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 and different countries have different regulations.* Here in Singapore, the cladding procedure has standards to ensure fire safety set 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 have been more fire-resistant. It was also later investigated [BFB6] that both the cladding and insulation of the building did not pass the preliminary tests conducted by the police, concluding that insulation specimens burnt even 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 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.
Lastly, the writer can also look into other possibilities such as the policies on cladding that were currently put into place. Regulations in the British standards of cladding have 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 adopted "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
Faris, M. (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
Kirkpatrick, D. D. & Hakim, D. & Glanz, J. (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
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,
Symonds, T. & De Simone, D. (2017, June 30). Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'. BBC News. Retrieved September 21,2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054
I appreciate your effort here, John!
ReplyDelete