PD Editorial: Harsh lessons from the ashes of a towering inferno

Government regulations always seem to be an endless waste of time and money - until they aren’t. The Grenfell Tower disaster in London is the latest example of this harsh truth.

More than two weeks have passed since the 24-story North Kensington complex burned like a massive torch from the outside in, and the search for bodies continues. At last count, the death toll was 79, 16 more deaths than recorded from the destructive Loma Prieta earthquake in the Bay Area in 1989.

So how is it that with modern building techniques and fire safety standards that so many people could perish in a building that was constructed a little over four decades ago? The explanation - as with so many historic tragedies, from the sinking of the Titanic to the 2008 economic collapse - was a combination of mismanagement, miscalculation and pure hubris.

When the Grenfell Tower was built in 1974, it was a concrete block of housing, designed with “passive” fire safety measures that were intended to confine any fires to single units. So confident were the builders and governments officials that approved the project that signs inside the complex directed residents to stay in their apartments in the case of fire. This despite the fact that the building contained no sprinklers, no fire alarms and no fire escape. To make matters worse, the tower complex was served by a single staircase.

But what completed this death trap wasn’t added until last year when outside panels known as cladding were installed on the exterior of Grenfell Tower. They were supposed to increase the tower’s energy efficiency. Unfortunately, they also increased the risk to human life. The cladding consisted of two sheets of aluminum with a core of combustible polyethylene. According to the New York Times, this type of product had all but been banned on U.S. high-rise buildings since 1998 when U.S. building codes began requiring such materials be tested not in a lab but in real-world simulations on real buildings. And no aluminum cladding of this type had ever passed such a test.

But the concerns weren’t contained to tests. Firefighters and engineers issued warnings as far back as 1999 pointing out how similar flammable cladding had accelerated a fire in a 14-story public housing complex in Irvine, Scotland. Similar concerns went out following a deadly fire in Melbourne, Australia in 2014 and another in a 60-story skyscraper in Dubai on New Year’s Eve in 2015.

But, according to the Times, manufacturers pushed back against pressure for more tests and changes in building codes. Builders opposed the use of fire-resistant materials largely because of the higher cost involved. Local governments in Britain acquiesced as they were being pressured to be more “business-friendly.” As a result, they were more inclined to scale back on regulations rather than create new ones. Governments in Britain adopted policies that sound familiar in the United States today including one that required government to eliminate one regulation for every new one that was added. As a result, building managers, in many cases, were left to police themselves.

The senselessness of all of this was put on dramatic display on June 14, when a refrigerator located next to an outside wall exploded in a Grenfell Tower apartment. The ensuing fire did when many thought was unfathomable - it spread quickly up the side of the building and burned from the outside in. And many of those who did as they were instructed and stayed in their apartments perished because of it.

Investigations are under way, and it’s possible that this tragedy may result in manslaughter charges being filed. But this didn’t begin with a refrigerator. It began with the presumption that government regulations and building codes are a hindrance, something to be overcome rather than a recognition that these safety measures exist for a reason - 79 of them to be exact. At least that’s the count so far in the blackened shell of a housing complex in West London that now stands as the latest monument to the risk of putting profit and pride ahead of basic public safety.