well put, but I think there's another clear strategy at play.

The first element is already happening, actually much like the pattern of terrorism response without the policing element, to limit the discussion to victim welfare - we must help these people, identify the dead, it's too soon to talk politics, investigations will be made when the time is right, etc - which buys a lot of very valuable time for political manoeuvring and preparation.

Once that can't be postponed any longer, it'll be all about the specifics of this incident, the more specific the better - the materials, the contractors, the unique elements of the case etc - and as far from the regulatory system and overarching, inherent, repetitive patterns as possible.

Then once that has soaked up as much as it can, great efforts will be made to frame any remainder in terms of progressive positives - how we will make changes to prevent this ever happening again, [as you say] how much money we're spending, etc - and very much not in terms of the historical failures, missed opportunities and so on.

Each of these will be a battle - to reclaim ownership of and recast in the appropriate terms.

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[Teaboy]

As I understand it, meeting fire regulations legally is not simply a box-ticking exercise as buildings have unique circumstances and you have to do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate the risk. It is inflexible to simply dictate a minimum standard across each aspect, instead an overall responsibility is charged and if there is an unsolvable weakness in one area you are obliged to make up for it with improved standards elsewhere.

I cannot understand how tower blocks with such obvious weaknesses re: escape / no sprinklers can warrant anything but the highest standards of fire resistance in building materials.

In this respect there is a lack of joined up thinking and regulation. The fact the building didn't have any sprinklers does not (as far as I know) have any impact upon the choice of cladding material. There is the on-going fire assessment of the existing building and then there is the basic criteria required for the renovation works. It is unlikely that the two overlapped in any way.

For example the local fire brigade would have been involved in the risk assessment and recommendations for the internal building but would have had no input or involvement in the external refurbishment works.

In all my time working in this industry (I've been involved in probably over 40 of this type of project) the internal fire stopping strategy was never discussed. It just never came up in conversation. It was all about whether the new system would meet building regs. I'm sure there probably is some sort of cross over in regulations somewhere but I never encountered it.

 

[Cid]

Looks like an air gap in the cladding which made the whole of the outside of the building act like a giant, hot chimney, funelling flames upwards and into the next flat where it would set it all alight. Horrifying. All those people.

The thing is this shouldn't happen. There should be properly fitted intumescent strips which expand to prevent any spread of fire, closing the ventilation gap... this was one of the problems in Lakanal.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not an expert in this kind of external cladding but generally building regulations work on the principle that you shouldn't have continuous hidden cavities through which fire can spread. There are all sorts of cavity barrier products and systems available because of this. Because each flat should have fire separation from the ones above and below it I would have expected that there should be a cavity barrier at each floor level.

Fire spreading through internal cavities is known as an issue. It's also what caused the fire in the Glasgow School of Art a couple of years ago.

There are a lot of people keen to point fingers of blame, of course. It will likely turn out that the cause of this was down to a complicated combination of factors, and it will take a while for them to be identified.

I read a couple of truly terrible articles in the Independent yesterday where an ill-informed journalist was jumping to all sorts of conclusions and they were doing their best to up the clickbait factor of their headlines.

 

[bimble]

Is that something that they would have been able to get legal aid for previously?

Looks like it.
‘They tried to get lawyers’: Devastating cuts to legal aid prevented Grenfell Tower residents accessing advice over safety concerns - Legal Cheek

Lawyers now queuing up to offer their help for free, that is something good.

 

[Wilf]

This the one thing, the thing that w/c londoners can all be on board with - it has to be. Ian Bone was right onto something with the poor doors stuff.

Strangely, I was thinking about the Poor Doors thing when I typed that. For some reason I was thinking it seemed wrong to link a specific small campaign to this horror. It was a fucking stupid thought to have - the Poor Doors campaign is exactly what was going on here. Different doors to keep the poor away/lethal cladding so the rich don't have to look at fucking concrete.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Poor people, ordinary people, have no voice and no influence. They raise the alarm and get ignored because they aren't considered worth the effort, they complain and get threatened with legal action against them and all the while greed continually degrades life.

 

[Pickman's model]

Strangely, I was thinking about the Poor Doors thing when I typed that. For some reason I was thinking it seemed wrong to link a specific small campaign to this horror. It was a fucking stupid thought to have - the Poor Doors campaign is exactly what was going on here. Different doors to keep the poor away/lethal cladding so the rich don't have to look at fucking concrete.

shurely so the sight of concrete doesn't reduce the house prices of the rich

 

[Pickman's model]

Poor people, ordinary people, have no voice and no influence. They raise the alarm and get ignored because they aren't considered worth the effort, they complain and get threatened with legal action against them and all the while greed continually degrades life.

thank you for your recap of the thread.

 

[teuchter]

In all my time working in this industry (I've been involved in probably over 40 of this type of project) the internal fire stopping strategy was never discussed.

What do you mean by "internal fire stopping strategy"? I don't understand why you say it was never discussed and all that was discussed was building regs. Fire stopping strategies are a fundamental component of meeting building regs.

 

[Anudder Oik]

I cannot understand how tower blocks with such obvious weaknesses re: escape / no sprinklers can warrant anything but the highest standards of fire resistance in building materials.

All building materials are tested for resistance to stress, weight and fire. That this has happened in the UK and in the 21st century is absolutely sickening.

 

[teuchter]

lethal cladding so the rich don't have to look at fucking concrete.

Where are people getting this idea that the main motivation to install the cladding was to improve appearance for the rich?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Well put, but I think there's another clear strategy at play.

The first element is already happening, actually much like the pattern of terrorism response without the policing element, to limit the discussion to victim welfare - we must help these people, identify the dead, it's too soon to talk politics, investigations will be made when the time is right, etc - which buys a lot of very valuable time for political manoeuvring and preparation.

Once that can't be postponed any longer, it'll be all about the specifics of this incident, the more specific the better - the materials, the contractors, the unique elements of the case etc - and as far from the regulatory system and overarching, inherent, repetitive patterns as possible.

Then once that has soaked up as much as it can, great efforts will be made to frame any remainder in terms of progressive positives - how we will make changes to prevent this ever happening again, [as you say] how much money we're spending, etc - and very much not in terms of the historical failures, missed opportunities and so on.

Each of these will be a battle - to reclaim ownership of and recast in the appropriate terms.

Meanwhile people have plenty of time to shred everything they can find.

 

[Pickman's model]

All building materials are tested for resistance to stress, weight and fire. That this has happened in the UK and in the 21st century is absolutely sickening.

don't know why. people being slipshod with health and safety's got a long and sorry history. government and companies playing fast and loose with other people's lives is more the rule than the exception.

 

[Pickman's model]

Where are people getting this idea that the main motivation to install the cladding was to improve appearance for the rich?

try using google or reading the thread: Grenfell Tower cladding was added to improve view from nearby luxury houses

next time you're on your own

 

[Wilf]

Where are people getting this idea that the main motivation to install the cladding was to improve appearance for the rich?

I posted this earlier:
Grenfell Tower was covered in material to make it look better. That’s being blamed for multiple deaths

 

[hash tag]

Where are people getting this idea that the main motivation to install the cladding was to improve appearance for the rich?

Why else do it, what was the point of it.
I see we have now lost 17 people and rising

 

[dessiato]

I keep reading this thread, and the news. I swing between wanting to cry with the emotions stirred by this awful event, and wanting to cry in rage at the appalling treatment that has been meted, and continues to be meted, out to these victims.

I know nothing can bring anyone back, but things must be but in place to ensure nothing like this can ever happen again.

 

[teuchter]

try using google or reading the thread: Grenfell Tower cladding was added to improve view from nearby luxury houses

next time you're on your own

As I suspected: uncritical reading of sensationalist articles by crap journalists.

They claim that the fact that the appearance of the block from surrounding areas was mentioned in the planning report is somehow significant.

Ever single planning report for every single planning application assesses the visual impact of a development on the surrounding area. It's part of what the planning process does. That these things were mentioned in the report for this particular project means absolutely nothing.

 

[mauvais]

What do you mean by "internal fire stopping strategy"? I don't understand why you say it was never discussed and all that was discussed was building regs. Fire stopping strategies are a fundamental component of meeting building regs.

I can't speak for them, but I think they mean that, at least from certain perspectives, the reliance is placed on components and component regulations, not the sum of their parts. 'Is this wall that I'm building in compliance with fire regs?' rather than 'has the whole building got an effective fire strategy?' - which can be both a good and bad thing. Good in that every basic work item is in support of a goal without even necessarily knowing or understanding it, bad in that a lack of a holistic view can lead to a new sort of failure, perhaps a 'swiss cheese' one.

 

[teuchter]

Why else do it, what was the point of it.

The clue is that the panels contained insulation.

If they were installed purely for decorative purposes they would not have contained insulation.

 

[teuchter]

'Is this wall that I'm building in compliance with fire regs?' rather than 'has the whole building got an effective fire strategy?' -

Assessing the whole building strategy is absolutely definitely part of the normal building regs process.