Grenfell Tower tragedy continued

[RhythmAndStealth]

Twelve people confirmed dead with that number expected to rise significantly.

Many others injured and distressed. People have lost relatives, friends and their homes.

250 firefighters in attendance, risking their lives in an unprecented fire and it's aftermath. Other emergency services and NHS staff working hard to help survivors.

Many questions to be answered.

to all those affected and everyone helping.

cladding is done to insulate externally, to protect the structure of the building from weather/corrosion. the asthetic is just a 'side effect'.

It was absolutely for cosmetic reasons! This is listed in the documents where the company who did the cladding use it as part of their portfolio of jobs they can do.

The fact it had a slight thermal benefit was also mentioned but even in this documentation it was not made out to be the main purpose.

I'm sorry that I don't have the link any more, I've trawled through so many pages over the last two days, I don't even know where to begin to look. This thread might still have a working link buried in the comments (the original link seems to have been deleted even from the archive service.)

www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/6h7b28/why_would_the_refurb_company_of_grenfell_tower/

I never said it shouldn't cover fire stopping works I've said it's possible to cost close to 10m. It could even cost 30m if rbkc wanted to spend that money. I'm currently on 61m housing project so know the figures. Telling you how much scaffolding for terrace house is in London (local authority) should give you an indication how much scaffold for 24 storey should be (close to 1m) but clearly failed. So your pathetic estimations are just ridiculous. Cost includes access (scaffold ) , surveys , drawings , planning permission , building control charges etc. Let's not forget that just because you on your 4 floor doesn't mean you are not going to be charged for the roof or lifts if you are on a ground floor. Cost is split for everything and I mean everything (although some charges are landlords responsibilities only ) so your dp doing cash in hand job or whatever small project up north is nothing compare to the major commercial deals in London ,

I don't know Slim. It's sometimes used as insulation but usually it's rockwool they use for that. Or what jobs we do use rockwool. Either on a roll like what you put in your loft or in boards. Some reports say it was cosmetic. But to do that work at that height a lot of the cost as has been pointed out would have been plant hire. So actually getting tradesmen on the outside of the building. So why you wouldn't insulate at the same time doesn't make sense.

But for 8.7 million you would expect it to at least be firestopped.

If it's in the regs, I'd expect it to be firestopped to those regs. And if not, people should be in court.

But this is the key question - does the building comply with the regs previously posted by CoteDAzur? If not, there are 21 other buildings to urgently check.

If it does comply with the regs, then we have an even bigger problem.

Someone will know the answer soon, if not already. One section of the cladding is undamaged so can be inspected as soon as safe to do so. Not sure if firestops can be assessed by looking at the damaged exterior of the building? Someone in the trade might know?

Posted on another thread, link to a BBC article:

London Fire: The working class aren't being listened to

There were concerns beforehand by residents about whether firestops had been put back. No you can't see them.

But the real issue here is the lack of regulation. There have been people and groups lobbying for better building legislation for tower blocks for many years. The fire assessments were in practice deregulated so experts were no longer involved. This is the result.

Here's what they said in the design statement for the cladding...

"CLADDING DESIGN BRIEF
The over-cladding works are an integral part of the upgrade to the
heating of the building, while also being a complete overhaul to its
appearance. New windows will deliver improved thermal performance
and better functionality. The existing windows are 40 years old and at
the end of their design life. More detail on the proposed energy
efficiency of the complete building envelope and the parameters use
in identifying the preferred window option can be found in the
Sustainability Statement.
In consultation with the Design Team, the TMO and through several
open workshops with residents we arrived at the following objectives
for over-cladding:
• A dramatic improvement in heat loss with new insulation and air
sealing which will generate significant energy savings.
• Windows which can be opened sufficiently to naturally vent the
building throughout the year, without contributing to a risk of
falling.
• Windows that can be safely cleaned from the inside.
• Windows that maintain the existing good levels of natural daylight
internally.
• Improved acoustic performance which will bring the noise levels
inside the flats to within Planning policy targets.
• To re-compose the tower with the reconfigured spaces at the
lower floors into a coherent single entity and improve the overall
appearance of the tower which is such a dominant presence in
the public realm that will be upgraded as part of the KALC project. "

and

"The underlying concrete frame to the tower is in good condition and
there are no concerns as to its lifespan. The selection of materials for
the cladding have also been made with a view to achieving maximum
life out of the investment. The Zinc and aluminium systems have
lifespans of 30-50 years and can be easily recycled when the time
comes to replace them. Both require little or no maintenance. "

thanks Frouby

in terms of protecting it from weather etc, I'm wondering if that was needed, but I'm aware the block was built in 1974...I thought concrete blocks were okay for weather proof-ness (apologies for making up words) for a longer time.

it just wouldn't surprise me if, in such a corrupt climate, the work was done with no real benefit to anyone who wasn't going to profit from it.

The press still going with 100 feared dead. Sadly if the number the authorities expect have been killed was much less they would be briefing the press of their estimates.

pfer you obviously charm your way into massive tenders.

Whatever they spent 8.7 million quid on it wasn't exactly well spent was it?

Forby you don't have a construction background do you ? We mainly use cladding to improve appearance and reduce mAintenance cost over period of years . To maintain brick or concrete we hAve to effect scaffold every 5-7 years (depending on location Tec ) cladding will last 20 years plus (depending on spec ) with almost 0 maintenance cost

Idiot ...

Erect. .. time to go to sleep

Apologies if this has already been covered, but looking at the pictures of the burning tower, it looks like the fire spread internally as well as externally, due to the cladding. Is there a reason why this might be so?

I read yesterday on the BBC live feed that part of the refurbishment program was the removal of fire breaks, or measures to prevent fire spreading, and the question was raised - had these been replaced? But I have not been able to find this report since. Did anyone else spot this?

Again, from another thread (thank you, Westminstenders)

Tom Peck‏*@tompeck*
The Times says the "fire resistant" panels cost £24. The flammable £22. Making the building non-flammable would have cost £5K more. Stunned.

I've seen on Twitter tweets quoting The Times which has said the difference between the cost of the flammable and inflammable cladding was £2 per sheet - £22 or £24.

If true that is horrendous as the decision can't have "saved" more than a few thousand pounds across the whole building.

The cladding was to make it look pretty. That was prioritised over sprinklers that residents wanted.

X-posts Rhythm

KockMeDown, as the fire spread on the exterior the heat shattered windows allowing the flames to enter the flats and ignite curtains, sofas, etc.

Interestingly rbkc had plenty of documents online in regards to fire risk assessments etc. I could access them yesterday so don't know if it was due to traffic in the web or it was their intention to stop people viewing them..