3 ms·

Nothing conspirational about it. In the follow up to the Grenfell fire[1], my development was reviewed and the cladding in use on several buildings was found… l

by pdpi 5y ago

Nothing conspirational about it. In the follow up to the Grenfell fire[1], my development was reviewed and the cladding in use on several buildings was found… less than ideal. The homeowner’s association is currently drafting a plan to have it replaced. This isn’t some theoretical, conspiracy-laden issue. It’s an actual problem. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

ajross 5y ago
> In the follow up to the Grenfell fire[1], my development was reviewed and the cladding in use on several buildings was found… less than ideal. Yes! And by whom was it reviewed? And what happened when they reviewed it? I'm guessing the answers are "government regulators", and "they made sure it was fixed". And now it's being fixed. You're literally citing the fact that safety regulation worked correctly as evidence... that it doesn't? Without the regulators you'd still be living in a deathtrap!
- vmception 5y ago
  Which means one should not trust that new and existing buildings are safe because of the mere existence of code or that there are competent people that exist to review and report. The safety regulation did not work because of the 71 people that died in Grenfell. What would you say if you lived there yourself "ah thats just bad luck for me"? what would you say if you lived there yourself and were one of the people that was reporting to the regulators about the problems in advance "I trust this system, I'm glad this system is based purely on trust, trust works so well, all should trust building codes because they are CODES, I like codes, they are infallible, its so cool that people exist to review the codes as well. This happens so rare due to the codes and not from simply being an uncommon occurrence that challenges building standard." I don't really understand what your perspective here is to be honest. Not being wrong?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Yes! And by whom was it reviewed? And what happened when they reviewed it? I'm guessing the answers are "government regulators" I think you misunderstood the poster - 100 people burned alive because the regulators were asleep at the wheel. That tragic disaster is the only reason his building was checked for adequacy, and it failed, along with thousands of others. Right now there are thousands of buildings which were built and sold in breach of fire regulation, and the apartment owners are being saddled with 100% of the bill even when they own 25% of the apartment. In some cases the cost of repair exceeds the value of the property.
- pdpi 5y ago
  My point is that regulation is necessary, but not sufficient. Saying "It complies with regulation" isn't enough to deflect criticism — compliant buildings can still have serious safety issues.

by pdpi 5y ago

ajross 5y ago

> In the follow up to the Grenfell fire[1], my development was reviewed and the cladding in use on several buildings was found… less than ideal. Yes! And by whom was it reviewed? And what happened when they reviewed it? I'm guessing the answers are "government regulators", and "they made sure it was fixed". And now it's being fixed. You're literally citing the fact that safety regulation worked correctly as evidence... that it doesn't? Without the regulators you'd still be living in a deathtrap!

vmception 5y ago
Which means one should not trust that new and existing buildings are safe because of the mere existence of code or that there are competent people that exist to review and report. The safety regulation did not work because of the 71 people that died in Grenfell. What would you say if you lived there yourself "ah thats just bad luck for me"? what would you say if you lived there yourself and were one of the people that was reporting to the regulators about the problems in advance "I trust this system, I'm glad this system is based purely on trust, trust works so well, all should trust building codes because they are CODES, I like codes, they are infallible, its so cool that people exist to review the codes as well. This happens so rare due to the codes and not from simply being an uncommon occurrence that challenges building standard." I don't really understand what your perspective here is to be honest. Not being wrong?
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Yes! And by whom was it reviewed? And what happened when they reviewed it? I'm guessing the answers are "government regulators" I think you misunderstood the poster - 100 people burned alive because the regulators were asleep at the wheel. That tragic disaster is the only reason his building was checked for adequacy, and it failed, along with thousands of others. Right now there are thousands of buildings which were built and sold in breach of fire regulation, and the apartment owners are being saddled with 100% of the bill even when they own 25% of the apartment. In some cases the cost of repair exceeds the value of the property.
pdpi 5y ago
My point is that regulation is necessary, but not sufficient. Saying "It complies with regulation" isn't enough to deflect criticism — compliant buildings can still have serious safety issues.