Reader's response: Draft 1

In the article, “Use of cladding buildings here have grown in recent times: Experts,” Faris Mokhtar (2017) reports the opinions of experts regarding the usage of cladding in the midst of the Grenfell Tower fire incident, which took the lives of many. “Engineering experts” claim that cladding reinforces the aesthetics and durability of the building. However, cladding potentially extends as a fire hazard. Different climates require different cladding methods. Here in Singapore, the cladding procedure has standards to ensure fire safety by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). Although Faris used the Grenfell tower incident as an example that cladding could pose a threat, he could have further investigated if the building had passed the standards of cladding to make fair judgement overall.

Grenfell tower has a history of close to 50 years with regular upgrades and refurbishment in recent years. This included new exterior cladding of the building which was done last May 2016. However, in the article "London fire: What happened at Grenfell Tower?(2017)", it was reported that the cause of the fire was narrowed down to the cladding of the building. Specialists spoke up to say that the standard for the materials used could be more fire-resistant. It was also later inspected that both the cladding and insulation of the building did not pass the preliminary tests conducted by the police concluding that insulation specimens burnt more quickly than the cladding tiles. Harrabin(2017) commented that even though cladding can be used for better insulation and other benefits, it should be used with caution and implemented correctly. Where in the case of Grenfell tower, was not.

Building owners are encouraged to make their building more sustainable and this was the case for the Grenfell tower. Their motive to upgrade their building is to make things greener. However, along with the upgrade comes the cost as well. Trying their best to shrink down the overall cost, they failed to adhere to the standards of the cladding. From the article "Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'(2017)," indicates that Reports indicate that the originally proposed material was substituted with a less fire-resistant class which saved them thousands of pounds. The material used to be implemented has said to have never passed the standards of the United States.

Regulations in the British standards of cladding has also been scrutinised. From the article "Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety(2017)," it was investigated that the government official has been warned by various engineers and fire safety experts in the country but only fell on deaf ears even after the Lakanal House incident which occurred in 2013 which left many injured and killed six victims. Glanz(2017) recounts a Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order- a law, that dropped the necessity for official inspectors to approve that buildings have met certain standards. Instead, they stirred to "self-policing". All of this incident could have been avoided had the authorities cared more for their people.

After studying the case of the Grenfell Tower incident, it is true to some extent that the cause of the fire that broke out was due to the cladding. However, this was only because of the weak policy that is being implemented by the British standards.