Discussion: View Thread

Sadly, it is always the disasters that wake up all to reflect on and perhaps learn – in this case form the horrific inferno (June 14, 2017) of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London – a residential social housing building. The fire claimed 79 lives and many more injuries. While the blaming game and investigation continue, 75 more high-rise towers were evacuated by authorities saying that the claddings failed fire-safety tests.  

Apart from the tragedy, the disaster is very disturbing because UK being a developed country, is supposed to have a robust building code drawing upon many decades of experience. What are the causes? Is it the building code? Is it the industry-standard upon which the code is based? Is it the lapse in regulating the code? Could it be the negligence of some quarters perhaps with the unfortunate mentality that for a social housing the code compliance can be relaxed?

There can be many more questions. But one of the disturbing news that perhaps draws anybody's attention is that Arconic (manufacturer of the inflammable plastic core cladding) said in a statement on June 26, 2017 that it would stop producing the materials . . . the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world . . .

Inconsistency in building codes? There are many standards organizations around the world producing many consensus based documents. Some of their core purposes are to help industries self regulate and to help legal jurisdictions develop codes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an umbrella organization based in Switzerland having some 163 member countries, is supposed to harmonize (or at least point out deficiencies) of many different standards. Is there any lapse in ISO? Is it the inconsistency in standards? Or is it the failure of the jurisdictions to account for appropriate standards in developing enforceable codes?

Hopefully answers to many such questions will come in a way that valuable lessons can be learned – to benefit all countries across the globe in the future.             

Sadly, it is always the disasters that wake up all to reflect on and perhaps learn – in this case form the horrific inferno (June 14, 2017) of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London – a residential social housing building. The fire claimed 79 lives and many more injuries. While the blaming game and investigation continue, 75 more high-rise towers were evacuated by authorities saying that the claddings failed fire-safety tests.  

Apart from the tragedy, the disaster is very disturbing because UK being a developed country, is supposed to have a robust building code drawing upon many decades of experience. What are the causes? Is it the building code? Is it the industry-standard upon which the code is based? Is it the lapse in regulating the code? Could it be the negligence of some quarters perhaps with the unfortunate mentality that for a social housing the code compliance can be relaxed?

There can be many more questions. But one of the disturbing news that perhaps draws anybody's attention is that Arconic (manufacturer of the inflammable plastic core cladding) said in a statement on June 26, 2017 that it would stop producing the materials . . . the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world . . .

Inconsistency in building codes? There are many standards organizations around the world producing many consensus based documents. Some of their core purposes are to help industries self regulate and to help legal jurisdictions develop codes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an umbrella organization based in Switzerland having some 163 member countries, is supposed to harmonize (or at least point out deficiencies) of many different standards. Is there any lapse in ISO? Is it the inconsistency in standards? Or is it the failure of the jurisdictions to account for appropriate standards in developing enforceable codes?

Hopefully answers to many such questions will come in a way that valuable lessons can be learned – to benefit all countries across the globe in the future.             

Sadly, it is always the disasters that wake up all to reflect on and perhaps learn – in this case form the horrific inferno (June 14, 2017) of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London – a residential social housing building. The fire claimed 79 lives and many more injuries. While the blaming game and investigation continue, 75 more high-rise towers were evacuated by authorities saying that the claddings failed fire-safety tests.  

Apart from the tragedy, the disaster is very disturbing because UK being a developed country, is supposed to have a robust building code drawing upon many decades of experience. What are the causes? Is it the building code? Is it the industry-standard upon which the code is based? Is it the lapse in regulating the code? Could it be the negligence of some quarters perhaps with the unfortunate mentality that for a social housing the code compliance can be relaxed?

There can be many more questions. But one of the disturbing news that perhaps draws anybody's attention is that Arconic (manufacturer of the inflammable plastic core cladding) said in a statement on June 26, 2017 that it would stop producing the materials . . . the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world . . .

Inconsistency in building codes? There are many standards organizations around the world producing many consensus based documents. Some of their core purposes are to help industries self regulate and to help legal jurisdictions develop codes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an umbrella organization based in Switzerland having some 163 member countries, is supposed to harmonize (or at least point out deficiencies) of many different standards. Is there any lapse in ISO? Is it the inconsistency in standards? Or is it the failure of the jurisdictions to account for appropriate standards in developing enforceable codes?

Hopefully answers to many such questions will come in a way that valuable lessons can be learned – to benefit all countries across the globe in the future.             

Sadly, it is always the disasters that wake up all to reflect on and perhaps learn – in this case form the horrific inferno (June 14, 2017) of the 24-storey Grenfell Tower in London – a residential social housing building. The fire claimed 79 lives and many more injuries. While the blaming game and investigation continue, 75 more high-rise towers were evacuated by authorities saying that the claddings failed fire-safety tests.  

Apart from the tragedy, the disaster is very disturbing because UK being a developed country, is supposed to have a robust building code drawing upon many decades of experience. What are the causes? Is it the building code? Is it the industry-standard upon which the code is based? Is it the lapse in regulating the code? Could it be the negligence of some quarters perhaps with the unfortunate mentality that for a social housing the code compliance can be relaxed?

There can be many more questions. But one of the disturbing news that perhaps draws anybody's attention is that Arconic (manufacturer of the inflammable plastic core cladding) said in a statement on June 26, 2017 that it would stop producing the materials . . . the right decision because of the inconsistency of building codes across the world . . .

Inconsistency in building codes? There are many standards organizations around the world producing many consensus based documents. Some of their core purposes are to help industries self regulate and to help legal jurisdictions develop codes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an umbrella organization based in Switzerland having some 163 member countries, is supposed to harmonize (or at least point out deficiencies) of many different standards. Is there any lapse in ISO? Is it the inconsistency in standards? Or is it the failure of the jurisdictions to account for appropriate standards in developing enforceable codes?

Hopefully answers to many such questions will come in a way that valuable lessons can be learned – to benefit all countries across the globe in the future.