often times leaders who set the budget require their staff to go with the lowest price.

They joke about this with our astronauts and soldiers: How does it feel to fly into space on rockets where every part was made by the lowest bidder?

So I doubt anyone will go to jail over the cladding.

Now there seem to be a bunch of other code violations that somebody could get prosecuted for.

But to me, the big question is: 'what now'?

No doubt there are numerous buildings in the UK that use this material. Will the buildings be renovated? Nothing happens overnight...so how long will people continue to live in buildings with this cladding?

On a similar note, I think about the deadly warehouse fire in Oakland. The fire dept had never inspected this building, because it wasn't supposed to be residential. So...after numerous deaths, has anyone gone to check all the other old warehouses that may have residences carved out...the 'what now' in that situation. I'm afraid, after hearing nothing for so many months, that the response to that 'what now' was to do nothing. And it may be the same in UK.

There is now a criminal investigation open.

environmentally friendly, energy efficient, nor cost effective to burn the house down!

... for this use.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/16/why-is-cladding-banned-in-the-us-and-germany-used-on-buildings-in-the-uk-6712578/

even worse:

Cladding added to Grenfell Tower to ‘improve view for nearby luxury flats’

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/14/cladding-added-to-grenfell-tower-to-improve-view-for-nearby-luxury-flats-6709369/

========================

Attaching flammable plastic foam to a building for decorative purposes is obviously a bad idea.

Much more appropriate materials were available, but they cost more. None of this would have happened had appropriate materials been used, or even if they'd done nothing to "improve" the building.

That just says the state of the world today.

combustible cladding wherever it is found. Residents should be evacuated from the buildings and provided with emergency housing until the material is removed.

Evacuating and alternate housing worries me -- that's precisely how one destroys a community's mutual aid and social bonds. (See: post-Katrina diaspora, the various public housing diasporas). A neighborhood becomes like an extended family, and scattering them breaks that, makes it much more difficult for that poor community to continue working, to keep advocating for themselves and their community, and for the community to self-determine.

Forcing a diaspora also makes it much easier for a rapacious government or management to give up on working with the community, raze the public housing and sell the land to private development, or raze and rebuild a much smaller, mixed income development, where half of the units are market rate (which in London is high) and the rest are subsidized, but are still beyond the means of the former residents. And being smaller, a significant portion of the displaced community are excluded.

That's at least part of why there's a lot of community concern that even if this fire wasn't deliberately set (and it's possible), the TMO and the Borough Council are going to take advantage of the survivors yet again.

...some kind of, oh....."regulations"?

Maybe the "invisible hand of the free market" doesn't always produce the best outcome; 'ya think?

really just said, "It's all cosmetic, to make the old building look good for wealthier people nearby."

This makes it sound like a green initiative, save energy through greater efficiency, as well.

But too cheaply done.

If you've ever had to manage a budget, though, those 2 pounds/m^2 extra would have eaten into some other budget allocation. Or saving those $2.3/sq yard freed up money for something else. Perhaps an extra gin and tonic at lunch for some bureaucrat. Perhaps fixing the wiring in some flats. Perhaps extending a greater subsidy to some people or forgiving some back rent. We make assumptions when we lack facts, and then assume our assumptions are facts. If we all had hindsight before we did things, well ...

Those responsible for allocating funds to council housing probably aren't the ones who source materials and work out contracts, and the person who approved the contracts probably had "housing experience" or maybe just budgetary and management experience, but not building or fire-safety experience. Even then, if it's up to code it's up to code.

cladding that's banned in other western countries. No sprinkler system. Not even a retrofit. Unprotected gas lines in stairwells? Space with no fire break between the flammable cladding and old exterior. What the hell!? Granted, most US codes aren't perfect, and get nit picky about the wrong things...but Jesus H. Christous on a stick!

While wandering downtown, she commented on details of several older buildings, especially the triangle brick ones and the ones with fanciful glazed terra cotta exteriors.

I noted that after the Great Seattle Fire, there was a shift from building wooden structures downtown to using these more fire resistant materials. They, in turn, have become part of what gives Seattle its unique aspect and charm. The other side of the coin is that these more rigid materials don't do as well in earthquakes. Houses here tend to be made of wood, which flex better during that shaking.

It's terrible that it sometimes takes a tragedy to shift us in a different direction. Clearly, there now needs to be identification and replacement of this dangerous cladding where it was used. That it was used at all in a time when it was known which properties the different materials had is horrible, valuing the lower cost of these materials over the cost of life.

big shock when it happens here....or london for that matter

we are supposed to know better and have standards....


a funny thought.....with the gop demands to lower regulations....how long before they use the stuff here?