Would This London High-Rise Pass Muster in New York? Short Answer: No

Megan Specia | The New York Times | June 27, 2017

The Dorney Tower in Camden, London, where hundreds of families were forced to evacuate this week because of safety concerns. CreditNiklas Halle’N/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Hundreds of families were evacuated this week from Dorney Tower, a 23-story London apartment building, after the authorities found unsafe features in it and nearly a hundred other buildings after the deadly Grenfell Tower blaze.

Would the building’s construction have passed safety regulations in New York City? Not even close.

Here are the shortfalls in Dorney Tower that never would have passed muster in New York, which has much more stringent building codes and safety checks, according to city safety officials.

Flammable exterior covering

Dorney Tower, completed in 1967 and refurbished in 2008, shares several problematic features with Grenfell Tower, which was encased in a flammable exterior covering, known as cladding, that contributed to the fire’s rapid spread. The cladding on the tower, which was added in 2008, failed safety tests this week.

In New York City, cladding must be tested and found to be fire resistant before it can ever be put on a building, said Thomas Fariello, first deputy commissioner for the city’s Department of Buildings, which enforces building codes.

The requirement dates to 1968, and has been made more stringent since. Though retrofitted buildings may be held to different standards, new buildings are inspected upon completion to make sure that cladding was installed properly and that it matches the material that was tested. Facades on buildings taller than 75 feet are inspected every five years.

“The siding material in this city, with that fire testing, is not going to be able to go up in flames like that,” Mr. Fariello said.

An exterior panel was removed from Dorney Tower last week. CreditJustin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The same contractor installed cladding on both Grenfell Tower and Dorney Tower, although officials said the material was different. The local authorities said the cladding on Dorney Tower would be removed.

Single stairway for evacuation

Dorney Tower, like Grenfell Tower, has only one flight of stairs available for residents if they have to evacuate the building.

In New York, any building taller than 75 feet must have at least two stairwells encased in concrete to provide a safe escape route.

Residents evacuated Dorney Tower as a precautionary measure on Sunday. CreditHannah Mckay/Reuters

“It’s a basic thing of being able to get people out of the building,” said Gus Sirakis, an assistant commissioner at the building department. A backup route is needed in case one of the stairways is inaccessible or being used by firefighters, he said.

New York buildings over 420 feet must have a third flight of stairs.

The single escape route out of Dorney Tower has long worried residents.

Amal Salah, 45, who has lived there on the 15th floor for the past 11 years, said her family had been on edge since the Grenfell fire.

“We only have the main staircase,” Ms. Salah said. “So we just hope that nothing will happen.”

Missing fire doors

London fire officials found that Dorney Tower and other buildings in the same complex lacked working fire doors, and in some cases were missing them altogether. Without working fire doors to block a fire, flames can spread quickly from one part of a building to another.

Fire safety equipment was checked at Dorney Tower after residents were evacuated. CreditHannah Mckay/Reuters

New York City officials said that fire doors in all high rises must be self-closing and self-latching, and noted that they were regularly assessed.

“If our inspectors are called to the building for any reason, that is something we will inspect for,” Mr. Fariello said.

Experts say at least part of the reason Britain has less-strict fire codes is because business-friendly governments have pared back regulations.

A 2005 measure ended a requirement for government inspectors to certify that buildings had met fire codes and shifted to a system of self-policing.

“We have the developers on our back a lot, because they want to build, build, build,” Mr. Fariello said. “We are kind of in their way a lot to make these things safe.”

Green Cladding on London High-Rises Has Fueled Fires Before

Justin Pritchard | Claims Journal | June 20, 2017

For the last decade, engineers specializing in fire safety have worried about the hidden danger posed by the kind of insulated metallic skin that transported flames up a high-rise apartment building in London, killing dozens.

Panels of the armor-like “cladding” have become a popular facade on tall buildings worldwide, both for their sleek look and energy-saving virtues. They also have helped fuel spectacular infernos in the Middle East, Europe, Asia and the United States.

Some fire experts worry that, with energy efficiency a priority worldwide, the proliferation of “green” buildings has the unintended consequence of fanning fire danger. Though cladding can be flame-resistant, the result can be deadly when it is not.

“The good intent of sustainability translates into a potential fire safety problem,” said Brian Meacham, a fire protection engineering professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. His concerns began to crystalize in 2010, he said, when he was in South Korea presenting a paper on new technology and fire safety and a cladded high-rise burned.

At London’s Grenfell Tower, flames raced with alarming speed up 24 stories of cladding in which a plastic core was sandwiched between thin sheets of aluminum. That composite is one of several kinds of exterior paneling that helps moderate inside temperatures, saving on energy needed for heating and cooling.

The tower’s aging concrete facade received the face-lift last year as part of a 10 million pound ($13 million) publicly funded refurbishment effort aimed, in part, at making the building more energy efficient.

The tower, home to as many as 600 people, burned Wednesday. At least 58 people were confirmed or presumed dead, a tally that could rise.

Authorities are still investigating the fire. Its behavior strongly implicated the cladding, several fire safety experts said in interviews. Anger has mounted in the community following reports that contractors had used cheaper panels in which the plastic insulation was not fire-resistant.

Cladding with pure plastic insulation costs less and insulates better than an alternative that incorporates fire-slowing minerals, experts said. On short buildings, it makes sense.

Not so for taller buildings. The International Building Code – a model of construction standards adopted widely in the United States, some areas of the Middle East and the Americas – calls for the use of fire-resistant cores in buildings over 40 feet (12 meters) tall. The code in England is less specific, giving architects latitude in how they make sure exterior insulation is safe as long as “the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire.”

Two British government officials – Trade Minister Greg Hands and Treasury chief Philip Hammond – said in separate TV appearances Sunday that the cladding used on Grenfell seems to be prohibited by British regulations. Hands cautioned that officials don’t yet have exact details about the renovation.

Fires fueled by metal composite cladding in the past five years have charred high-rises in France, Dubai and South Korea. A 2007 casino fire in New Jersey was a wake-up call in the United States. Fires in buildings with other types of outer insulation have struck in other places, including Australia and China, where one killed 58 people. Though the fires may not be frequent, their quick spread makes them very dangerous.

To get a green certification, a building must, among other things, be more energy efficient than local codes require. The designation, conferred by private firms for a fee, does not focus on fire safety, referencing instead local code requirements. While the cladding made Grenfell Tower more energy efficient, the building did not reach green certification.

Green building practices may not be “inherently introducing risk, but I think it makes it a lot easier to make mistakes,” said Peter Weismantle, a Chicago-based architect who specializes in “supertall” buildings, including the world’s highest in the United Arab Emirates. He cited factors such as workmanship as well as the improper use of flammable cladding.

The U.S. Green Building Council, which oversees the industry-leading certification known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), said in a statement to The Associated Press that the Grenfell tragedy holds safety lessons.

“We stand with those who will learn these lessons in honest efforts to advance the aligned goals of life/safety and environmental building performance,” said the statement attributed to Brendan Owens, an engineer and senior vice president at the council. “Compromising life/safety in search of environmental gain is not a choice.”

In 2012, fire safety experts invited green building representatives to a symposium in Chicago. The engineers’ concern was that various green requirements could inadvertently conspire to increase fire danger. Meacham, the Massachusetts professor, addressed the gathering and said he did not sense much interest in fire safety within the green building industry then – or since.

“I think they view it as outside of their agenda,” Meacham said. “I don’t think they’re being necessarily mean about it; I think it’s more ignorance of the issues.”

In some places, the issue is impossible to ignore.

At least 30,000 buildings across the United Arab Emirates alone have cladding or paneling similar to the kind that safety and construction experts have blamed for rapidly spreading high-rise fires there, Dubai Civil Defense director-general Maj. Gen. Rashid Thani al-Matrooshi acknowledged in April 2016.

In January, Dubai authorities announced new fire safety rules, saying existing buildings with questionable cladding would “have to change it” under normal maintenance schedules. But they offered no further information to the public.