
London’s Grenfell Tower Fire Was No Ordinary Accident - DiabloD3
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/08/grenfell-was-no-ordinary-accident/536907/
======
rwmj
There's a lot wrong with the British housing market. In fact, almost every
aspect of it from provision, social housing, prices, renting, taxation, to the
actual process of buying and selling — is demonstrably broken.

But ... the Grenfell Tower fire was a specific failure of building and fire
regulations, and it could still have happened even if the housing market was
working and councils had been building housing for the poor. The cladding was
installed for environmental reasons — it reduces heat loss so you need less
energy to heat the building. Now we learn that this sort of cladding is much
more dangerous than was generally understood, we replace the stuff on other
buildings, and move on. This is mostly orthogonal to fixing the housing market
or "neoliberalism".

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's depressing to see commenters with no understanding of what actually
happened at Grenfell.

Here is what actually happened: the cladding used does not meet UK safety
standards, and there were warnings from experts and residents that the
cladding _was not safe to use._

The council decided to ignore the warnings, because cheap and dangerous
cladding saved around £300,000 on a £9m refurb that residents argued wasn't
needed in the first place and which they didn't particularly benefit from.

It certainly _wasn 't_ an energy saving measure.

The right-wing Tory council is not poor[1]. It has cash reserves of £200m, and
gave council tax payers a £100 refund around the time of the refurb.

So yes - this is _absolutely_ about right-wing greed, and right-wing disdain
for the relatively poor.

[1] Although it's going to be a lot poorer once this is settled.

~~~
rwmj
_> It certainly wasn't an energy saving measure._

This is factually wrong. If you read the original planning application[1]
you'll see a whole section about climate change and energy efficiency (page 10
for the hard of reading). There's a second document[2] which goes into the
energy efficiency in a lot more detail. Section 2.1 of the second document
says that cladding was specifically added for energy efficiency reasons.

[1] [https://www.scribd.com/document/351448748/Grenfell-Tower-
Pla...](https://www.scribd.com/document/351448748/Grenfell-Tower-Planning-
Application)

[2] [https://www.scribd.com/document/351448758/Grenfell-Tower-
Sus...](https://www.scribd.com/document/351448758/Grenfell-Tower-
Sustainability-and-Energy-Statement)

------
buro9
I am probably an exception on HN. I live in a London tower block, on the 19th
floor.

The block I am in was subject to a BBC documentary a decade ago for being a
high fire risk building.

The containment measures originally designed into the building have long been
compromised by short-term upgrades to kitchens and bathrooms. The service
riser is now a chimney that freely joins every flat in a vertical quarter of
the building into a single contiguous fire channel.

We have no sprinklers, we have a single fire escape, but there is no fire
alarm. The theory is that containment will hold and so it is best that people
stay put. That the emergency services will need to come up the fire escape,
and this is why Grenfell residents stayed put. But even were people to orderly
try and use it, there is no means to raise the alarm.

Internal fire doors do not create a seal. Internal doors in the flats have
been removed over time and not replaced by the landlord (the council).

Central heating was removed and replaced with a communal oil burner for a
radiator system. The central heating ducts remain, joining flats vertically,
joining rooms of flats, filled with dust and not sealed off.

Simply put, I live in a death trap.

I am more fortunate than my neighbours. Despite having been homeless when I
was younger, I now have a salary that allows me to save for a deposit and to
find another place to live. But London rents being what they are I cannot move
now and still save for a deposit... if I did I would be consigning myself to
never own the property in which I live.

So I must stay, and deal with the fire risk, manage it as best I can, whilst I
save for a deposit.

If anyone ever wants to know why startups should have a market to permit
existing shareholders to buy shares from employees holding options... this is
it. Life gets in the way. I'm sitting on share options that could provide a
transformational effect on my life, that could let me sleep at night and live
in much lower stress levels. It's hard to give 100% to work when any night
could be the night I am burned alive. I sleep fitfully, restlessly. I am so
desperate for a way out... but it takes time, I only have a salary and the IPO
is too long away (even if gets announced tomorrow).

Fire risks are real, the terrible neglect of housing is real, and it doesn't
help everyone but if you're a founder and you want to know how to help
someone... provide liquidity to your employees.

~~~
tiplus
I had similar fears in my last appartment building (12th floor) after a deadly
fire in the neighbouring tower. I ended up buying a long rope at a climbing
outlet and some used climbing gear. There are also more expensive fire proof
rope ladders but the rope worked for me.

~~~
buro9
I have checked eBay for WW2 sirens. They're cheap, and I proposed installing
one outside as an alarm.

This was quickly rejected by the councillor who informed me that sirens are
used for the flood alarms (we're 200m from the Thames).

Instead I've resorted to DIY fire safety. MDF fire panels installed as best as
possible around the riser, as that is the most likely source of fire. It will
buy me a little time, and I will not be relying on containment to save us...
I'll be going down the fire escape regardless of instructions.

~~~
Spooky23
Good for you.

I've been through a few incidents where my building should have been evacuated
but wasn't due to incompetence or disinterest. In one case, several of my
employees who were unable to negotiate stairs (due to injuries) were
accidentally left trapped and unevacuated in an elevator lobby during a minor
fire. They picked up the emergency phone and the response from the police was
literally "WTF do you think I can do about it?"

The response from my employers fire safety people when we complained was
threatening to write a discipline referal for me because I didn't send people
to fire training. (Three of the folks working for me were firemen who were
delivering the training!)

Don't assume that anyone has their shit together. Understand how to evacuate
from your home and office and bug out when shit happens. Don't be like those
poor people in WTC who followed instructions.

------
m-i-l
Not to detract from the other important points in the article (prevention is
better than the cure), but no mention of the fact that the fire bridge for a
city full of tall buildings didn't have any tall ladders or means to help the
people at the windows to escape (maybe also due to government cutbacks):
apparently one that was 30m tall (enough to reach the 10th floor) was
dispatched 24 mins after the first fire crews[0], and the tallest one in the
country a few hours later but that was still just 42m tall[1] (for reference
Grenfell Tower itself is 67m high).

[0]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40602144](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40602144)

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
london-40357535](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40357535)

~~~
PaulRobinson
The general attitude has been that if building regulations are followed, you
won't need the ladders. Grenfell residents themselves were told in the event
of a fire to NOT evacuate, and to stay in their homes. The presumption was
that any fire could be isolated, contained and extinguished easily.

The questions now being raised are over whether the building regulations were
enough. Successive governments have reduced the "red tape" in the name of
liberating the market, but it seems free markets will often compromise when it
comes to safety.

That said, I'm not sure right now I would want to live at the top of the Shard
(as some people do).

~~~
robin_reala
No-one yet lives in the Shard apartments:
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/05/shard-
apart...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/05/shard-apartments-
empty-flats-london-market)

~~~
PaulRobinson
As a Londoner who can't afford to buy here despite being on a senior engineer
salary, I like this.

The concentration of super-money in W1 is what pushed prices up as the ripple
moved out, at least more so than immigration. The fact the market is slowing
at that end means there might be a ripple back, which coupled with a falling
residency rate (July was the first month more people moved out of London than
moved in for 10 years), means we might see a collapse and we can start to
afford homes again.

------
Stranger43
A big part of the problem is that pretty much all of the brutalist concrete
building of the 70ies have problems if they aren’t straight on fire-traps they
are mold infested places suffering from what the authorities often call sick
building
syndrome([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796751/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796751/))
combined with a massive urban housing crisis and a civic religion that forbids
spending any significant money on infrastructure primarily used by the poor.

It's a combination of decades worth of neglect to a set of buildings that were
from day one at the edge of what we knew how to build and maintain due to a
demand that they were kept cheap enough to be affordable on the declining
working class wages.

Fixing it is not going to be a few replaced panels here and there but a
massive 10 year redevelopment plan to replace a lot of old 70ies crap with new
buildings, in a political climate where nobody the political systems care
about actually wants social housing to be a thing, and as always when there is
a real problem the western way is to plug ears, close eyes and chant some feel
good mantra.

------
Lazare
I would summarise the article's arguments as follows:

A state-owned, and state-managed block of apartments burned, causing a
horrible loss of life due to a string of horrible decisions made by state
employees and politicians. This is clearly the fault of corporations,
capitalism, and politicians who were not involved in the decisions. Also,
Thatcher. And Americans. Especially Silicon Valley. And Republicans.

I'm open to the idea that there's a larger context which is important to
understand, but I'm somewhat sceptical of a conclusion so tidy as "every
onewho directly caused this is innocent; everyone I disagree with is actually
to blame".

~~~
stuaxo
You're twisting and simplifying this greatly.

It is in fact elements of the state that have been vilifying the poor.

The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job.
The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not using
the flame retardant cladding.

Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of the
system that caused this.

The comment is so far from reality, it reminds me of one of the funniest
things I've heard some Americans say on a train, near London; Kid: "Do British
people love the government", Dad: "Yes they do". I almost spat out my coffee,
it was such a hilarious misrepresentation.

~~~
Lazare
> The state put in place the systems that mean the lowest bidder gets the job.
> The companies put the cladding in place then saved money further by not
> using the flame retardant cladding.

Actually, no. The paper trail is clear; the _council_ requested the
contractors switch to more dangerous, aluminium cladding to save money. This
wasn't about private sector greed costing lives; this was a decision made in
the _public sector_. According to this article[1] linked from the citylab
piece:

"One document - a list of requested savings sent to contractors in July 2014 -
details potential savings of £693,161, reducing the cost of the contract from
about £9.2m to £8.5m. It includes £293,368 that would be saved by fitting
"aluminium cladding in lieu of zinc cladding". [...] The savings were part of
an ongoing effort by the council and the local tenant management organisation
to drive down the cost of the refurbishment. [...] the change was typical of
constant pressure by councils [...] this led to the appointment of a different
contractor in 2014 which was then asked to make savings including on the
cladding.

The entire process was driven by the local council, and the money saved went
to the council, _not_ the contractors.

> Making this to state vs private doesn't make sense, when both are part of
> the system that caused this.

Sure, the contractors and the council were part of the same system. And in
this system, the council hired the contractors, and told them to cut corners;
when the first contractors didn't cut enough corners, they found new
contractors who could cut more corners.

Just because different actors are part of the same system doesn't mean their
actions, responsibility, and culpability are equal. (And many of the actors
mentioned in the citylab piece, such as silicon valley, aren't even part of
the system.)

[1]:
[http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054)

------
jmkni
The last time this came up, somebody posted this link to the 1984 Adam Curtis
documentary, The Great British Housing Disaster.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd7i5-baJAs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd7i5-baJAs)

It's worth a watch, even over 30 years ago it was known that cladding posed a
fire risk to high rise buildings in the UK, if you jump to 45 minutes in they
are talking specifically about this.

------
Rjevski
"determine whether criminal charges should be brought against culpable
parties"

How is that even a fucking question? Many people died - whoever is responsible
for the design flaw or cutting corners SHOULD pay.

------
trhway
fires of aluminum clad buildings like Grenfell or that in Saudi Arabia
reminded about Navy ships with aluminum (like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_(CG-26)#Collision....](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Belknap_\(CG-26\)#Collision.2C_fire.2C_and_reconstruction)
) or other light alloy (like Al/Mg on some USSR/Russian destroyers)
superstructures - good idea for whatever reason like speed and weight until
fire breaks out (galley stove or missile hit, doesn't matter) and the thing
goes off like a firework. On the other side - M2 Bradley does have aluminum
armor.

~~~
digi_owl
Weird how wikipedia do not make much mention of aluminum as a fire hazard.
Most of the focus seems to be on how it does not have the tell tale signs of
melting that say iron has.

It has half the melting point of iron, and shows no yellow-orange glow until
it just collapse.

Basically it kinda seem to be all fine unless you have a thermal camera, until
it just flops into a liquid.

now powdered aluminum do go off like firework when exposed to an open flame.

~~~
jacquesm
Aluminum oxidizes so rapidly that you can't even normally connect to it unless
you take all kinds of precautions to make sure that the bare aluminum does not
_instantly_ grow another layer of oxide (which is non-conducting). And that's
at ambient temperatures and the normal oxygen content %age of the air.

Hence the existence of special aluminum connectors which keep the joint under
constant pressure for the life of the connection, you can see these at work in
lightweight powerlines.

Complications can quickly cause real problems because as the skin forms the
resistance of the connection goes up and this causes power to be lost
increasing the temperature of the joint. This can lead to a runaway effect, if
you're lucky the whole thing disconnects before something bad happens, if
you're unlucky you have an electrical fire on your hands.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_building_wiring)

So even if aluminum has lots of really good properties for wiring it is still
only used in a relatively small number of specialized applications.

Another spot where you will find Aluminum and its rapid oxidization property
exhibited clearly is in solid rockets (as fuel) and fireworks (to give you
some nice colored effects).

------
purplezooey
Just Stop Putting Conservatives Into Office. Just Stop. why... hasn't the
world learned this yet. just stop doing it. stop.

------
Pica_soO
One question nobody dares to ask aloud. How many high-danger buildings like
the Grenfell Tower ware there?

I guess a list and a map of this would be enough to set a revolution into
motion.

Im sure, the usual suspects will show up- defending this atrocity with the
same excuses socialist use on Venezuela.

"This is not really capitalism.."

"The people who lived inside choose to live there- they where free to leave -
until they were not.."

"This is not a systematic failure, but the failure of person XY, a morally
outrageous being we should shun into the dessert.."

"On the map, its in a state, thus if there is a state, the execution was not
pure enough.."

Silence in the comment below- seems even fanatics know shame.

~~~
Joeboy
> One question nobody dares to ask aloud. How many high-danger buildings like
> the Grenfell Tower ware there?

228, according to the assessment commissioned by the government.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/25/grenfell-
fir...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/25/grenfell-
fire-228-buildings-at-risk-across-uk)

Edit: Now I've read it, there'a actually an answer in the article itself,
although it's now superceded by the number above:

> Earlier this month, the government admitted that 181 other high-rise
> buildings clad in similar material have failed fire safety tests

~~~
Pica_soO
228- each of them home to 300 people?

That are estimated 68400 people in a constant life threatening danger.

~~~
PaulRobinson
In some cases more, in some cases less.

And yes, there is a general sense that the Government has no clue what to do
about this. People are scared.

