[acsinuk (OP)]

The housing market is suffering because of a misunderstanding of who is safe in a multi story building.  Well, the height to which the brigades ladders will reach is the limit right. 
So we do not need to strip all cladding immediately only that above the 10th floor although in the long term all the plastic cladding should be removed and replaced with non flammable asbestos impregnated type cladding and cold not this save the government taxpayers money?

[evan_au]

non flammable asbestos impregnated type cladding

Asbestos has major health issues in mining, processing, maintenance and disposal - basically the whole life cycle.

Try something else.

[evan_au]

a misunderstanding of who is safe in a multi story building.  Well, the height to which the brigades ladders will reach is the limit right.

Actually, during COVID, the main limit is the number of people who can fit into a lift/elevator, at 1 person per 4m² (or the equivalent rule in your country).

This makes high-rise accommodation or offices unserviceable (at least until we can widely deploy an effective vaccine).

[alancalverd]

Pretty obviously, the higher you go, the longer it takes to get out of the building, so regardless of the length of ladders, you need to minimse  the risk of fire at every level. Not much point in leaving an asbestos capsule on the 20th floor just before the building collapses, only to find that the lowest 10 floors are a furnace by the time you reach them.

White asbestos is relatively safe to handle and not a problem as long as it is not disturbed, and there are other incombustible materials like rockwool that can be used for internal cladding  and cavity insulation.   

Not sure about Grenfell, but I understand that the primary retardant was supposed to be sprinklers, not men with ladders who have to drive to the scene though London traffic, and the sprinklers weren't up to the job at any level.

[acsinuk (OP)]

My point is that we do not have to frighten everyone living in tower blocks into believing their lives are at risk or council members trying to please H&S officers by emptying their tenants into motels and hostels.  Deal with the top floors quickly first.

[alancalverd]

Like mass vaccination, it's worth considering the logistics.

On my planet, due to gravitation, we build scaffolds from the bottom upwards, then fix a hoist at the top. This means we have access to every level of the building. Then we establish a store and workshop at the bottom, and bring in whatever supplies we need to do the work. This whole setup process costs time and money, so we don't like doing it twice. Once we have fixed the top floors, we can begin to reduce the scaffold and finish somewhere in the middle. At the same time we can have a second or third fixing crew working their way up the scaffold, or down from the middle.

It's a hell of a lot cheaper and quicker than clearing the site and coming back after a public enquiry when the unprotected ground floor caught fire.

[Bored chemist]

My point is that we do not have to frighten everyone living in tower blocks into believing their lives are at risk

They are at risk.
There is no point lying about this.

The housing market is suffering because of a misunderstanding of who is safe in a multi story building.  Well, the height to which the brigades ladders will reach is the limit right. 
So we do not need to strip all cladding immediately only that above the 10th floor although in the long term all the plastic cladding should be removed and replaced with non flammable asbestos impregnated type cladding and cold not this save the government taxpayers money?

Seriously, I'm not sure.
Is this a joke?

Presumably, you imagine the scaffolding they need to stripping the cladding magically supported 9 1/2 floors above the ground.
Also, You don't think the fire and rescue service would have a problem  climbing a ladder right next to the bottom 10 floors of a building even though it's covered in a firestorm.
That's OK, because above 10 floors there's no more fuel.

What you are proposing is to declad buildings twice (top part then the bottom part) and pretending that this will be cheaper than doing it once; properly.

The housing market is suffering because of a misunderstanding of who is safe in a multi story building.

Or, in the real world...
"Housing market set for busiest Christmas in more than a decade"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy/housing-market-set-busiest-christmas-decade/

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/11/how-will-the-coronavirus-affect-house-prices/

As I said. I'm really not sure if you were trolling.
If so please stop posting this sort of thing.
If, on the other hand you were not trolling, please stop posting this sort of thing.

[alancalverd]

A significant reset of the housing market can only be good for the longterm economy of the UK. We currently spend a greater proportion of GDP than any comparable country, on secondhand houses that are the smallest and least energy-efficient in northern Europe, with the result that disposable income is too low to sustain a healthy industrial base. The only benefit from an "active housing market" is to the banks.

There are two worthwhile comparators: Germany and North America.

Land is so plentiful in the USA and Canada that you can build luxurious wooden houses very cheaply and not expect the building value to appreciate over time.

Home ownership in Germany is a rarity - only farmers and tradesmen who "live above the shop" normally expect to own the building they live in - most urban accommodation is rented in a very competitive market where it must be maintained to a high standard by serious professional landlords. 

The result in either case is substantial small shareholder investment in productive businesses, either direct in North America or through proper local banks in Germany, and plenty of consumer spending in the home market.

But I digress.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The main point is that buildings under 10 stories are low priority to remove the cladding and people should know that. .Just as safe as people who live in 2, 3 or 4 story wooden buildings or 2 story thatched houses.  You will have to pay a premium on the insurance to cover the extra fire risk but it is not unsafe.
Alan will remember in 70's and 80;s we were building new estates and towns in agricultural land and even hidden greenbelt areas which stopped rocketing house prices at that time .Should we do the same now or build retirement villages and insist over 80's vacate housing for use of the younger generation.   Or both??.

[Bored chemist]

You will have to pay a premium on the insurance to cover the extra fire risk but it is not unsafe.

If it's not unsafe, what is the extra premium for?

A flammable clad building is only actually unsafe if the cladding catches fire.
But that's a fairly useless definition.

The main point is that buildings under 10 stories are low priority to remove the cladding and people should know that.

Why didn't you say that, rather than posting nonsense about

Deal with the top floors quickly first.

I'm all in favour of building more housing.
But do it properly, blocks of flats never quite seem to work.

[alancalverd]

Alan will remember in 70's and 80;s we were building new estates and towns in agricultural land and even hidden greenbelt areas which stopped rocketing house prices at that time .

The cause was nothing to do with supply, only affordability.

There has been a perceived housing shortage in the UK since 1945. Consequently the price of a house of any age was limited by mortgage availability.

Building societies and banks were very different animals in the past. Societies borrowed short (from small depositors) and lent long (on mortgages) so were very conservative in their assessment of affordability and until 1960 would only lend up to 80% of valuation against 2.5 times a man's salary plus 0.5 times a married woman's salary, on the basis that the latter was generally short-term.

The availability of free and highly effective contraception in the 1960s, plus an enlightened attitude to women's wages, meant that lending long on full joint salaries was, for a short time,  a fair risk. The result was a doubling of house prices over a period of 10 years. I know - I was there!

Predictably, couples wanted to breed anyway, so the active female workforce stabilised at far less than 100%  within 5 years. Mortgage interest rates were still low, male wages rose during the boom years, and people now expected to make a notional profit on selling a secondhand house, so there was increased pressure to buy "before the prices rose"  rather than rent.

Thatcher's response to the perceived "wage inflation" (what was actually happening was that 30% of GDP was now being spent on physically depreciating assets, so Sterling was weakening throughout the Wilson/Thatcher era) was to increase mortgage interest rates from 3 - 4% to over 15%, which made mortgages a secure proposition for ordinary banks, who traditionally borrowed long (from large depositors) and lent short at high rates to businesses.  A butcher or garage might go bust if they owed a substantial sum at 10% or more,  with negligible and depreciating asset value, but if house prices continued to rise at 15 - 20% per annum and the public was prepared to pay that much, it was a safe and profitable bet.   

What happened next was deregulation of building societies, now indistinguishable from banks, and in a free competition for mortgage business, lending 110% of valuation against 5% deposit and full joint salaries of all the occupants. And why not? 

Reality gradually asserted itself at the 30% level: most people were working just to keep a roof over their heads and pay bankers' bonuses. Indeed the rate of rise of house prices did decrease a bit in the 1980s, aided by the sale of public property to sitting tenants, but the UK is still unique in treating a private house as an essentially appreciating asset that will always show a profit above inflation. This is quite different from the USA, where the physical structure does not appreciate, or Germany where most domestic property is the fixed and maintained asset of a professional company whose income is from rent, not sales.

You may indeed choose to hand over your property to your kids, but the whole concept of "title" means that what I do with my property is my business, not yours or the state's. And it still doesn't solve the problem because you have to pour more concrete over less land every year. 

[acsinuk (OP)]

We digress, but I agree that we consider bricks and mortar a safe investment, so typically high salaried bank employees buy summer holiday cottages in Devon and Cornwall which remain vacant the whole winter whilst the locals live in caravans because they cannot raise a mortgage or pay the rental.
So you are correct there are plenty of houses but too many are unoccupied or under occupied

[alancalverd]

Never blame the buyers for the high price of desirable village properties. No matter how much you earn, nobody is going to pay more than the seller asks, for anything. The problem lies with the greed of the locals who sold the cottages.

And I don't think I've ever said there were plenty of houses. Supply of property fit for accommodation has never kept up with demand. Nor should it! If I build 100 houses for 100 customers, and make a profit of x hundred pounds, I could make as much profit and save a lot of effort by building 90 houses and charging 10% more for them.

[acsinuk (OP)]

That's what is happening in the home counties, by not opening new land for building on; the, planning approvals in Surrey are causing a shortage of building sites which pushes the prices so contractors can only afford to build luxury houses on tiny sites leaving the less fortunate to live in hovels at extortionate rents.

[alancalverd]

new land for building on

There is no new land, only old land that hasn't been built on, and new people wanting to live on it. Problem is that every acre you cover with concrete is an acre that can't feed a family. At some point we have to make more land (difficult) or stop making more people (easy).

leaving the less fortunate to live in hovels at extortionate rents.

Or decent, affordable rented accommodation in public or properly competitive commercial ownership. But that requires the intervention of a competent government, not one run by the in-laws of property speculators.

[charles1948]

Why do we build such tall structures as "tower-blocks" anyway?  Couldn't we just build at ground-level. Why go upwards?  Then fires would only spread sideways, and be more controllable.

[alancalverd]

Because land and roofing are expensive and peasant lives are cheap.If their housing is awful they will be more inclined to go to work or spend their wages on gin. With no garden they will watch the telly all day so we can advertise more crap  for them to buy. Think battery chickens.

[charles1948]

Because land and roofing are expensive and peasant lives are cheap.If their housing is awful they will be more inclined to go to work or spend their wages on gin. With no garden they will watch the telly all day so we can advertise more crap  for them to buy. Think battery chickens.

I fear you may be right in your cynical analysis. Always there are lordly rulers and exploited peasants. That's how humans have operated in society,  throughout recorded history. 

Whether Science can change this is doubtful.  The new scientific invention of the steam-engine gave a big shake-up to society.  But the old pattern of ruler/ruled has re-asserted itself, seemingly destined to last forever.