Cladding

[Butcher]

No I'm not kidding you, from reading your comments over the last few pages you've given me the distinct impression that you've lost your objectivity because it seems your more interested in blaming a particular premiership despite you yourself admitting there's been problems for over half a century.

When you politicise an issue you're inviting a response in kind as people feel the need to defend their ideology and by joining in you're only adding fuel to the fire when we should be focusing on the objective facts

I'd say johnroe definitely has a political axe to grind there, it's not just you seeing that.

[Ttaskmaster]

T>that's the problem then, you're on the wrong thread. You want the 'Ttaskmaster is annoyed by recent building projects, empty office blocks, foreign investors,rail privatisation' thread. Stop trying to hijack this one.

But surely you understand all these elements are important....?
Surely you see that these are all facets of that same political motivation that led to incidents such as this?
Surely you can see the wider picture?

I look at the different opinions of experts, and try to come to some overall understanding of how the UK got into such a mess with it's housing stock

See above for some of my examples of just such things and how they affect industries as a whole.

No one is picking holes in my argument, if I can call it that, it's an argument put forward by experts(I'm only referencing and interpreting). T is just arguing for the sake of it.

I just *ripped* down your idea of interring entire segments of the population in culturally segregated ghettos - Not so much picking, as excavating the flaws with a JCB, really.

I also said I'm not interested people that just post inane comments after my quotes.

Then refrain from posting inane quotes...

Because like most, I didn't know the complex background behind this case, but now I realise that contractors for decades have been criminal in their procurement of council contracts, criminal in the buildings they supplied which have blighted the lives of many, and criminal in the cladding of Grenfell Tower and the hundreds of others across the country.

Well I pretty much made that point already....... Might have gotten burined beneath your own blinkered opinion, though.

So now you attack the poster, got it!

You regularly attack the poster and utterly fail to address their arguments. The epitome of that which you now whine about.

I'm not talking about kinder garden forum cliches specific to you, but are still in use on this forum, as a way of insulting a poster you don't agree with

If I or anyone here wanted to insult YOU, we would do it directly to your face and quite clearly.
Insulting your argument is another matter and if you lay down remarks worthy of such ridicule then of course we will set to, as we have thus.

Well I'm taking a wider view and looking at the real problems. Shortage of safe housing.

But ignoring anything beyond the sound of your own voice on the matter...

[ik9000]

[g8ina]

OK lads n lasses (lasses ??) take it easy, and knock off the back biting please, or else Admin may wield hammers of some description ...

[johnroe]

Don't get me started on a rant at Corbusier and his chums, but suffice to say these buildings are not entirely loyal to his principles and are not "machines to benefit the occupants". Some of their genesis might lie there, but it's not really a model of the full thing. (and suffice to say I disagree with the concept of inducing social utopia through enforced community anyway - that being part of the reason at least that it ticked the communists' boxes) It's been a while now since I last read up on this stuff, and I'm stretching the bounds of my memory so I will defer to others on what the whole sphere of his movement was to encompass. Some of the core objectives, of the building serving the users' needs, and trying to optimise layouts to facilitate it, are no bad thing. So you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But the ideal of social harmony by cramming everyone in units vertically, and then giving them all a shared garden? Yeah, we kind of know from the multiple different countrieus who did that, that it doesn't work so well in practice.

I know you said watch the generalisations, but in some ways I find it helpful when taking an over view of a massive amount of data collected over decades. Just as a way of trying to make sense of it.

I think in Europe they conceive of projects in a very different way. So there was with architects like Corbusier, a whole philosophy(incl: social living in the modern era) and references to the art world.

But when an architect here translates that into Brutalism, loses the philosophy and art, then the results are very different. Corbusier seems to me like an early post modernist, and postmodernism itself came out of using old and new references to architecture within one building. I agree, there is a sound underpinning philosophy. In the future new housing projects that are vertical may be necessary, and with modern techniques can be made into incredible living spaces. Britain now has some of the leading (and exciting) architects, I'd think they would relish the challenge of creating new buildings, housing for the 21st century. They've just started using drones to inspect the blocks around here, using IR and film. So tech again offers solutions.

It's seems that that's what the councillor in charge of regenerating that area wanted to talk about, a whole new block, after continual complaints. But because of local politics; tenants didn't want to move out because they thought they'd lose their housing rights, and the Left were claiming it was about 'social cleansing' and gentrification. So it gets complex.

[ik9000]

I know you said watch the generalisations, but in some ways I find it helpful when taking an over view of a massive amount of data collected over decades. Just as a way of trying to make sense of it.

I think in Europe they conceive of projects in a very different way. So there was with architects like Corbusier, a whole philosophy(incl: social living in the modern era) and references to the art world.

But when an architect here translates that into Brutalism, loses the philosophy and art, then the results are very different. Corbusier seems to me like an early post modernist, and postmodernism itself came out of using old and new references to architecture within one building. I agree, there is a sound underpinning philosophy. In the future new housing projects that are vertical may be necessary, and with modern techniques can be made into incredible living spaces. Britain now has some of the leading (and exciting) architects, I'd think they would relish the challenge of creating new buildings, housing for the 21st century. They've just started using drones to inspect the blocks around here, using IR and film. So tech again offers solutions.

It's seems that that's what the councillor in charge of regenerating that area wanted to talk about, a whole new block, after continual complaints. But because of local politics; tenants didn't want to move out because they thought they'd lose their housing rights, and the Left were claiming it was about 'social cleansing' and gentrification. So it gets complex.

Corbusier was arguably Brutalist himself.

NB before putting all your trust in architects of the moment, that it was a school of architectural thought, taught by a circle of prominent architects to students in the 1920s/30s that inspired a whole generation of architects to go for mass housing blocks and brutalist architecture once they got into practice themselves. The rest of the world looked on with a mix of horror and bemusement.* But those architects just applauded each other and kept telling one another it was the future. Schools of thought can be dangerous things if those thoughts are not tested against wider criteria than "do my chums like it". That is simplifying a lot, but good enough to make the point. Just like you can't trust bankers to bank properly without scrutiny, nor can you trust architects to get the ideals right without answering to wider audiences. And especially the people who will need to live in and around the things they build. I can name a couple of prestigious household-name architects whose own employees will tell you that a surprising number of their finished (famous) buildings end up with serious defects in use that they are frequently sued by the end user (not always successfully). Reputation does not perfection make.

edit - for clarity not all brutalist architecture is bad. There are some good examples too. The Barbican, The Brunswick Centre, London Southbank, particularly the National Theatre etc.

[johnroe]

ik9000>I'm not sure what that building is but I like it. It does mix styles and forms to come to a new aesthetic(using industrial materials). He also designed those style housing blocks. There was an obsession with the future, technology and progress in Modernism. I think it can be said that some architects are artists, and that many working architects reference their ideas. I think I'll just leave it up to the inquiry now.

I did find this amusing quote, list of complaints by Grenfell residents group> 'Over five years, the action group complained about noise, double-glazing, air pollution, housing policy, gentrification, the fate of a local college, local trees, a cinema and a library, some Labour councillors, all Tory councillors, asbestos, Holland Park Opera, and dozens of other things they didn’t like'.

[ik9000]

This from the resident's own legal team at the inquiry:

"Of the six commonly recognised layers of protection against fire - namely prevention, detection, evacuation, suppression, compartmentation and the resistance of the structure to the fire - at Grenfell Tower, five of those layers failed.

"That the structure survived is testament to its original solid concrete, virtually incombustible construction."

The only thing getting praise from all sides (including independs like the BRE, and the resident's legal team) is the original construction. I think in this instance we can end the debate as to the suitability of the original concrete frame.

[johnroe]

This from the resident's own legal team at the inquiry:



The only thing getting praise from all sides (including independs like the BRE, and the resident's legal team) is the original construction. I think in this instance we can end the debate as to the suitability of the original concrete frame.

I don't doubt the strength of those columns. There are obviously many reasons as to why the system failed. Cuts in fire service, faulty alarm systems, confused escape plans, narrow poorly lit stairwell, overcrowding. And god help those who have to wade through all the data. I was just reading a report from a year ago, where they say there was a gas header pipe situated within the internal structure of the stairwell and tenants had reported leaks, also many fire hazards reported.

'Then in May[2013] Grenfell Tower experienced power surges during which residents witnessed smoke coming out of light fittings and other electrical appliances, including computers, washing machines and televisions, some of which exploded'....'eventually the whole electrical system went into meltdown, with several key meters fused, and electrical appliances in 40 individual residences damaged or destroyed'

Most on the Left are calling for more housing(let's hope this incident is a wake up call for standards), and only the building of low level blocks on a traditional street plan. The bizarre thing is the councillor wanted a new build, tenants wouldn't vacate due to lack of trust and propaganda, so they ended up with a bodged refurbishment(all the safety concerns were known about for decades, and yet still they continued). Now there will be no housing there, no tenants, no new tower, just a monument.

quotes from> https://architectsforsocialhousing.w...ocial-housing/

[TheAnimus]

I think in this instance we can end the debate as to the suitability of the original concrete frame.

The core, and only against fire.

The complaints were against weather and damp.

[johnroe]

The core, and only against fire.

The complaints were against weather and damp.

According to what I've seen so far, and I haven't looked at any new reports yet. Because the original prefab panels weren't uniform and weren't bolted together correctly, water seeped down through the gaps, and that's what the cladding was supposed to stop. But these type of blocks are notorious for damp, sometimes it's lack of ventilation, often there's a leaking water pipe several floors up. I must watch Ben Wheatley's High-Rise again, topical.

[ik9000]

According to what I've seen so far, and I haven't looked at any new reports yet. Because the original prefab panels weren't uniform and weren't bolted together correctly, water seeped down through the gaps, and that's what the cladding was supposed to stop. But these type of blocks are notorious for damp, sometimes it's lack of ventilation, often there's a leaking water pipe several floors up. I must watch Ben Wheatley's High-Rise again, topical.

It's called cold bridging. Modern building standards already require it to be designed out. It is most of a problem on buildings with projecting monolithic concrete balconies, but can also apply where concrete sits exposed externally, and then continues internally. Humid and moist air can then condense and you get mould and damp forming.

Animus, my comment was relating to the structural suitability of the frame (something going back several pages). It stood up in extreme circumstances when modern buildings would have failed. Again, WOULD have failed. So the claim that the default should be to automatically tear old buildings down cos we'd be better off with new ones is not sound.

[johnroe]

ik9000>that does seem a bit callous. Surely given the choice between a new building made to modern standards, and an old one that killed 72 people, well it's obvious. I think they are right as well, if you have to have blocks, make them lower. From the little I've read, and it's all recorded these days(emails, tenants blogs,etc), the tenants thought it was a death trap. To put that right you'd have to remove everything; all the prefab walls and floors, windows(which had to be reset), the wiring, build alternative stairwells to escape by, remove the gas header in the internal frame, put new fire safety measures in building.

'November 2016, in a post titled ‘Playing with Fire!’, the Grenfell Action Group made this fateful observation:

‘It is a truly terrifying thought, but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders'.

I think it's interesting how the corporate world works. That cladding is made in America, Reynobond, but is banned from use there for obvious reasons. Bought by a French company Celotex and sold to refurbishment companies here.

[ik9000]

ik9000>that does seem a bit callous. Surely given the choice between a new building made to modern standards, and an old one that killed 72 people, well it's obvious. I think they are right as well, if you have to have blocks, make them lower. From the little I've read, and it's all recorded these days(emails, tenants blogs,etc), the tenants thought it was a death trap. To put that right you'd have to remove everything; all the prefab walls and floors, windows(which had to be reset), the wiring, build alternative stairwells to escape by, remove the gas header in the internal frame, put new fire safety measures in building.

'November 2016, in a post titled ‘Playing with Fire!’, the Grenfell Action Group made this fateful observation:

‘It is a truly terrifying thought, but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders'.

I think it's interesting how the corporate world works. That cladding is made in America, Reynobond, but is banned from use there for obvious reasons. Bought by a French company Celotex and sold to refurbishment companies here.

For the umpteenth time THE FLOORS WERE SOLID INSITU CONCRETE NOT PRECAST.
You also need to learn to differentiate between STRUCTURE - ie the skeleton of the building that holds it up and stops it falling down, and the FABRIC ie the cladding - that wraps it and makes it weather tight (and in this instance the new stuff made it like a tinder box) - and also the internal finishes and partitions.
The structure performed admirably, and still will on many other older buildings, with suitable changes to the building services and architectural fabric - via modifications/replacements/overcladding etc. That is not callous it is fact.

Please stop being so stubborn and accept it - it's been confirmed by just about everyone involved professionally in the inquiry and in this thread. You think I'm callous. I think you're just being intrasigent and unnecessarily distorting my comments to keep banging the drum of your own biased agenda. So let's call it quits and accept I disagree with all your political hot-head rants, and you disagree with sound reason, engineering judgement and all the parties contributing to the public inquiry regarding the structural performance of the building.

[johnroe]

ik9000>I'm just reading documents, some with a Left bias, The Grenfell Tower Action group, the one I'm quoting above(post 152), and the more Right biased The Tower.

It seems there were a network of gas pipes, I'm supposing feeding the boiler, that weren't covered at the base. I don't know why you would want to keep a structure built in the early seventies, that has such a bad record. Worse why anyone would want to clad it, other than appearances. Oh and they say that because of rain seeping down the walls, the bolts are a third of their original diameter. Callous to keep a building just to save money, that would be better spent on houses, and ultimately led to these deaths and traumas. You are the one ranting again, stop projecting it on to me, get a grip man!

'You have a central core containing the lift, staircase and the vertical risers for the services and then you have external perimeter columns. The services are connected to the central boiler and pump which powered the whole development and this is located in the basement of the tower block. This basement is about 4 meters deep and in addition has 2 meters of concrete at its base. This foundation holds up the tower block and in situ concrete columns and slabs and pre-cast beams all tie the building together.'(Nigel Whitbread) Like I say I'm not doubting the strength of the columns.

Some construction pictures here> https://www.grasart.com/blog/lancast...eal-for-living

'‘There are 700 tower blocks of 11 storeys or more in the capital alone, the vast majority of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s. The conditions in Grenfell Tower are mirrored in housing estates across the country. For decades we have consigned people to live in overcrowded conditions that are not just unacceptable but that, in many cases, are criminally unsafe. Families live in hutches, not houses'. (David Lammy)

What they should have done is rehouse these residents properly. Then knock down the block and rebuild smaller blocks and houses. And create new buildings that residents would enjoy living in, while being safe. Why aren't we building more hundreds of thousands of houses in this country than we are at present. The people clearly need them, what is the problem.

They started taking the cladding off many blocks(the LPS type) and are finding the cracks, the concrete is not as strong as expected. 800 residents have to move out of two Portsmouth blocks, and the same on estates in at least eight other borough around the country.

[ik9000]

ik9000>I'm just reading documents, some with a Left bias, The Grenfell Tower Action group, the one I'm quoting above(post 152), and the more Right biased The Tower.

It seems there were a network of gas pipes, I'm supposing feeding the boiler, that weren't covered at the base. I don't know why you would want to keep a structure built in the early seventies, that has such a bad record. Worse why anyone would want to clad it, other than appearances. Oh and they say that because of rain seeping down the walls, the bolts are a third of their original diameter. Callous to keep a building just to save money, that would be better spent on houses, and ultimately led to these deaths and traumas. You are the one ranting again, stop projecting it on to me, get a grip man!

'You have a central core containing the lift, staircase and the vertical risers for the services and then you have external perimeter columns. The services are connected to the central boiler and pump which powered the whole development and this is located in the basement of the tower block. This basement is about 4 meters deep and in addition has 2 meters of concrete at its base. This foundation holds up the tower block and in situ concrete columns and slabs and pre-cast beams all tie the building together.'(Nigel Whitbread) Like I say I'm not doubting the strength of the columns.

Some construction pictures here> https://www.grasart.com/blog/lancast...eal-for-living

'‘There are 700 tower blocks of 11 storeys or more in the capital alone, the vast majority of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s. The conditions in Grenfell Tower are mirrored in housing estates across the country. For decades we have consigned people to live in overcrowded conditions that are not just unacceptable but that, in many cases, are criminally unsafe. Families live in hutches, not houses'. (David Lammy)

What they should have done is rehouse these residents properly. Then knock down the block and rebuild smaller blocks and houses. And create new buildings that residents would enjoy living in, while being safe. Why aren't we building more hundreds of thousands of houses in this country than we are at present. The people clearly need them, what is the problem.

They started taking the cladding off many blocks(the LPS type) and are finding the cracks, the concrete is not as strong as expected. 800 residents have to move out of two Portsmouth blocks, and the same on estates in at least eight other borough around the country.

oh sweet Lord you're quoting wikipedia and David Lammy - those well known bastions of 100% accuracy... LMFAO. Perhaps David Lammy would like to compare the room sizes under Parker Morris standards tower blocks with the modern "affordable homes" standards under the current London Plan and tell me which of those is larger, brighter, taller and with more storage, before throwing around terms about "hutches". I have, and I can tell you full well I would much rather live in an old building built to Parker Morris standards. Yet again, politician mouthing off without fully understanding what they're talking about. But that seems to be a common thing sadly.