According to 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 is more detrimental than
beneficial, he could have further investigated if the building had passed the
standards of cladding to make fair judgement overall.
Firstly, Faris should have
investigated in more detail what really happened as well as the history of
Grenfell tower's implementation on cladding. 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, from 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), an environment analyst commented that
even though cladding can be used for better insulation and other benefits, it
should be used with caution and implemented correctly. The building owners for
Grenfell towers, however, did not adhere to the regulations.
Secondly, Faris could have also
further investigated about the rationale behind the choice of materials used in
cladding. 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 was to make things greener. However, along with the
upgrade comes the cost. 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),"
reports indicate that the originally proposed material substituted was a less
fire-resistant class which saved them thousands of pounds. The material used to
be implemented was revealed to have never passed the standards in the United
States. This raises some questions about the standards that were put in place
by government officials in the UK. How building owners were able to purchase
materials that were easily susceptible to fire.
Lastly, the writer could also
look into other possibilities such as the policies on cladding that were
currently put into place. Regulations in the British standards of cladding has
been scrutinised. It was reported that the government officials had been warned
by various engineers and fire safety experts in the country regarding the
cladding regulations. Efforts were futile as the constant reminders only fell
on deaf ears. Glanz (2017) recounts a Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order- a law
that dropped the necessity for official inspectors to approve that buildings
had met certain standards. Instead, they stirred to "self-policing".
The Grenfell Towers incident could have been avoided had the authorities cared
more for their people. Implementing stricter regulations and conducting regular
tests in cladding of the buildings could go a long way.
After studying the case of the
Grenfell Tower incident, I was able to better comprehend what really happened.
Faris' report was 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
implemented by the British standards. The cause of the downfall of Grenfell
Tower was the accumulation of failed supervision by the building owners and the
lenient policy by the government on cladding.
References
T. Symonds, D. De Simone. (2017, June 30). Grenfell
Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'. BBC News. Retrieved
September 21,2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054
London fire: Six questions for
the investigation. (2017, July 19). BBC News. Retrieved
September 21,
2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40279944
London fire: What happened at
Grenfell Tower? (2017, July 19). BBC News. Retrieved September 21,
M.Faris. (2017, June 17). Use of
cladding in buildings have grown in recent times: Experts. TODAY. Retrieved
September 18, 2017, from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/use-cladding-buildings-here-have-grown-recent-times-experts
D. D. Kirkpatrick, D. Hakim, J.
Glanz. (2017, June 24). Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before
Safety. The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2017,
from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html?mcubz=3
Updated:
13/10/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment