Jun 19, 2017

Does the Grenfell Tower fire mean we should stop building residential towers?

The Grenfell Tower fire was the result of flawed policy on public housing, not some inherent flaw in the high-rise residential building type

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

Spread of fires in US buildings, high-rise (> 6 storeys) vs low-rise. Source: ‘High-rise building fires’, National Fire Protection Association

The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins reckons residential towers are “creatures of egotistical architects, greedy developers and priapic mayors”. Writing last week in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire in London, he argues residential towers – which he calls “alien creatures” – shouldn’t be built (The lesson from Grenfell is simple; stop building residential towers):

How many times should we say it? Don’t build residential towers. Don’t make or let people live in them, least of all families. They are antisocial, high-maintenance, disempowering, unnecessary, mostly ugly, and they can never be truly safe. No tower is fireproof. No fire engine can reach up 20 storeys, period.

Instead of high-rise, Mr Jenkins says housing should be provided at the “densely packed but low-rise” scale of streets like Walmer Road in North Kensington, just south of Grenfell Towers.

He’s only one of many commentators capitalising on the tragedy to make wider political or policy points (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). He’s not alone in opposing high-rise towers either; we have critics in Australia too (e.g. see Melbourne’s planning mess: we’re on a high-rise to hell).

So if they’re so bad, why are we building tall residential towers in the centres of Australian cities rather than restricting all new development to a maximum of (say) six storeys like the charming streets of North Kensington, central Paris or old Barcelona?

Consider that central Paris covers 105 sq km and has a resident population of 2.23 million, while 1.29 million people live in the central 98 sq km of London. In contrast, central Sydney houses just 0.66 million in 101 sq km and Melbourne a mere 0.43 million in 104 sq km. Our legacy one and two-storey terraces – almost all accommodating a single household – are a far cry from the six-storey apartment buildings that Paris Intra Muros inherited. Our cities are starting from a long way behind the western world’s poster high-density, low-rise cities.

The demand for high-rise towers in Australia arises because a lot of people want to live in or close to the centre where they can enjoy a cosmopolitan lifestyle and the huge endowment of physical, social and cultural infrastructure it enjoys.

But the scope to provide significantly more housing at Parisian densities is limited in the inner city. There are powerful regulatory and political constraints on redevelopment that limit the number of lots suitable for redevelopment, especially heritage protections and opposition from existing residents. Just as importantly, available development sites are in disparate and mostly private ownership; they tend to be small; and values are set by existing development expectations. Former industrial sites often require decontamination.

Given these constraints, towers are generally a more plausible solution in Australian cities than low-rise because, subject to sensible planning rules, they maximise the number of people who can live in a desirable place like the inner city; they’re the best solution to deliver on the many social benefits – like better environmental outcomes – of a central location. They make particular sense to the increasing numbers of one and two person households who prioritise accessibility and urbanity over dwelling space.

I’ve never lived in one for a long period but I don’t doubt that towers, like other housing forms, have their peculiar drawbacks and aren’t the ideal housing form for everyone. However I reject Mr Jenkins claims that they’re “antisocial” and “disempowering” – I’ve discussed this sort of unreflective nonsense before, noting there’s little evidence to support such claims when residents are able to choose their dwelling type (see Do high-rise apartment towers promote social isolation? and Is high-rise living unnatural?).

The advantages of high-rise living are all for nought, though, if towers are especially prone to catch fire or are especially dangerous in the event of a fire compared to other dwelling options. It’s hard to find conclusive data, but it appears high-rise might actually be safer than other building forms. The US National Fire Protection Association says “the fire death rate per 1,000 fires and the average loss per fire are generally lower in high-rise buildings than in other buildings of the same property use” because buildings higher than six storeys usually have better fire protection (see exhibit).

High-rise (buildings) are more likely to have fire detection, sprinklers and to be built of fire-resistive construction and (fires) are less likely to spread beyond the room or floor of origin, than fires in shorter buildings.

The Victorian Building Authority’s External wall cladding audit undertaken following a fire in Lacrosse apartments, Docklands, in November 2014, illustrates the considerable engineering and design effort that goes into maximising the fire safety of high-rise buildings. The Lacrosse fire, which spread largely because of the non-compliant use of external cladding material (Alucobest), required evacuation of all residents. But as the VBA observes:

This fire caused no loss of life. This was in part due to the response of the emergency services and in part due to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia to design and construct buildings with a multi-layered approach to safety. These requirements address issues about how people get out of a high rise building quickly by limiting distances from an apartment front door to an exit; use of automated sprinklers and alarm systems; and choice of building materials.

The Authority concluded that of the 170 buildings it audited, only one (in addition to Lacrosse) “was deemed to pose a significant safety issue due to the non-compliant use of external wall cladding material”.

Mr Jenkin’s charge that “no fire engine can reach up 20 storeys” is beside the point because internal fire stairs replaced ladders long ago; modern towers have two sets of fire stairs. His claim that “no tower is fireproof” is of course true; but it’s true of all dwelling types.

It now seems the Grenfell Tower fire was a case of gross regulatory failure; both in 1974 when it was constructed with a single escape stair (!) and more recently when it was refurbished with what appears to be flammable cladding. It was the result of flawed policy on public housing, not an inherent flaw in the nature of a particular building type.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 thoughts on “Does the Grenfell Tower fire mean we should stop building residential towers?

  1. frednk

    No sprinkler system?
    Cladded in fuel.
    Inadequate fire escape.
    It says a lot about what England has become.

  2. X

    “greedy developers”
    The towers were owned by the local authority and run by a (non-profit?) tenant management board, including member representatives appointed by the local authority.

  3. Woopwoop

    Cities like Vienna (and Paris of course) are full of 5 or 6 storey apartment blocks. They offer all the amenity of the central city without being soulless dehumanising wind tunnels like the monstrosities now destroying the character of Melbourne.

    1. Alan Davies

      Woopwoop, Melbourne’s forefathers chose to develop at relatively low densities compared to cities like Paris and no one wants to replace all those historic Victorian terraces with six storey apartment buildings (or could make it work financially). I don’t agree that all or even most of the city centre apartment towers are “soulless” (although some are pretty awful), but consider that life for those who can’t afford to live where they want to might lack soul too.

  4. Itsumishi

    Excellent analysis Alan. You’ve touched on a lot of valid issues.

    Whilst I think it would be great if Australia’s bigger cities could work out planning policies and regulations that would encourage more ‘middle-density’ development in established suburbs; I also agree that towers are a necessary (and wanted) form of housing stock.

  5. Sue Marshall

    There has been very little said about the death of the two little Brewer girls in the filthy dirty shack in Turners Marsh in Tasmania. Old tin shack called granny flat illegal electricity cord and no smoke detector. No one charged. Council not even under notice. Girls were living in third world circumstances by look of photos in house and school did nothing. Police feel sorry for family not the girls why the cover up. They should be in gaol.

    1. Dudley Horscroft

      It seems hardly a week goes by without photos of a house on fire on the TV. Shocked neighbours, in anguish over the deaths of the people who lived there. Normally no fire detectors, no extinguishers, no escape arrangements, and house full of flammable materials. Frayed cords, heaters next to low ignition temperature materials, and smoking in bed – it is a wonder that there are not more deaths. Slight cause for concern but normally nothing done. When was the last time a Council Fire Inspector visited you to check if you have a fire alarm, and if the batteries in it are still working? Yet offices, and especially hotels are checked by one of the firms contracted to do checks on the fire appliances, usually annually but sometimes more often – note the date on the tag attached to each fire extinguisher.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details