The date remains
unclear; which project was it? It must have been over twenty years
ago, possibly more. The circumstance should stand out as it was a
product that was not frequently used in my projects. The classy,
slick cladding was the friend of those seeking the 'high-tech' image
that produced a smarter, more shiny, 'modern' technological identity
than that which others concerned with different, less strident issues, desired. This more commercial, promotional, self-important identity
also made the product identifiable as a flash skin applied for
branding, to make a mark. It was a material that could ‘fake’ any
shambles, transform it into a sleek, fashionable, technical wonder, a
fabulous world of make-believe that was literally skin deep.
Because of the
unfamiliarity with the product, its available finishes, detailing,
and fixings, the rep was asked to come in for a meeting. He was a
good rep for his company, being knowledgeable, thorough and helpful.
He was able to respond with precise and factual detail on all
matters, answer all questions, explain the issues involved, and
expand on the possibilities available. It is always a pleasure to
work with such individuals rather than those that act like the
proverbial car salesman.
Towards the end
of the meeting, the rep added a caution that was by no way a threat
or a blunt, coercive sales pitch. It was more helpful advice, as he knew I would be
exploring all options. He did not assume that his product would be
used. "Be careful of the cheap copies. Our product is expensive,
but it has been tested for fire. All the cheap copies are flammable.
They use a polyethylene filler; ours is a phenolic resin that does not support combustion."#
This advice has
always been heeded, and has been passed on to anyone who might
listen. It has been a basic stand taken on the principle that one
should know what one is getting. There are some copies of products
that are of equal quality, and can happily be used as alternatives;
but where there is a vast discrepancy in performance in products that
look almost identical to the casual eye, one has to be firm, and
insist on getting what one wants. The proposition is that if I, a
minor user of this cladding product, have been told of the problem
with cheaper, flammable copies of this material, many others in the
industry must have known too. No doubt the rep would have told as
many others as possible too, anyone who would listen.
So how did it
happen that the cheaper, flammable product found its way into general
usage? One can guess that this perhaps involved the unquestioned turn
of ‘blind eyes,’ and the ambition for bigger profits, excused,
maybe, by some aesthetic or practical benefits. The cheaper flammable
copy looked much the same as the original product. From memory, it
might have had some perceived ‘advantages’ too, other than price.
Was it the choice of finishes, the sizes and thicknesses available,
properties that only benefited budgets too, or added a little 'icing
to the cake'? Maybe it was the propaganda, the glitzy promotional
material? One can remember the bigger and brighter publications
pushing one particular cladding product.
Can one
hypothesise that unscrupulous contractors swapped the cheaper item
for the specified product without anyone knowing? This might be
possible, but the product does come with a protective plastic sheet
that is printed with the product's name as a surface pattern. This
protective layer is left on the sheet material until the installation
has been completed, a little like stainless steel. This means that it
would be very unlikely that the secret 'swap' with the "I did
not know" excuse, would be the cause for any particular use. The
printed protective skin makes it clear just which cladding is being
used.
It seems more
likely that the 'save money' strategy might be the reason. Here a
contractor might come back to a client with the proposition that, if
product B is used instead of the expensive specified A -
“Architects!” - then a saving of x thousand dollars could be
made. This proposition is always attractive in projects when little
unknowns start putting pressure on budgets. With the cladding being
one of the last things to be installed, it would be a time when
project costs were becoming clearer.
"You'll
never know the difference," is the common statement made at
these times. Unless there is someone there willing to argue for, to
insist on the fire resisting properties of the more expensive
product, the swap is usually happily approved, perhaps without the
lack of any difference in fire performance being revealed. There is, of course, the
situation where good advice will be over-ridden too, when the
contractor's and the client's ambitions align - “Architects!”.
The other likely
reasons for use of the flammable product simply involves designers
and developers trying to get prices down and specifying/using the
cheaper item, just because it looks the same and costs less. “Why
waste money on the more expensive product?”
Somewhere in all
of this stands the certifier. Whether this was the local authority or
a private alternative, (the time period stretches beyond the change
to private certifiers), someone must have approved or signed off the
use of the cheaper, flammable product. Was it out of ignorance, or
with a vague, hopeful, carelessness? Did the regulations prohibit the
use of flammable products? Maybe not. The rep knew the problem, but
it was easy to see this as a sales argument that gets a dismissive
response something like: "He would say that, wouldn't he? He’s
a salesman." Given that
certifiers have been known to quibble about millimetres, one should
assume that they knew what they were doing. It would be terrible to
even think or believe otherwise.
The situation
today clearly reveals that the ‘benefits’ of the cheaper product
are illusory. That owners/residents are being asked to fund removal and
replacement of the cladding can be understood, especially with the
urgency stimulated by the Grenfell Tower disaster, but it does beg
the question of responsibility. How did this mess happen? Was it
really from ignorance? Was it a matter of commerce, where habit
forgot the problem and pushed on doing what everyone else was doing?
It takes only one
example to set the scene: "What's your problem? They used it on
project x; and the government project y too; and they should know,
shouldn't they?" When the snowball starts rolling, it is
difficult to stop, especially when savings are involved, appearances
are nearly identical, and certain reps are persuasive. Could it have
been a matter of muddled associations? "They used it on the xyz
fascia," that just happens to be an award-winning project that
has been well published, a project where fire performance was not
critical. So again, the image and idea catches on as the scale and
context of use grows. "Why not use it here," could be the
question, underlined by the ambition to gain all the kudos given to
the winner? Might this be the sub-text?
One can recall
how these products were promoted: all companies produced impressive,
stunning, coloured, glossy publications illustrating the smartest and
slickest, the most desirable images possible. That there was a stark
difference between the performance of flammable products and
non-flammable products, is something that was, on recollection, never
given the same hype. It seemed that one had to be told.
There is no one
answer for responsibility. Each circumstance needs to be assessed in
its own special context. This sounds like a ‘cop out,’ but it is
so. Building regulations of the particular time need to be reviewed
as a first step. If the flammable product was ever allowed to be used
without any recognition of its flammability, then legislators need to
explain. If the circumstance has been all about budgets, then the
finger starts swinging. Why was it allowed? Who gave it the tick?
Projects are supervised and certified for a reason. Is it too easy to
overlook an impressive, slick finish when attention is given to the
millimetres of handrails, steps, waste outlets, disabled access, and set
backs? Or did rigour with the understanding of materials and their
properties just get forgotten in favour of aesthetics and prices?
As soon as
Grenfell was seen burning, it seemed clear what the problem might be. The
words of the rep returned, "Be wary of the cheaper, flammable
copies." Was it that somehow, over time, the care faded and some
other driving force took over? This is a lesson for all - know your
products and properties, and never fail to take a responsible stand
to ensure that the specified qualities are adhered to. Shortcuts and
savings often turn out to be onerously otherwise. Everyone needs to
be aware.
Unfortunately
there is another question to be asked: were the sales rep for the
flammable product as rigorous and open in their promotions as the rep
that I spoke to? "He’s their salesman. He has to say that!" might have been
the response. Some sales folk are unscrupulous. Folk can become
engulfed in the euphoria of presented possibilities and forget to ask
the critical questions.
It is the
responsibility of the user or the agent to demand answers to probing
questions to seek out the facts. Unfortunately, today the tables have
turned. Professionals are asked to attend point-scoring sessions to
listen to sales pitches: see - https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2019/02/whats-point-on-re-registration.html Blame for the flammable
situation will be like a ball, bouncing around from one to another.
Hopefully it is caught before it stops bouncing and rolls away, to be
picked up by another concerning mess.
Thinking about
the situation in the Australian context, it seems that the first step is for government^ to
determine whether the use of the flammable product was in accordance
with all appropriate regulations of the time. If so, government has
to explain this situation. If the product was not in accordance with the regulations, then it seems that it is up to
government to discover why the product got used and approved.
Government may be keen to pass responsibilities onto private bodies,
anyone else, but even this flick is in its control. It is too easy to
issue letters of demand and stand aside. If the product has been
wrongly used and approved, it appears that it is finally up to the government to
determine why, and what action must be taken to manage the lack of
responsibility, and determine ways to remedy the situation. It is, after all, the
government that manages laws for construction. Coming in after the event to issue
demands for remedies seems somewhat inappropriate when the government
is setting up the processes and systems for others to supervise,
manage and comply with. If these arrangements have failed, the
government needs to discover how and why. Who knows what else has
been allowed? What must be done to ensure not only the cliche 'so
that it will never happen again,' but also to find out who might be
responsible for any penalty and remedy. Someone let it happen in a
world that has rules, regulations and much supervision. It is
surprising to see third parties that have purchased these properties
being asked to correct matters.*
# The precise
description of the filling materials needs to be checked, but this
was the gist of the conversation.
^ 'Government' is used here as a generic term for the governing body, the authority that sets the rules and manages compliance, or licenses others to do this.
* In Australia; see - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-16/combustible-cladding-risk-affects-thousands-but-few-fix-options/10804014
^ 'Government' is used here as a generic term for the governing body, the authority that sets the rules and manages compliance, or licenses others to do this.
* In Australia; see - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-16/combustible-cladding-risk-affects-thousands-but-few-fix-options/10804014
NOTE
12 MARCH 2019
For more on flammable cladding, see: Why aluminium composite cladding can be a lethal fire risk, and the obvious way to reduce it
The surprise in this article is that the option to not use the
flammable product does not appear to be considered. Perhaps the
proposition is that fire breaks could be inserted into existing
facades to limit spread; but what/how? Sprinklers have been used, but
such systems have always been considered expensive. The Grenfell
disaster changes this perception. The irony here is that it seems
that the flammable material itself is generally used to save costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.