SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From ABC News:
The list of high-rise apartment towers in Britain that have failed fire safety tests grew to 60, officials said Sunday, revealing the mounting challenge the government faces in the aftermath of London's Grenfell Tower fire tragedy.
All of the buildings for which external cladding samples were so far submitted failed combustibility tests, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said. As of late Sunday, that includes 60 towers from 25 different areas of the country — double the figure given a day earlier.
More from the BBC:
The Local Government Association said some councils have introduced 24-hour warden patrols to mitigate the risk before cladding is removed.
It said in a statement: "Where cladding fails the test, this will not necessarily mean moving residents from tower blocks.
"In Camden, the decision to evacuate was based on fire inspectors' concerns about a combination of other fire hazards together with the cladding."
So it looks like, far from an isolated thing, basically everyone had the bright idea to do this.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 26 2017, @09:39AM (10 children)
Your post is pretty accurate, even for the US. But, there is something missing. It's also missing in many small to medium private construction jobs here. There needs to be an inspector, who answers to the paying customer. Construction jobs that I have worked on often have an "inspector" who is employed by the state, who checks the construction. If it happens to be a job funded by the state, that state inspector is VERY thorough. And, I do mean VERY thorough! If it is a private job, such as the hospital I helped to build, the state inspector is much less thorough. To highlight the difference, when I tied rebar on a bridge abutment, paid for by the state, the inspector got picky about which piece of rebar went on top of the other rebar. He had his head and hands inside of the forms, inspecting that closely. At the hospital, the state inspector just casually walked around looking at the concrete after it was poured. He seldom took any measurements, and was satisfied with just about anything that got past the superintendant.
Now, this other inspector I'm speaking of, is a separate, private contractor, who represents the paying customer. He doesn't much care about state standards, he doesn't care if the architect makes or loses money, and he doesn't give a small damn for the subcontractors working on the site. He represents the customer. This inspector is also a licensed contractor, with all the background education and experience that you would expect from the architect, engineer, and master craftsmen on the site.
This individual spends his day inspecting and testing concrete samples, double checking electrical work, plumbing and/or pipefitting, carpentry, even the landscaping. He's the guy who will prepare "punch lists" as the job proceeds. He finds some electrical circuits that aren't properly grounded, he'll write that up in a report to his employer, and a copy goes to the architect, and sometimes directly to the subcontractor responsible. If he finds materials that look substandard, he will include that in his report, and the materials are replaced, or the contract renegotiated to allow for those substandard materials. As the construction goes into it's final phases, his punch lists may include fingerprints on the finish, or even places where the grain of the wood in the finish work doesn't quite blend together.
There really needs to be a representative on site throughout the construction who represents the paying customer's interest. And, that inspector is as liable for the finished construct as any contractor on site, and almost as liable as the architect and/or engineers who designed the building.
Believe me, I've been handed punch lists for such petty little things as dirty handprints on a wall that only maintenance people will EVER see! The state inspector had already signed off, but that customer representative wasn't going to let it slide.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 26 2017, @09:50AM (8 children)
Interesting points, thanks.
Wonder if such a paying-customer's-inspector was present on these construction projects.
It would always be in the interests of whoever funded the construction, to hire such an inspector, right? Even if the building is to be sold or rented-out, the incentive for good construction quality should still be there, no?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday June 26 2017, @11:10AM (7 children)
In these cases, the paying customer is the local council, or worse, the trustee of the committee that runs the building.
For them, cheaper is *always* better. They only put the cladding on the buildings because the people who had to look at (not live in) the buildings thought they were an eye sore.
None of the money improved the buildings for the residents.
They didn't spend money because they wanted to.
So: they spend as little as they can.
Cutting corners, if it saved money, would be considered a Good Thing.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by BK on Monday June 26 2017, @02:54PM (6 children)
IIRC, the cladding also functioned as insulation?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @03:44PM (2 children)
That was the main reason, rather than external looks. The buildings were built decades ago, and found to be very energy wasteful, and in the interest of reducing the energy required to heat the blocks (and corresponding carbon footprint) the government had the building clad in insulation.
The government had committed itself to reducing emissions under the previous environmental agreements, and they cannot force insulating cladding on private houses and buildings. However public buildings are under their purview, so they can mandate whatever they want, doubly so as they are usually the ones paying the heating bills.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday June 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
There have been studies that say that adding external insulation on an old building is also a lot more efficient -let alone less disruptive- than putting it inside.
Since it's faster too, and doesn't shrink living space, that is the recommended retrofit method for millions of homes across Europe (unless you're in a historical district). You often get a tax break for the job.
I didn't expect high-rise external insulation to be flammable, though.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @07:27PM
> I didn't expect high-rise external insulation to be flammable, though.
And neither did I quite frankly. Hopefully we will find out who's really bright idea that was in the end.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @04:47PM (2 children)
Actually, the insulation functions as insulation and the cladding functions as cladding, and the air gap between the two functions as a chimney.
Turns out the insulation used was as flammable as the cladding (maybe more so) and also has the nice friendly effect of releasing cyanide when burned, some of the victims were treated for cyanide poisoning in hospital.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday June 26 2017, @07:29PM (1 child)
> Turns out the insulation used was as flammable as the cladding (maybe more so) and also has the nice friendly effect of releasing cyanide when burned, some of the victims were treated for cyanide poisoning in hospital.
Sounds like they couldn't have made the situation worse if they had tried deliberately :-/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:57PM
Yeah but it was cheap. Any more questions?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @08:55PM
NOOOOH! Don't you know regulation kills business. Anything you do that gets in the way of business is going to destroy America. You better roll over because business needs your asshole to drive a cock into right now.