Cladding

[johnroe]

ik9000>now you're getting irrational again. I gave the reference for the quote by the architect, with the construction pictures. David Lammy as an inner city MP who clearly understands the housing problem, I'm sure it's one of his constituents main concerns, next to crime. Yes I know people who are moving into small social housing, but they'd rather be out of the blocks. Housing and living spaces will become smaller as the population increases.

I think there have been many fires and accidents(gas explosions, etc) in these style blocks, but this one may finally make the changes happen. So if all these other (I saw a figure of 600) blocks are having there cladding removed, and during that and using legitimate testing techniques, the real state of our council and social housing will then be revealed. Tenants across the country are being moved out.

The 71 lives might ultimately save thousands from a similar fate. No doubt the companies involved in the cladding will declare bankruptcy, one already has. Another common theme since these buildings were first constructed.

[Corky34]

David Lammy as an inner city MP who clearly understands the housing problem...

I think i see the problem, politicians are the last people I'd attribute with understanding, at best they have common, often flawed, knowledge of issues.

...the real state of our council and social housing will then be revealed. Tenants across the country are being moved out.

The state is there isn't any, we've been selling of social housing stock at a rate of knots for the last four decades.

If the people were moved out of Grenfell years ago their chance of getting similar accommodation in the same area would probably be next to zero.

[ik9000]

If the people were moved out of Grenfell years ago their chance of getting similar accommodation in the same area would probably be next to zero.

as evidenced by the low numbers who have accepted the housing so far offered to them

[ik9000]

ik9000>now you're getting irrational again. I gave the reference for the quote by the architect, with the construction pictures. David Lammy as an inner city MP who clearly understands the housing problem, I'm sure it's one of his constituents main concerns, next to crime. Yes I know people who are moving into small social housing, but they'd rather be out of the blocks. Housing and living spaces will become smaller as the population increases.

I think there have been many fires and accidents(gas explosions, etc) in these style blocks, but this one may finally make the changes happen. So if all these other (I saw a figure of 600) blocks are having there cladding removed, and during that and using legitimate testing techniques, the real state of our council and social housing will then be revealed. Tenants across the country are being moved out.

The 71 lives might ultimately save thousands from a similar fate. No doubt the companies involved in the cladding will declare bankruptcy, one already has. Another common theme since these buildings were first constructed.

I'm not being irrational, I'm just stating facts. Let's take a look at the construction picture and try to explain what it shows:



Starting at the left. Note the insitu concrete slab with the cast-in steel rebar poking upwards ready to receive more insitu concrete when it gets poured on top (for a wall/blade column etc). The concrete upstand also appears to be monolithic with the slab, but the image quality makes it difficult to tell.

2) Note the L-shape corner piece being lifted in. This is precast cladding, and will presumably act as permanent formwork given the loop-hooks and projecting tie bars. It is not the main loadbearing structure.

3) the loadbearing structure is formed as insitu concrete behind the precast. It is square/squat rectangular columns, and the outer precast panel appears to be intended to act as a shutter to hold the wet concrete in place while it sets. On the right hand image you can see the steel rebar cages at column locations being fixed and in places projecting out the top for lapping-in with the next pour. (You see that man in the white shirt? He's fixing the steel reinforcement into place)

This is insitu concrete structure supplemented by precast cladding - which is exactly what I have said all the way through.

Assuming you've read the article you linked to yourself, and seeing as you like quotes from Whitbread so much try mulling on this one:

The floor plans were based on Parker Morris Standards which they used at that time and sadly have gone now. These were very good standards for storage and the way furniture had to be included in the plans. It was delightful to hear that residents thought flat arrangements worked well and I saw the views recently which I always thought were terrific. I wouldn’t have minded living in a tower block myself.

The residents aren't too keen for redevelopment and urban densification either:

I do believe that we are going to get knocked down as all this gentrification is happening all around us. And we are not a Victorian block which is a beautiful thing. We are a 1970s fling them up, fling them down block. I don’t know where I’ll end up. That’s the biggest concern for me. That makes me stay awake at night. That makes me cry. If they could build another block, 4 or 5 streets away, where I knew I was going to be rehoused. It could be Manchester.

On the 24th June, this year, 2015, the council passed a motion in the full council meeting saying that they were going to go ahead with the destruction of all low density social housing in North Kensington. Low density means this, They’ve been built nicely, giving people some space inside and with some green residential amenity outside. Trees and green space for their children to play in. Low density housing. It’s not anything else. It’s just nice estates.

I do read your articles and posts. I just happen to think they're wrong. There's nothing irrational about it. The facts simply speak otherwise.

[johnroe]

ik9000>I'm just interested(I enjoy almost being a detective and trying to find info). I'm still not convinced by what you say. The architects own words were clear enough; pre fabricated slabs, beams, walls, linking the columns together. The fact is that the concrete itself was sub standard, hence all these blocks are being evacuated. So whether cast on site in situ or cast else where, the quality and strength of the concrete will have to be tested. Main structure or not. The loads at the bottom of those structures must be immense.

It's strange that people don't want to understand that an incident like this has a complex context. So I'm well aware that neither main party has a good record on social housing, I do see political decisions that have exacerbated the problem.

Locally to Grenfell, an Islamic group has pointed out that this is because of discrimination as most of the tenants in blocks across the UK are from muslim faith countries and that's why no one is building. I know that borough, it was just across the river from Battersea. Even then that Battersea estate was a dump; rubbish dumped on floors blocking exits, people used to throw washing machines out the top windows, dealers sitting in their cars in car park.

But Chelsea just over the river is a different world. So the other side of this is class snobbery against the poorer people. There's a whole mass of local and national politics revolving around this issue of 'safe affordable housing' for all, and not just the few. I even think there's a problem with professionals not taking the public seriously.

When I spoke to council official about sealed off fire escapes. He said that can't be it's not in the contract. He just wouldn't believe it. If Grenfell tenants were ignored, and all evidence says they were, then that's down to a sort of patronising professional snobbery. Yes the lead architect might claim he'd live in the tower, with it's one narrow escape route, and the emergency lighting failed, but that's just spin(+his payment) speaking. Just like builders who put up the blocks said they wouldn't live in them having seen their poor construction.

[johnroe]

as evidenced by the low numbers who have accepted the housing so far offered to them

You'd be surprised at what people expect. This Yemini woman I know is very good at getting what she wants. She started in a one bedroom flat in one of the blocks; her husband and baby. She was offered three houses and turned them down, but took a new two bedroomed. I saw her the other day, now with three children, and another new three bedroomed, although she did complain about the size of the bedrooms.

It's hilarious watching the reaction of my community and her community when we stand around chatting. But councils are saying the only way to get a house is have more children. The Kenyan woman I know, three children, still living in two bedroomed flat. Needs five children to get out of there. It's a crazy situation. Creating more overcrowding.

[ik9000]

ik9000>I'm just interested(I enjoy almost being a detective and trying to find info). I'm still not convinced by what you say.

Have you considered a career in politics? You seem adept at trusting your own (mis)interpretation rather than weighing the facts and listening to people who actually have knowledge of what they're talking about, and keep trying to smokescreen that by bringing in random comments about political tosh.

Read my previous posts. It's all there if you choose to actually read it.

The architect only mentions precast beams to tie things together. As I have already said previously, I think he is talking about the spandrel panels (the rough horizontal bands visible in the right-hand photograph above). They're not strictly beams in the load-bearing sense, but as he says, they can help tie things together for stability of the facade. That is a different thing, but the subtlety is lost on the layman, and it is not unusual for architects to call structural details by the wrong name. Particularly retired ones out of practice years after the event. I have just explained why the photographs show it to be an insitu structure and have previously directed you to industry articles that state the same.

The concrete performed its job in extreme circumstances, and continues to stand up in storms etc. We can safely say there is nothing wrong with its strength whatsoever. You are, in this matter, a layman huffing and puffing about complexity you do not understand, and are not willing to understand even when it is explained to you.

As I said earlier, some people are so stubborn they won't be convinced even when presented with all the evidence and have it explained to them repeatedly. I couldn't care less if you decide to change your opinion, but I'm not sure what else I can explain that hasn't already been said.

[Corky34]

The fact is that the concrete itself was sub standard, hence all these blocks are being evacuated.

Sorry to pull you up on this but I've seen you mention it numerous times now and unless I've missed it there appears to be no evidence that Grenfell, that being the building the architect you're citing was referring to, was constructed with sub standard concrete or that the standard of construction was poor.

[johnroe]

ik9000>Like I say I'm just interested. I know there were beams precast lain across the vertical precast walls in the block I lived in. If you jumped up and down they bounced. I also spoke to the housing officer and surveyor who confirmed it. I believe sometimes they use pre cast beams and then lay a floor on top of them. I must look and see how they pumped concrete up 25 floors in the 1970's, but couldn't pump water up there now. But it doesn't really matter, it will all be demolished now. The best news is that councils will now really inspect the buildings, and then we'll know the truth about housing. Oh and there's that patronising attitude I was referring to.

[johnroe]

Sorry to pull you up on this but I've seen you mention it numerous times now and unless I've missed it there appears to be no evidence that Grenfell, that being the building the architect you're citing was referring to, was constructed with sub standard concrete or that the standard of construction was poor.

I was basing it on complaints made by tenants about the state of the building, there's a blog from their action group somewhere above. And I was referring to this article about what they are finding about the condition of concrete that was used at that time, after they remove the cladding. https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...m-blocks-56621

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Doesn't it come down to the basic fact the cladding used,was basically a cheaper combustible type,which is banned in the US for use on high rises(not more than 40 feet high),and even the US companies which made it even in their bumpf warned against using it in high rise buildings. The fire proof cladding was only £2 a square metre more expensive,ie,only a few £1000 more expensive for the whole building. Apparently things have degraded so much,that the country which was a major part of the industrial revolution now has imbecciles who can't even read the spec sheet for the blasted cladding material,and it was passed as OK by the so called "building inspectors" and everybody in-between. That is the really appauling part.

This sounds about par for the UK nowadays - its always about contracting stuff out to the cheapest bidder who scrapes past any regulations(barely),who cuts corners and then in the end the real costs are seen at the end,ie,in human lives and huge bills for the taxpayer at the end.

Then as usual you have no common sense on top of this - as the long the computer says yes,nobody cares. It makes you wonder what kind of atmosphere these decisions are made under.

[johnroe]

Doesn't it come down to the basic fact the cladding used,was basically a cheaper combustible type,which is banned in the US for use on high rises,and even the US companies which made it even in their bumpf warned against using it in high rise buildings(not more than 40 feet high). The fire proof cladding was only £2 a square metre more expensive,ie,only a few £1000 more expensive for the whole building.

This sounds about par for the UK nowadays - its always about contracting stuff out to the cheapest bidder,who cuts corners and then in the end the real costs are seen at the end.

That's exactly what this is all about, I saw the bids for the projects, and even though the council budget was higher, they took the lowest bid. I believe it's the same company that have already declared bankrupt(I'll check). Everyone knows this (but there's some sort of collective denial); council properties are built to the lowest quality and costs are cut always(that's why dodgy contractors see them as perfect). And this fire is the inevitable result. In germany the cladding is also banned, but many other countries have the same problem we now have.

Here's the story> 'Rydon, which won the contract in June 2014 by undercutting estimates from the original contractor. The Leadbitter Group had estimated the project in 2012 at a cost of £11.3m, considerably higher than Kensington and Chelsea council’s target budget of £9.7 million. Rydon offered to do the refurbishment for £8.7 million, and were awarded the contract,....and paid investors a dividend of £2 million, the largest slice of which went to Rydon’s Chief Executive and largest shareholder, Robert Bond, who also earned a salary of £424,000, a pay rise from £392,000 the year before.

In 2015 Harley Curtain Wall won the £2.6 million contract from Rydon to install the Reynobond PE panels. But after being pursued for almost £2.5 million by HM Revenue & Customs for involvement in alleged tax-avoidance schemes the company went into administration later that year, before the work had been completed. However, Managing Director Ray Bailey was allowed to purchase his old business for just £24,900 and continue trading under the new name of Harley Facades'. (I got that slightly wrong, but it says it all)

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

TBH,despite the fire the basic structure has still survived - the issue is that asbestos was used in a lot of these older concrete structures which did a very good job,and was integral to fire-proofing them but as people know Asbestos has its own health considerations. The problem is due to the issues with Asbestos,a lot of these buildings have had a lot of it removed,which means an integral part of the fire proofing was negated,and Grenfell Tower was one of them.

The issue is that this Asbesto containing fire-proofing needed to replaced with alternatives,instead the moronic council(and local governments) over 20 years increased the fire risk by installing timber doors and flammable cladding,and not bringing the building back to it original level of fire proofing,when you could argue it needed to be increased anyway. It shows a distinct lack of understanding at any level of what to do,and multiple levels of pen pushers who didn't even stop to think for a minute of the danger they were creating.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit the original tower a nearly 20 years ago,might have survived the fire in a better state - this is really the short termism which has crept over this country increasing in more recent times,and it doesn't matter what end of the spectrum it is.

[johnroe]

It's just one long list of bodges to these buildings. I think they were right when they said they were experimental. The architects were just copying, the builders and inspectors had little understanding. I wonder if industrial materials were even suitable. So at first they had gas supplies, then that was reduced to a central boiler after gas explosions. Then they removed the asbestos, well some.

This incident seems to have made a real impact. Maybe it's the media coverage, maybe many in blocks think about what they would do, maybe it's the politicisation, but I hope one effect is the tighter regulation of the building industry, not just in practices but quality of constructors(it's easy to get fake cards apparently).

[ik9000]

ik9000>Like I say I'm just interested. I know there were beams precast lain across the vertical precast walls in the block I lived in. If you jumped up and down they bounced. I also spoke to the housing officer and surveyor who confirmed it. I believe sometimes they use pre cast beams and then lay a floor on top of them. I must look and see how they pumped concrete up 25 floors in the 1970's, but couldn't pump water up there now. But it doesn't really matter, it will all be demolished now. The best news is that councils will now really inspect the buildings, and then we'll know the truth about housing. Oh and there's that patronising attitude I was referring to.

No, no. Patronising is when you talk down to someone.

They didn't pump concrete 25 storeys up, they don't now. You fill a massive big hopper and sling it up by crane, then open the chute and gravity does the rest. You really are out of your depth here.

[Butcher]

It's easy to break the fireproofing if you're not careful in these buildings. A tower near me was refurbed in 2011 and it turns out (in the wake of Grenfell) that the new kitchens and heating system installed broke a lot of the fire breaks. Cue a big safety program to fix all the bodges. Luckily for them there was no cladding installed, possibly due to the facade being brick rather than concrete.