Huge Fire In Block Of Flats
Discussion
JagLover said:
Just one point to add to this however is that a number of residents didn't recognise that help was being provided by the council.
One tenant complained in a media interview about not seeing anyone from the council, whilst sat besides the social worker assigned to the family by the council....
This seems to be because people expect the Pm/ mayor/ councillor to be doing the actual work. If I was caught up in something like that I'd be more than happy for elected celeb to stay well out of the way and not be a distraction. One tenant complained in a media interview about not seeing anyone from the council, whilst sat besides the social worker assigned to the family by the council....
lemmingjames said:
alot of us understand all you have said and agree, its just the troll (who has now gone quiet) wasnt able to
If you mean who I think you mean, he's busy on another thread advocating ripping up the railways and relaying them as roads for autonomous electric vehicles.lemmingjames said:
austinsmirk said:
said lots of stuff on why retro-fitting wont or cant happen
alot of us understand all you have said and agree, its just the troll (who has now gone quiet) wasnt able toV8 Fettler said:
lemmingjames said:
austinsmirk said:
said lots of stuff on why retro-fitting wont or cant happen
alot of us understand all you have said and agree, its just the troll (who has now gone quiet) wasnt able toYou have admitted yourself that the tragedy at Grenfell was not caused by the lift design in that building, but the exceptional way the cladding burnt. So take the cladding out of the equation and our existing regulatory system dictates that you do not need to upgrade the basic fire safety system in a building each and every time somebody updates the regulations. So despite this you are still advocating improvements that are simply not needed according to the regulations! That's not dictated by cost, but by need!
Retro-fitting modern thermal insulation systems to an existing building isn't rocket science either, but take Grenfell as an awful example of what can go wrong with such a simplistic approach.
Excuse me if I am wrong, but didn't I see on TV some while back that the problem was that the new windows projected outward from the building thus allowing the fire to force its way into each flat from under each window? I am following the thread with interest, but I am only a layman here.
lowdrag said:
Excuse me if I am wrong, but didn't I see on TV some while back that the problem was that the new windows projected outward from the building thus allowing the fire to force its way into each flat from under each window? I am following the thread with interest, but I am only a layman here.
Someone on this thread seemed to say that the windows were moved from the original fireproof concrete structure in the (not) fireproof cladding, with those results. Had the cladding been fireproof as it was meant to be that would have been fine, as it was....mcdjl said:
lowdrag said:
Excuse me if I am wrong, but didn't I see on TV some while back that the problem was that the new windows projected outward from the building thus allowing the fire to force its way into each flat from under each window? I am following the thread with interest, but I am only a layman here.
Someone on this thread seemed to say that the windows were moved from the original fireproof concrete structure in the (not) fireproof cladding, with those results. Had the cladding been fireproof as it was meant to be that would have been fine, as it was....From what I've read it is suggested that they moved the windows from their original position within the concrete window openings, outwards so they sat within the new cladding system, then closed the gap around the inside with a UPVC liner. This would have been done intentionally to eliminate condensation causing 'cold-bridging' between the new insulated cladding and the windows, you need the insulation to tie-in with the double-glazing. Making the whole concrete structure 'warm' has real advantages from a thermal performance perspective.
There are some serious questions to be asked about fire-stopping within the whole cladding system, and this should include a question over the lack of fire stopping around the window openings.
As the fire spread up the cladding (a year ago on Thursday!) there was no effective restriction on that fire entering each flat at each level. Again, it all comes back to the combustible nature of the cladding and insulation, but this is another element where that cladding installation has made the external envelope perform much worse than some people predicted.
The Surveyor said:
V8 Fettler said:
lemmingjames said:
austinsmirk said:
said lots of stuff on why retro-fitting wont or cant happen
alot of us understand all you have said and agree, its just the troll (who has now gone quiet) wasnt able toYou have admitted yourself that the tragedy at Grenfell was not caused by the lift design in that building, but the exceptional way the cladding burnt. So take the cladding out of the equation and our existing regulatory system dictates that you do not need to upgrade the basic fire safety system in a building each and every time somebody updates the regulations. So despite this you are still advocating improvements that are simply not needed according to the regulations! That's not dictated by cost, but by need!
Retro-fitting modern thermal insulation systems to an existing building isn't rocket science either, but take Grenfell as an awful example of what can go wrong with such a simplistic approach.
Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
V8 Fettler said:
The "need" is to reduce risk to life.
Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
How many people have died due to lack of fire fighters lifts?Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
How many people have died to fireproof cladding not being fireproof?
Which is there more need for?
bit surprised no one has cited this disaster and the lessons learnt from it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
To me it seemed to lead to high rise not being fitted out with gas (or should I say it wasn't popular to do so): I've certainly dealt for decades with high rise and walk up blocks being all electric.
Of course being all electric is hard to manage, heat, store, afford............. over time gas has been retro fitted into buildings: either as mass communal schemes or single systems into flats. I'd say to make the flats more affordable and more attractive (and homely)
My lengthy ish post was about the affordability of the asset: it's all well and good going- lets spend £5m putting fireman's lifts in and extra safety gear- but is it wise to invest into the asset to do so ? Has the asset been sweated enough as such and is it time to change it/drop it and do something else instead.
However I don't have the answers for providing the density of affordable housing in London, where a god awful ex council flat can fetch £1m on the private market- but up here in Yorkshire the identical unit sits empty as no tnt wants it, or for the daft people who bought them, they find they'd worth £40k on the open market with no buyers.
Thus as a landlord: (in the real world) would you even bother investing into them, when the demand from customers (70% of them benefit dependent) is simply for houses. But London is unique place of course- you can't do nor achieve that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
To me it seemed to lead to high rise not being fitted out with gas (or should I say it wasn't popular to do so): I've certainly dealt for decades with high rise and walk up blocks being all electric.
Of course being all electric is hard to manage, heat, store, afford............. over time gas has been retro fitted into buildings: either as mass communal schemes or single systems into flats. I'd say to make the flats more affordable and more attractive (and homely)
My lengthy ish post was about the affordability of the asset: it's all well and good going- lets spend £5m putting fireman's lifts in and extra safety gear- but is it wise to invest into the asset to do so ? Has the asset been sweated enough as such and is it time to change it/drop it and do something else instead.
However I don't have the answers for providing the density of affordable housing in London, where a god awful ex council flat can fetch £1m on the private market- but up here in Yorkshire the identical unit sits empty as no tnt wants it, or for the daft people who bought them, they find they'd worth £40k on the open market with no buyers.
Thus as a landlord: (in the real world) would you even bother investing into them, when the demand from customers (70% of them benefit dependent) is simply for houses. But London is unique place of course- you can't do nor achieve that.
V8 Fettler said:
The "need" is to reduce risk to life.
Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Have you sat in the 'lead/principal designer' seat?Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Clients would rather pay £20k on a new kitchen than £2k on guarding.
There is immense pressure to design to the absolute minimum, and anything beyond is seen as a negative.
V8 Fettler said:
...
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Now I know you are either trolling this thread or simply have no idea what you're talking about.Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
wjwren said:
Just watching victoria Derbyshire. 2 firemen on saying people are writing negative comments online etc about the firemen and blame them. What an earth could they blame the firemen about they went into a burning building to help save lives ffs.
It's just part of the blame game. Everybody involved has been blamed at some point including the owner of the flat where the fire started, the other residents, the managers, the designers, the contractors, the sub-contractors, the material manufacturers, the council, the PM, the Tories, Labour, Brexit, and now the fire fighters. All based on limited knowledge at best.wjwren said:
Just watching victoria Derbyshire. 2 firemen on saying people are writing negative comments online etc about the firemen and blame them. What an earth could they blame the firemen about they went into a burning building to help save lives ffs.
I suspect they are not blaming the firefighters who fought the blaze and tried to get people out; I suspect the "blame" is on the call handlers who followed the standard advice of staying put in a tower block blaze (that advice being founded on not unreasonable assumptions about the basic fire integrity of the structure). Sadly in this age of social media and instant gratification, such detail quickly gets lost, distorted or ignored.WindyMills said:
V8 Fettler said:
The "need" is to reduce risk to life.
Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Have you sat in the 'lead/principal designer' seat?Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Clients would rather pay £20k on a new kitchen than £2k on guarding.
There is immense pressure to design to the absolute minimum, and anything beyond is seen as a negative.
Value engineering is all important, until it all goes wrong.
London Fire Brigade said:
There are countless points where a dangerous decision can be made about a building’s design or upkeep and hardly any measures to ensure the people making those decisions are sufficiently experienced and properly qualified.
I agree with the London Fire Brigade.https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/london-fire-bri...
The Surveyor said:
V8 Fettler said:
...
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
Now I know you are either trolling this thread or simply have no idea what you're talking about.Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
mcdjl said:
V8 Fettler said:
The "need" is to reduce risk to life.
Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
How many people have died due to lack of fire fighters lifts?Modern (operational) firefighters lift + effective fire doors + sufficient water = fewer casualties.
Residual risk assessment under CDM is but one route by which the requirement for a modern firefighters lift could have been identified, CDM being applicable to the recent refurb works.
How many people have died to fireproof cladding not being fireproof?
Which is there more need for?
Stupid woman, why hold your party today? Would it have hurt to have it tomorrow or next week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5842005/Gr...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5842005/Gr...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff