11 ms·

Does the government still recommend that people in highrises shelter in place when there is a fire in another apartment in the building? They did before, after

Does the government still recommend that people in highrises shelter in place when there is a fire in another apartment in the building? They did before, after this fire I found the cutesy animated videos they published explaining how you should shelter in place because fire is unlikely to spread in a highrise. It seems like bullshit to me. At the first hint of fire in a building, I'll be flying down the nearest staircase that doesn't have smoke coming out of it. I'd not sit around in a burning building waiting to see if the fire gets worse, only to find out I no longer have any options for escape.

ericbarrett 6y ago
It’s not clear to me that this is bad advice if safety regulations were followed during construction. Like the 737 MAX, however, rampant unpunished corporate malfeasance has negated it.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  It seems to me that if the high-rise building truly resists the spread of fire, then sheltering in place is probably the optimal solution. However I just can't trust my own life to that. Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. Well if that's the case, doesn't that perhaps call into question the premise that fires stay contained in these buildings? I found a local copy of the video, it was from the London Fire Brigade and links to the site knowtheplan.co.uk which is now defunct. I can't find the video still on the net, but it might be out there somewhere. Edit: found it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k
  - ericbarrett 6y ago
    Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. For larger buildings there must be two or more stairway shafts in case one is compromised. All is negated if doors are propped open, locks defeated, structure altered, building is wrapped in solidified napalm cladding, etc. So I’m with you, I’d also GTFO.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Exactly. These buildings are specifically designed to be escapable, at least before the fire becomes horrendously bad, so I'll choose to take advantage of that as quick as I can.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      Generally speaking, US fire-safety regulations tend to be more stringent than in other countries. In particular, there is generally a requirement for two independent exit routes whereas many European regulations may permit only one, and the US tends to require wider fire stairwells. Evacuation in US fire-safety stairwells is likely to be quicker and less likely to interfere with firemen access (who have to move in the opposite direction from evacuating residents) to afflicted floors.
      - baybal2 6y ago
        Yet, US still allows to build single family houses, and even lowrise condos from wood...
        iguy 6y ago
        There are new wooden buildings in Europe too. I wonder if these are built to stricter codes, I mean to withstand fires for longer? I agree the US focus seems to be on fast exit, multiple options (from buildings that seem to be made of matchsticks).
        throwaway201103 6y ago
        Much lower potential loss of life, much shorter path to exit the building.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        And windows low enough to jump from and (probably) not die.
        guerby 6y ago
  - labawi 6y ago
    A contributing hazard may be ubiquitous use of PVC and similar materials that produce toxic fumes. You do not want to breathe that even if it doesn't suffocate you immediately. Smoke from wood and most "natural" materials - you'll usually be fine after a few days, if you manage not to suffocate.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. A highrise building must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs, all with emergency lighting, and some firefighting equipment. Internal stairwells must have battery backed smoke evacuation systems. Buildings must have an untouchable reserve of water connected to its firefighting hoses, and sprinklers. Regularly tested sprinklers, and CO detectors should be mandatory. The amount of furniture people have in a highrise must be regulated. Natural gas, or PG supply must by either extremely tightly regulated, or banned all together. Residents of highrise building must have annual evacuation drills, and fire inspections. Apartment owners must be mandated to have at least a regularly inspected flame extinguisher, and an escape hood/respirator/air pack.
    - iguy 6y ago
      Where are these regulations from? As in, which country? > must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs The tower in question did not: https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan So it was designed around a stay-where-you-are fire plan, not an immediate evacuation. And this may have been entirely sensible for the design as built -- concrete floors, concrete walls, and I presume serious doors onto the stairs. Then a fire would not spread. But when you alter this design, then it doesn't work anymore. You can break any design with sufficient modifications; someone has to enforce that you don't.
      - baybal2 6y ago
        As as said above, even much better fireproofed buildings may collapse quicky if the circumstances are bad enough. Fireproofing alone is not a solution. I think I have not seem a single highrise in my life without 2 staircases, or emergency staircase anywhere, even in very old buildings.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        I take it you live in the US, since you're generally describing US fire code regulations, which are not the same as regulations in other countries, and are generally geared far more towards evacuate-first than compartmentalization.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  Right, and we have had problems with a vaccine in the history as well. What next, never take covid vaccine because it? Because after all vaccine made in record pace makes you question... Unbelievable what Russian mis and disinformation actions are going on here.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    What in the world does Russia have to do with any of this? Are they now presumed responsible every time anybody anywhere doubts anything a government official says?
VBprogrammer 6y ago
I'm not a civil engineer but from what I understand each apartment in a high rise is basically it's own fire resistant unit. This theory has been tested many times before. The problem comes when 1% decided that these ugly old high-rises were ruining the view from their million pound townhouse. The council respond to these perfectly reasonable complaints by cladding the ugly building in some nice cladding, sourced from the lowest bidder, with little consideration for how it would affect the safety of these properties. The council gets to feel good about spending money improving low cost housing; the companies producing and fitting the cladding are happy to take the money; and the only people who suffer are mostly poor immigrants. Basically a win all around.
avianlyric 6y ago
Shelter in place advice hasn’t changed. In theory flats in the U.K. are built with fire barriers between each Flat, preventing the spread of fire. If you take my flat for example, we separated by concrete walls and fire doors from our neighbours on all sides. Part of the reason why shelter in place still exists, is because the fire exits aren’t designed to handle every flat evacuating at the same time. It would result in people getting stuck on stairs and getting trampled. Almost certainly resulting in greater loss of life, than if everyone stayed put. Places like Grenfell failed because the central premise of fire insulted flats was broken. Not just by flammable cladding, but also by faulty fire doors that failed to prevent the spread of smoke into common areas and the build up of flammable materials in what should have been fire sterile common areas. Once again this is an engineering disaster caused by multiple failing over a long period of time. Rather than the failure of a singular policy. Although the cladding ensured that what should have been a small fire became and an inferno that quickly overwhelmed the other, already compromised, fire safety systems.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  To be frank, if everybody else is sheltering in place, that means the staircases will be clear for me to run down. If everybody thinks as I do, maybe there will be problems. But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Even if I only manage to get a few floors down before becoming tangled in other humans, maybe those few floors are enough to put me below the fire, or below the floors now filled with toxic smoke.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Quite the opposite is true in the U.K.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - 6y ago
ojnabieoot 6y ago
Not a fire safety expert but yes, I understand it is still sound advice. Keep in mind it’s not “shelter until the fire is out,” it’s “shelter until a safety authority gives you clearance to leave or your life is at risk.” a) the possibility of stampede is real, especially for children, the disabled, and the elderly b) in a high rise, an evacuation stairwell might seem safe at the top but could be impassable much lower down. You would have no way of knowing ahead of time. So then evacuees have to backtrack and try to find a clear stairwell, which could be impossible if the stairs are too crowded. In my experience with fire drills in high rises, “shelter in place” is really about staggered evacuation: first evacuate the floors surrounding the area where the fire was detected, then continue from there.

ericbarrett 6y ago

It’s not clear to me that this is bad advice if safety regulations were followed during construction. Like the 737 MAX, however, rampant unpunished corporate malfeasance has negated it.

bigbubba 6y ago
It seems to me that if the high-rise building truly resists the spread of fire, then sheltering in place is probably the optimal solution. However I just can't trust my own life to that. Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. Well if that's the case, doesn't that perhaps call into question the premise that fires stay contained in these buildings? I found a local copy of the video, it was from the London Fire Brigade and links to the site knowtheplan.co.uk which is now defunct. I can't find the video still on the net, but it might be out there somewhere. Edit: found it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vy4L8B7KI9k
- ericbarrett 6y ago
  Only familiar with US building codes but stairway shafts in taller buildings are supposed to be built from thicker concrete, with fire-rated doors, so theoretically they should remain usable for some time (minutes) even if the floors they pass are engulfed. For larger buildings there must be two or more stairway shafts in case one is compromised. All is negated if doors are propped open, locks defeated, structure altered, building is wrapped in solidified napalm cladding, etc. So I’m with you, I’d also GTFO.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Exactly. These buildings are specifically designed to be escapable, at least before the fire becomes horrendously bad, so I'll choose to take advantage of that as quick as I can.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Generally speaking, US fire-safety regulations tend to be more stringent than in other countries. In particular, there is generally a requirement for two independent exit routes whereas many European regulations may permit only one, and the US tends to require wider fire stairwells. Evacuation in US fire-safety stairwells is likely to be quicker and less likely to interfere with firemen access (who have to move in the opposite direction from evacuating residents) to afflicted floors.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      Yet, US still allows to build single family houses, and even lowrise condos from wood...
      - iguy 6y ago
        There are new wooden buildings in Europe too. I wonder if these are built to stricter codes, I mean to withstand fires for longer? I agree the US focus seems to be on fast exit, multiple options (from buildings that seem to be made of matchsticks).
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        Much lower potential loss of life, much shorter path to exit the building.
        bigbubba 6y ago
        And windows low enough to jump from and (probably) not die.
      - guerby 6y ago
- labawi 6y ago
  A contributing hazard may be ubiquitous use of PVC and similar materials that produce toxic fumes. You do not want to breathe that even if it doesn't suffocate you immediately. Smoke from wood and most "natural" materials - you'll usually be fine after a few days, if you manage not to suffocate.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Furthermore one of the hazards used to justify this advice was the possibility that hallways or stairs are already filled with smoke. A highrise building must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs, all with emergency lighting, and some firefighting equipment. Internal stairwells must have battery backed smoke evacuation systems. Buildings must have an untouchable reserve of water connected to its firefighting hoses, and sprinklers. Regularly tested sprinklers, and CO detectors should be mandatory. The amount of furniture people have in a highrise must be regulated. Natural gas, or PG supply must by either extremely tightly regulated, or banned all together. Residents of highrise building must have annual evacuation drills, and fire inspections. Apartment owners must be mandated to have at least a regularly inspected flame extinguisher, and an escape hood/respirator/air pack.
  - iguy 6y ago
    Where are these regulations from? As in, which country? > must have at least 2 stairwells, or emergency stairs The tower in question did not: https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan https://www.google.com/search?q=grenfell+tower+floor+plan So it was designed around a stay-where-you-are fire plan, not an immediate evacuation. And this may have been entirely sensible for the design as built -- concrete floors, concrete walls, and I presume serious doors onto the stairs. Then a fire would not spread. But when you alter this design, then it doesn't work anymore. You can break any design with sufficient modifications; someone has to enforce that you don't.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      As as said above, even much better fireproofed buildings may collapse quicky if the circumstances are bad enough. Fireproofing alone is not a solution. I think I have not seem a single highrise in my life without 2 staircases, or emergency staircase anywhere, even in very old buildings.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        I take it you live in the US, since you're generally describing US fire code regulations, which are not the same as regulations in other countries, and are generally geared far more towards evacuate-first than compartmentalization.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Right, and we have had problems with a vaccine in the history as well. What next, never take covid vaccine because it? Because after all vaccine made in record pace makes you question... Unbelievable what Russian mis and disinformation actions are going on here.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  What in the world does Russia have to do with any of this? Are they now presumed responsible every time anybody anywhere doubts anything a government official says?

VBprogrammer 6y ago

I'm not a civil engineer but from what I understand each apartment in a high rise is basically it's own fire resistant unit. This theory has been tested many times before. The problem comes when 1% decided that these ugly old high-rises were ruining the view from their million pound townhouse. The council respond to these perfectly reasonable complaints by cladding the ugly building in some nice cladding, sourced from the lowest bidder, with little consideration for how it would affect the safety of these properties. The council gets to feel good about spending money improving low cost housing; the companies producing and fitting the cladding are happy to take the money; and the only people who suffer are mostly poor immigrants. Basically a win all around.

avianlyric 6y ago

Shelter in place advice hasn’t changed. In theory flats in the U.K. are built with fire barriers between each Flat, preventing the spread of fire. If you take my flat for example, we separated by concrete walls and fire doors from our neighbours on all sides. Part of the reason why shelter in place still exists, is because the fire exits aren’t designed to handle every flat evacuating at the same time. It would result in people getting stuck on stairs and getting trampled. Almost certainly resulting in greater loss of life, than if everyone stayed put. Places like Grenfell failed because the central premise of fire insulted flats was broken. Not just by flammable cladding, but also by faulty fire doors that failed to prevent the spread of smoke into common areas and the build up of flammable materials in what should have been fire sterile common areas. Once again this is an engineering disaster caused by multiple failing over a long period of time. Rather than the failure of a singular policy. Although the cladding ensured that what should have been a small fire became and an inferno that quickly overwhelmed the other, already compromised, fire safety systems.

bigbubba 6y ago
To be frank, if everybody else is sheltering in place, that means the staircases will be clear for me to run down. If everybody thinks as I do, maybe there will be problems. But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Even if I only manage to get a few floors down before becoming tangled in other humans, maybe those few floors are enough to put me below the fire, or below the floors now filled with toxic smoke.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > But, judging by my experience with staircases in America (namely them being fairly wide and numerous), I prefer my odds in the staircase. Quite the opposite is true in the U.K.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- 6y ago

ojnabieoot 6y ago

Not a fire safety expert but yes, I understand it is still sound advice. Keep in mind it’s not “shelter until the fire is out,” it’s “shelter until a safety authority gives you clearance to leave or your life is at risk.” a) the possibility of stampede is real, especially for children, the disabled, and the elderly b) in a high rise, an evacuation stairwell might seem safe at the top but could be impassable much lower down. You would have no way of knowing ahead of time. So then evacuees have to backtrack and try to find a clear stairwell, which could be impossible if the stairs are too crowded. In my experience with fire drills in high rises, “shelter in place” is really about staggered evacuation: first evacuate the floors surrounding the area where the fire was detected, then continue from there.