Toronto Escorts

Grenfell fire

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
Frankly IV, I doubt that renovated high rise public housing dating back to the 1970's in either Canada or the U.S. is superior.
It seems that almost all fires occur in "public housing". There was a fire in Hamilton yesterday with 3 fatalities. Yup, it was public housing. Almost every fire in those apartment buildings on Wellesley are public housing.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,403
113
So the building managers, and the installers, and the sellers of the product should all have known it was illegal?

They should all be charged with the equivalent of homicide via negligence. They are all truly responsible for these deaths.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
It seems like everybody is guilty of something in this fiasco, except the manufacturer.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
So the building managers, and the installers, and the sellers of the product should all have known it was illegal?

They should all be charged with the equivalent of homicide via negligence. They are all truly responsible for these deaths.
Yes, unless the law was changed after it was installed (which articles do not suggest was the case) it indeed seems so.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,136
3,572
113
I'm guessing the guilty parties arent sleeping well tonight
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
So the building managers, and the installers, and the sellers of the product should all have known it was illegal?

They should all be charged with the equivalent of homicide via negligence. They are all truly responsible for these deaths.
Yes they should be charged and yes they should know the code. It's their job to check that the material they install is approved for use.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,136
3,572
113
The cladding material itself is not illegal to sell, so long as its being used on buildings no taller then 18 metres high
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Yes they should be charged and yes they should know the code. It's their job to check that the material they install is approved for use.
No.

The person (or company) that should be charged is the person who designed the building retrofit and specified the product.

I don't know if this product did or did not confirm with the British Building Code or not.

In Canada, any retrofit like this would have had a consultant providing the owner with a detailed design package which would include detailed design drawing and specifications. The entire thing would have then been put out to tender and low price gets the job every time. This is how public tendering in Canada works.

The company that provided the design package is liable for their design.

The Owner is typically just that, an Owner. In the case of the housing authority, like Toronto Community Housing, they would just be a bunch of bureacrats who depend on the Consultant (architectural and engineering) to know what they were doing.

The Contractor who did the work is not an engineer or architect and would have simply been supplying and installing what the design package told him to price.

The lawyers may mud up the situation and apportion blame (as they like to do), however, the architect and or engineering consultant is the only guilty party.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
No.

The person (or company) that should be charged is the person who designed the building retrofit and specified the product.

I don't know if this product did or did not confirm with the British Building Code or not.

In Canada, any retrofit like this would have had a consultant providing the owner with a detailed design package which would include detailed design drawing and specifications. The entire thing would have then been put out to tender and low price gets the job every time. This is how public tendering in Canada works.

The company that provided the design package is liable for their design.

The Owner is typically just that, an Owner. In the case of the housing authority, like Toronto Community Housing, they would just be a bunch of bureacrats who depend on the Consultant (architectural and engineering) to know what they were doing.

The Contractor who did the work is not an engineer or architect and would have simply been supplying and installing what the design package told him to price.

The lawyers may mud up the situation and apportion blame (as they like to do), however, the architect and or engineering consultant is the only guilty party.
What enables lawyers to "… mud up the situation" is the stuff we dismiss with a sneer as 'boilerplate'. That structure of responsibility is how we ensure what went up does not come down. I'm betting that in every bit of signed-off paper on the ladder of responsibility you laid out, there's a sentence that says the guy on the next rung down is responsible for fixing what he finds and handing off a fault-free job when he's finished. All the way up to the last inspector giving the final sign-off on the first permit the owner took out for all the work they commissioned.

The architect didn't climb the fence to construct his inspired whimsy without the owner's full knowledge; nor was the owner the victim of pirate gas-fitters, or ironworkers looking for a site to practise their faulty skills on scrap steel. While the guy at the bottom is guilty of that first horrible mistake, every stage after that took responsibility for ensuring they were working on a safe, legal base.

There may be a whole lot of mud involved, there usually is in construction, but when someone fails, the lawyers are just the ones who sort out the wreckage. But responsibility, that belongs to everyone involved.

I'm sure they're feeling it now. What we haven't yet fixed, is how to make them — and us — feel it every day.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
What enables lawyers to "… mud up the situation" is the stuff we dismiss with a sneer as 'boilerplate'. That structure of responsibility is how we ensure what went up does not come down. I'm betting that in every bit of signed-off paper on the ladder of responsibility you laid out, there's a sentence that says the guy on the next rung down is responsible for fixing what he finds and handing off a fault-free job when he's finished. All the way up to the last inspector giving the final sign-off on the first permit the owner took out for all the work they commissioned.

The architect didn't climb the fence to construct his inspired whimsy without the owner's full knowledge; nor was the owner the victim of pirate gas-fitters, or ironworkers looking for a site to practise their faulty skills on scrap steel. While the guy at the bottom is guilty of that first horrible mistake, every stage after that took responsibility for ensuring they were working on a safe, legal base.

There may be a whole lot of mud involved, there usually is in construction, but when someone fails, the lawyers are just the ones who sort out the wreckage. But responsibility, that belongs to everyone involved.

I'm sure they're feeling it now. What we haven't yet fixed, is how to make them — and us — feel it every day.
I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.
Apparently it says right on the packaging not to use it over the height of 20 meters.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Apparently it says right on the packaging not to use it over the height of 20 meters.
The $64,000.00 question is, "Who specified it for the application in which it was used?"

Does not matter what the package says.

What matters is who specified it and in doing so disregarded the manufacturer's written instructions. (Assuming they read the instructions. (Even if they did not, it does not give them a pass on it.))
 

mclarkez1980

New member
Feb 19, 2017
296
1
0
Funny to hear the Toronto fire authority proclaim that 'stand pat' is their advice for fires that happen in Toronto high rises. As if! I'm gone as soon as I hear the alarm!! Many stories from this London fire if people surviving because they disobeyed the order.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
Funny to hear the Toronto fire authority proclaim that 'stand pat' is their advice for fires that happen in Toronto high rises. As if! I'm gone as soon as I hear the alarm!! Many stories from this London fire if people surviving because they disobeyed the order.
Agreed.

And 911 taught me to always go down, never up. Find a way to ground and out the door.

Either that or buy yourself a parachute and jump off the roof if you have too.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I disagree that responsibility belongs to everyone involved.

When it comes to design / bid / build contracts (in Canada at least), the architect and or engineer would have both sealed the detailed "For Construction" drawings. They are the ones who are supposed to ensure that the design complies with the building code. What may save their hides is IF the Owner said, "I want you to use this cladding" over their objections, or better yet, the Architect and or Engineer specified a superior cladding system and when hearing of the cost, the Owner told them to use an inferior (read cheaper) product. Different story then, though they will still be on the hook since they sealed the drawings. Likewise, if they specified a better quality cladding, and the contractor ordered and installed substandard cladding without telling them, then the Contractor is on the hook (though the lawyers will muddy the waters and still make it everyone's responsibility by saying that some poor inspector should have seen it.)

BUT if the building was retrofitted as per the sealed drawings done by the Architect and or the Engineer, it is the Engineer's or Architects fault (if the cladding was in fact in violation of the building code). If the cladding was code compliant, well, that's a different story.

Lawyers like to spread the blame. I've seen it happen where guys who realistically had no involvement or responsibility in a disaster yet they get proportioned a share in the blame.
Thanks, you've laid out the chain of blame very clearly and very sensibly. What I was trying to get at in my clumsy way was what I see as the difference between blame and responsibility: It's clear the stoker who tied down the safety-valve is to blame for the boiler explosion that sank the ship but the captain who insisted he'd get the Blue Riband for the fastest ocean crossing or know the reason why, is responsible.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,012
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Agreed.

And 911 taught me to always go down, never up. Find a way to ground and out the door.

Either that or buy yourself a parachute and jump off the roof if you have too.
A parachute is extremely dangerous in a building fire, there will be significant, violent thermals from the heat of the fire that will make your odds of a successful jump low in what was already a dangerous thing to do.

Much better, cheaper, and easier to learn: buy some climbing gear, a really long rope, and learn how to absail down the side of a building. You can learn how on one Saturday and it's a lot less dangerous.

It should allow you to get past and floors that are impassable if you can't get all the way to the ground.

Few bucks on Amazon.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts