This could be a total game-changer
I’m still not sure that people are awake to what a big deal this could be for Australian property. It’s lying like a sleeper-cell, but if it gets activated, oh boy, look out.
I’m talking about cladding.
The cladding that goes on the outside of apartment towers, and was responsible for the London Grenfell disaster earlier in the year.
Apparently, it’s a problem here too.
The thing is though, no one really knows how much of a problem.
And that’s because the dodgy, flammable cladding is indistinguishable from the code-compliant stuff.
So even builders who thought they were doing the right thing, maybe have been wrapping their buildings up in dodgy imports and turning them into a powder keg.
Apparently, there’s no way to know unless you actually try and set fire to them. Maybe we have to make that a clause in any new building development? Cladding has actually had to have had a blowtorch applied to it at some point.
Every silver lining has a cloud in the modern economy. And so while open borders and expanded trade routes have brought all manner of cheap goods into our homes, it also means that we don’t really know where things are coming from, and our compliance structures hinge of the integrity of authorising bodies in Chinese provincial back-waters.
Modern life.
And the scale of the problem is potentially huge. In Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane we’ve been building apartments like it’s going out of style.
Most apartments have now been built post-GFC. And that means post the era where cheap imports started washing up on our shores.
So we’re talking huge.
The Victorian government’s task force hasn’t reported back yet, but they reckon there are more than 5,000 buildings in Victoria that are non-compliant, according to the ABC.
So no one seems to be arguing the toss that we’ve got a problem.
The only question is what we do about it?
And on that front, surely complete remediation is the only option right? Surely you can’t have dangerous, flammable cladding stuck to the sides of buildings that people actually live in.
So obviously the dangerous stuff will have to be replaced.
But let’s run through another scenario.
Let’s say the problem isn’t as dangerous as we fear. Of those 5,000 buildings in Victoria, only 20% are actually Grenfell-level dangerous.
The rest are just non-compliant in a slightly dangerous way.
But then what message does it send if we say, oh well, there’s a bunch of non-compliant buildings that we’ve uncovered, but we’ve decided to turn a blind eye in this case because it’s just going to cost too much money to bring them up to code…
Could they really do that?
What message does it send about the codes themselves?
“More like guidelines. Ideal if you can afford it, but if not, don’t worry.”
What’s the point in having codes at all?
And what does it say about enforcement?
“As long as you’re not using kerosene-soaked rags as drapes, you can pretty much get away with anything.”
Yeah, nah.
Neither of those options is viable in my mind. The whole integrity of the system is at stake here.
The government has to enforce the code and it has to order all faulty buildings to be remediated. I really don’t think it has a choice here.
I mean, imagine the PR disaster that would follow a human disaster if a building that was found to be non-compliant now, was not forced to refurbish, and then was involved in some sort of tragedy down the track.
And if we’re talking about refurbishment costs, who ends up footing the bill. The builder? The dodgy Chinese importer? The government? The property owners?
Right now, I feel for the 137 people who own units in Melbourne’s Lacrosse building, which caught fire in 2014 and was found to be using the same cladding as Grenfell. They’re now locked in a legal battle with the builder LU Simon.
They want to the builder to pick up the tab for the mandatory refurbishment costs. The builder is arguing that the panels they used were up to code at the time. It’s not their fault…
… or their responsibility.
Nothing but trouble once the lawyers get involved.
So this is all bad news, right?
Well, not exactly…
It’s bad news if you own one of these flammable shoe-boxes, that’s for sure.
But for the market overall, that’s a different story.
Basically, the only thing that’s kept a lid on prices in recent years, as the mining boom income works through the system, and we continue to support record numbers of immigration into our big cities, has been unit construction.
The phenomenal surge of apartment construction has helped us keep pace with population and income growth, and has helped keep a lid on prices.
(If you can call 50% in 5 years ‘a lid’).
And there has always been a qualitative difference between units and houses, but now we’re going to be looking at a markedly differentiated market.
There’ll be detached houses, with the little conveniences that come with having your own patch of turf.
And then there’ll be apartments, with a potentially hefty refurbishment bill hanging over their heads.
I mean, would you be buying into these things without being 1000% sure that the cladding was compliant?
(Hint: you shouldn’t.)
In my mind, there’s a massive TILT light going on, as demand tilts even further towards detached housing, and away from units.
And if this is as huge as it looks like it’s going to be, then we’re talking about huge price movements in the detached housing market.
Huge.
But we still don’t know for sure. The true extent of the problem is hidden from view.
The giant is still sleeping…
But look out if he wakes up.
Do you see this having a big impact on the market?
peter says
There were a lot of things wrong with that London Grenfell building. Years ago, while in London, I walked into one of those buildings like Grenfell. Similar to some of our walk-up 2 or 3 story housing commission blocks – very basic but with a lift in a 20 story building!! In Grenfell there was only 1 exit through the front door! No fire alarms (that worked or exit signs that were illuminated), no fire-hoses (on each floor), no regular fire/emergency evacuation drill (residents hate them anyway) and possibly no current fire evacuation plan. Any modern-day fire-safety inspection checklist would have had red crosses all the way down the page.
Unlike a similar sized office building with relatively young, fit, ambulatory (it helps if you can walk out) and awake occupants, Grenfell had numerous old, unfit, unwell and sleeping? residents, some of whom spoke poor English as a second language. Good luck with getting them out in a hurry.
tezza says
Some of your points are valid and undoubtedly contributed to the death toll but from a firefighting perspective the fire was impossible to contain and sprinklers or fire hoses inside would have done nothing as the fire was outside and by the time it penetrated in it was too late to stop anything. A lot of the buildings under question here are residential so will have sleeping people if fire starts at night and with the rate of spread even with fire alarms it is doubtful that all the people could make it out safely. Even in a daytime fire where people are not sleepy and disorientated when the alarms go off I would not like my chances of getting down 20 flights of fire escape before the smoke gets you. Not only do those dodgy panels burn well but they emit highly toxic smoke that will incapacitate you quickly AND they drip molten metal, etc, down the outside of the building so you have deadly rain coming down if you do get out the door (if the fire is on the same side of the building).
peter says
No not really. Fire and smoke (all fire smoke is toxic) INSIDE a building is what really kills people. A sprinkler system would really have slowed down a fire inside but that would have been very expensive for that building. A proper evacuation plan followed should get most people out safely. In the World Trade Centre fires, most occupants evacuated safely down 100 flights of stairs. Most casualties were from people trapped at the level of impact or above. Fire hoses on each floor would allow occupants to fight fire back from entering their rooms, slowing down the progress of the fire even if not stopping it. Together with loud fire alarms (90-100dB normally) alerted people enough that many more people should have got out.
tezza says
Fire rarely kills people – smoke does all the damage as can incapacitate people very quickly. Whilst all smoke is toxic the smoke from burning foam (what is sandwiched in the middle of those panels) is particularly bad and can render someone unconscious much faster than that from say burning wood, etc. The WTC fires are a poor example – if you are underneath a fire then there is little smoke danger as it goes up leaving the stairwells clear. If you have a full building engulfed in fire then there is smoke on all levels and that smoke gets into the stairwell each time someone opens the door to join the escape. That smoke can make escape impossible as you cant run down 20 flights of stairs holding your breath the whole way down. Fire hoses are not for occupants to fight fires with – they are there for the fire brigade (in theory what you say is right you may be able to slow the progress with a fire hose but unless you happen to have full breathing apparatus on hand as well you are going to lose consciousness from the smoke before you do anything useful). If a fire is too big to put out with a fire extinguisher then you should call 000 and evacuate the building. Sprinklers may have slowed it a bit (possibly allowing a few more escapes but only if the stairwells are passable) but again the problem with the cladding is you have an intense fire on the OUTSIDE of the building that you cannot fight and the whole building is going to be lost. Multi-storey buildings are supposed to contain fires within the affected floor (yes they will spend but it should be quite slow) to allow fire fighters to isolate the fire and put out without losing the whole building – this cladding bypasses all those safeguards and makes it impossible to fight the fire.
peter says
You tell me how to suck eggs then go looking for an argument. There have been a number of fires on this foam cladding. The London fire was the first with a large number of multiple fatalities. I’m over it. I’m busy, I’ve got a life!!
steve christo says
I believe that both Peter and Tessa are correct… shitty situation however you skin the cat.
As a small residential builder I’ve gone full tilt into the German passive house standard of building and have found a prefab wall sytem with a wall cladding and insulation that cracked the kiln after 3 hours when it was fire tested.
That was good enough for me.
When I finish the next 7 houses in Hobart I’ll do a blow torch test myself and sit on the opposite side of the wall and get the local news crew to film it.
There are good products in China and all over the world we just need to find them and pay that little bit extra.
I believe Australia will soon have its own version of the German Huff Haus (my fellow Grand Designs fans will know what I’m referring to) and building homes in Australia will never be the same again.
I really don’t understand why we have to do anything to minimum standard. We all have such high expectations for our coffee and baristas and restaurants and heaven help if there’s a hair in my meal … and I’ve heard too many stories of contractors not being paid because there was a hair in the lacquer when their floors were last polished and there was a 1mm step between this little mosaic tile and the one next to it.
Crickey, the Hubble telescope was out by 1mm and they spent millions building that while we are struggling to find Tiler’s who speak English and are willing to work for $75/hr.
But when it comes to buying a home, we the people, have tolerated a maximum 30 minute window of opportunity to look at something as complex as an entire house. I take longer to test drive a car. Most of us took a much more detailed look before we bought the wife / husband.
Why is it so?
The most significant purchase gets the least attention to detail. I don’t know why but here’s what I’m priposing:-
I’m looking to build homes that advertise the thermal and structural and fire and acoustic ratings of the building envelope. The buildings will be tested and certified to have achieved ‘passive house standard’ of construction and I’m hoping you’ll come spend a night with me and my family to fully experience it.
Not 30 minutes.
Not minimum Australian standards.
I hope others will follow.
There is a better way to build but it starts with us wanting better rather than just pointing fingers at the government or builders or developers or Certifiers … everyone in every profession will try to do the bare minimum .. how can we pull the industry up to a higher standard rather than pushing the proverbial up hill and blaming others along the way.
Here’s to changing the reputation Australian houses have as being colder in winter and stinking hot in summer than our European or American counterparts.