The Blame Game

[Odds]

PIR is about 50% more thermally efficient than Rockwool. Rockwool has the obvious benefit of being largely fire proof. There is a lot of things in a building which are flammable, the key is to ensue they are encapsulated so they are less likely to catch fire and that they are not installed in systems where an air gap can cause a chimney effect in a fire. Unfortunately there is so much sensitivity around this, that not much effort has been put in to designing a safer PIR based system.

I had a look at that a couple of years ago and thought about lining our living room wall with it - the wall is at a gable end and gets cold in winter; like a fridge. Not good. Trouble is, stripping back will be traumatic and redecorating that room expensive, so it's a job marked down 'to be done'.

 

[JonathanM]

Yes, rockwool with a rendered finish isn't flammable at all and has no cavity. Can even be structural spanning floor to floor.

I was actually thinking about its use in high rise building systems, like Grenfell, rather than a rendering method used on low rise. This sort of building system seems very different to me, and it appears (to my untrained eye) that there is a cavity.

 

[denso13]

rather than a rendering method used on low rise

I meant high rise. This one is Structherm structural system, hard render on rockwool, no cavity.

 

[JonathanM]

I meant high rise. This one is Structherm structural system, hard render on rockwool, no cavity.

Thank you, this is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to discuss. I couldn't find any reference to it in Rockwool's high rise brochure, they just seem to show the facade solution in my photo.

Do you know how common this is compared to the facade solution?

 

[denso13]

Do you know how common this is compared to the facade solution?

I don't have numbers but it probably changes across the UK. Scotland for example, due to rainfall, has predominantly hard render on insulation, with very little rainscreen facades, especially in social housing.

This one in Glasgow, the only one, used to be a rainscreen facade but was changed to rockwool/hard render following Grenfell.

 

[JonathanM]

I don't have numbers but it probably changes across the UK. Scotland for example, due to rainfall, has predominantly hard render on insulation, with very little rainscreen facades, especially in social housing.

This one in Glasgow, the only one, used to be a rainscreen facade but was changed to rockwool/hard render following Grenfell.

My problem is that whilst I'm very interested in this issue, I don't really understand how buildings, other than residential ones, are constructed. For instance, I don't know why rainscreen facades are used in the first place.

I've noticed from your link that on high rise, the rockwool/hard render method is mainly used for refurbishment. In a high rainfall area, how would a new build high rise be constructed? I've seen a few going up, but I can't really understand what's going on. There seems to be a steel frame, but where does the insulation go, and what makes it weather-proof? I suppose I'm wanting to know why so many high rise were built with the facades/cladding , and what other options could have been used instead.

 

[denso13]

For instance, I don't know why rainscreen facades are used in the first place

Probably a number of variables like corporate identity, design experience/preference, material availability, surrounding building design etc, etc.

how would a new build high rise be constructed?

There are a number of options, pick what type of structural frame, then pick the external cladding type. Loads of choices to make.

 

[Odds]

Probably a number of variables like corporate identity, design experience/preference, material availability, surrounding building design etc, etc.

There are a number of options, pick what type of structural frame, then pick the external cladding type. Loads of choices to make.

...and costs.
How do you mean, 'corporate identity'; is that just a logo or do companies have particular preferences to the materials they use?

 

[denso13]

How do you mean, 'corporate identity'

Just what message a corporation might want to portray, KPMG or Barclays for example will probably want some super duper state of the art showpiece. Others might not.

While on the Glasgow theme,

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I glanced at your picture while reading the above and thought I saw this...

Modern architecture is mostly garbage. Lots of buildings these days rely on bolts and brackets to keep them together, and many of these fail over the years. Also many use structural steel and wood, both of which will return to their origins as iron oxide and compost. The reason the old buildings we see are still there is because they are the survivors, they also built garbage in the past too but they've rotted and collapsed. The fittest survive, which is generally minerals such as stone and brick, held together by gravity, i.e. stacked on top of each other.

But back on topic... I suspect the Grenfell enquiry has achieved its real objectives, which were to muddle and confuse while taking as long as possible so that people lose the will to care about any kind of justice and forget about it. This is Britain, where the establishment is never held to account.

 

[denso13]

Modern architecture is mostly garbage

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Also many use structural steel and wood, both of which will return to their origins as iron oxide and compost.

There are timber buildings over a thousand years old.

I suspect the Grenfell enquiry has achieved its real objectives

I suspect you are biased in your views.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The current crop of latest things look very much like the modern stuff that was built in the 1960s onwards, i.e. bolted together panels, flat roofs. Many places are blighted by this stuff, the vast majority of people simply think it's ugly and intimidating while the architectural elite thought it made some kind of bold statement. Plus it was just a cheap way of building so made big profits at the time. The legacy are these awful tower blocks that are still around with huge maintenance costs and are having to be botched into being habitable, resulting in Grenfell and the likes.

The previous generation learnt their lesson, much of it was knocked down and we reverted to fairly traditional building for a while. Then a new wide-eyed generation comes along and starts designing near enough the same stuff that everyone decided was a bad idea in the past.

I saw a teenage lad with a mullet hairdo the other day, even permed at the back. He probably thought it was an exciting new thing, those over a certain age know differently.

 

[denso13]

The legacy are these awful tower blocks that are still around with huge maintenance costs and are having to be hacked into being habitable, resulting in Grenfell and the likes.

In a perfect world everyone would have their own property, in the real world it doesn't work like that. Housing Associations for example have to make multi storey blocks work financially. There is no other option currently.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

My views that could be any building in London.

Cheap materials

Unskilled labour doing skilled jobs.
Communication between manual staff and management
Two many people with bad English skills
Floors not fire stopped.
Back handers
Two many blind eyes
Building control not doing their job properly

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'm not so sure. The 1960s tower blocks were mostly built with probably enough open land around them to house the same number of occupants in houses, or at least low-rise blocks, all of which could have been made using standard traditional construction techniques, i.e. brick and block.

The 1960s tower blocks resulted from central government incentives that rewarded those who built tall, plus all kinds of shenanigans.

Sadly, asking people what they actually want doesn't seem to be part of architect training. They pretty much dispense their designs to the masses, seemingly knowing best about what's good or not. Give people a choice of a traditional home or a box in the sky, I know what 90%+ would pick without even asking them. I wonder how many architects live in something that looks like the designs they produce? I'd bet lots of them design dystopian sci-fi boxes all day for the masses to live in then head back to their cosy cute homes.

Housing associations and councils were building using brick and block in the past. I know of lots that were built around the 1960s by councils and in the 1980s for HAs, they're still there and haven't needed massive overhauls since.

Perhaps if the whole-life cost of a building was considered then we wouldn't keep building these quick fixes.

Anyway, back on-topic... Did anyone seriously expect authorities and massive businesses to turn up and just admit it was all their fault? It should have been obvious to anyone from the start that all words would be vetted by lawyers and no admissions would be made. This is just how the world has always been. What was the intended purpose of this enquiry, all it's done is wasted time, which is what makes me wonder if that was always the intention.