Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Dimswitch]

I sure hope none of our bldgs are like that disaster in London yesterday. They're saying flammable cladding? Faulty electrical? How on earth did that pass inspections. A total horror to watch. Heads will roll.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by connect2source

Outstanding addition to the area, this is becoming quite the enclave of outstanding design!!
I'll be interested to see what Anthem has planned for the former Chevron lot directly to the north.

No doubt another pretty bauble for the global rich to stash money in, and nothing for locals. Oh yay.

[Vin]

Damn viewcones! Everyone's life would be so much easier without it.

Originally Posted by Dimswitch

I sure hope none of our bldgs are like that disaster in London yesterday. They're saying flammable cladding? Faulty electrical? How on earth did that pass inspections. A total horror to watch. Heads will roll.

Telus Garden Residence comes to mind. Remember that Youtube video posted online?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Vin

Damn viewcones! Everyone's life would be so much easier without it.

Telus Garden Residence comes to mind. Remember that Youtube video posted online?

This is something I have been interested in for awhile now, however fear not, I don't believe we use this material here (actually we do!). one of the most concerning things i read about the tower in London is that it only had a single central stairwell. Disaster waiting to happen.

view of the torched material:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor...ssive-london-tower-fire/article35306328/

The Telus tower has a facade of steel, glass and concrete, minimal chance of a spreading fire such as this. What is more concerning to me are condo towers from the 1980's and 1990's that are often covered in EIFS stucco composed of flammable foam. We have yet to have a major incident with a stucco facade fire here (correct me if i'm wrong).

You really must watch this video of a balcony fire on a lower level of this condo tower in France. The building is quite new and finished in a similar manner as many towers in metro Vancouver were in the 80's and 90's.

The fire spreads up the entire height of the building in less than 2 minutes because of the highly flammable synthetic stucco.

• Video Link

The most problematic type of new multi unit building we have here are sprawling woodframe apartment/condo buildings with a large attic space. Often a fire begins on a balcony, slowly spreads up the siding and once it gets into the attic space it easily spreads throughout the entire structure. The attic is often a vast open area with exposed woodbeams acting as matchsticks, once the space heats up as the wood beams burn it melts the bitumen roofing material which ignites as it melts through the structure.

A few very recent examples in new construction, many other examples out there.

Surrey fire 2015:

"It's believed the fire started on a balcony and moved up the outside of the building into an attic void space, where it spread."

http://www.vancouversun.com/surrey+apartment+fire+damages+dozen+suites/11402550/story.html

Langley fire 2016:

“The issue is, is the building code stringent enough on three- and four-storey buildings? And it isn’t,” Warkentin said.

"He said once a fire such as this one gets up inside an attic structure, it is typically too late for firefighters to effectively stop its spread across the entire roof"

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/massive-langley-condo-fire-could-have-been-prevented-by-newer-building-practices-developer

Surrey fire 2016:

"The top floor of the Celeste apartment complex at 121 A Street and 82 Avenue in Surrey has extensive damage with the roof on many of the units destroyed from the fire that was reported shortly before 10 p.m. Saturday night"
“He is going to continue investigating. It appears it started on the exterior on a balcony,” said Woznikoski..

”
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...orced-from-their-homes-by-apartment-fire

Not only do older condo and apartment buildings need to be retrofitted with additional sprinklers but the attic space above in all buildings like this needs to have at least a thin sheet of drywall and mud to prevent fire speading through these empty attic spaces. However this is rarely done because of the way they are framed.

Older woodframe buildings here go up quickly because the firedoors at the stairwells are woefully inedequate and often don't even close, turning these buidings into a chimney once it gets into the hallway. Also often lacking any sprinkler system.

[retro_orange]

Wikipedia quote on the cladding retrofit:

Cladding

There was a significant number of comments that the new cladding around the building, which had been added for insulation and cosmetic purposes, had contributed to the speed at which the fire spread. Fire safety experts have speculated that the building's new external cladding was a possible cause of the rapid spread of the fire.[44] Experts said the cladding essentially worked like a chimney in spreading the fire.[45] The cladding could be seen burning and melting, causing additional speculation that it was not made of fire resistant material.[16] One resident said, "The whole one side of the building was on fire. The cladding went up like a matchstick."[46]
Records show that a contractor installed "over-cladding with ACM cassette rainscreen" during the recent refurbishment at Grenfell Tower. The ACM stands for aluminium composite material, the combustibility of which depends on the choice of insulation core material.[47]Multiple major tower building fires have involved the same external cladding, including the 2009 Lakanal House fire in Camberwell, London, the 2009 Beijing Television Cultural Center fire and the 2015 fire at The Marina Torch, Dubai.[47] Sam Webb, the architect who investigated the Lakanal fire and who sits on the All Party Parliamentary Fire Safety & Rescue Group, said "This tragedy was entirely predictable, sadly."[48]
Some residents have reported concern that the new cladding on the building was fixed onto it with wooden battens.[49] There is widespread concern amongst residents and fire safety experts about the increasing use of timber, even in high-rise buildings, following a change to building regulations.[50][51] It was reported that one reason for the new cladding was to improve the view for people living in the surrounding area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenfell_Tower_fire

[Vin]

I'm always always against woodframe buildings. If none of our structures are made of wood, we would have saved billions of dollars with almost no fires.

[Vanville]

Celotex RS 5000 was the possible cladding used. It has a polyisocyanurate (PIR) core.
"Polyiso passes both the ANSI UL 1256 and FM 4450 fire tests without a thermal barrier. Polyiso, a thermoset material, stays intact during fire exposure in the ASTM E84 or "Tunnel Test.” It forms a protective char layer and remains in place during the test, thereby meeting all building code requirements and contributing to a fire-safe building." Taken from http://www.polyiso.org/?page=FirePerformance

It will be very interesting to know how the Grenfell managed to become a raging inferno in a matter of minutes. Fire vehicle access to the structure was also poor. Not that the water could reach too far. A fire fighting drone could have helped but the technology isn't quite there yet.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

You really must watch this video of a balcony fire on a lower level of this condo tower in France. The building is quite new and finished in a similar manner as many towers in metro Vancouver were in the 80's and 90's.

The fire spreads up the entire height of the building in less than 2 minutes because of the highly flammable synthetic stucco.

It wasn't stucco. All the white coloured sections is the panels with a polyethylene core sandwiched between aluminum.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It wasn't stucco. All the white coloured sections is the panels with a polyethylene core sandwiched between aluminum.

huh? Yeah I know.

The stucco building in France is the one that's similar to what we have here from the 80's and 90's, that was my point. Reading comprehension.

[jollyburger]

Funny.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm always always against woodframe buildings. If none of our structures are made of wood, we would have saved billions of dollars with almost no fires.

Depends what kind of wood. Big Douglas Fir beams are quite resistant to fire.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

This is something I have been interested in for awhile now, however fear not, I don't believe we use this material here (actually we do!). one of the most concerning things i read about the tower in London is that it only had a single central stairwell. Disaster waiting to happen...

...Not only do older condo and apartment buildings need to be retrofitted with additional sprinklers but the attic space above in all buildings like this needs to have at least a thin sheet of drywall and mud to prevent fire speading through these empty attic spaces. However this is rarely done because of the way they are framed.

Older woodframe buildings here go up quickly because the firedoors at the stairwells are woefully inedequate and often don't even close, turning these buidings into a chimney once it gets into the hallway. Also often lacking any sprinkler system.
[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

A word about sprinklers, they can be a double edged sword. I know of one recent incident in a Concord building where an absentee owner let their bathroom fan run, which ignited a fire in the motor. The sprinklers sent torrents of water into the elevators shafts and down into over 20 units. Literally millions in water damage. Still, better than a towering inferno I guess.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

The most problematic type of new multi unit building we have here are sprawling woodframe apartment/condo buildings with a large attic space. Often a fire begins on a balcony, slowly spreads up the siding and once it gets into the attic space it easily spreads throughout the entire structure. The attic is often a vast open area with exposed woodbeams acting as matchsticks, once the space heats up as the wood beams burn it melts the bitumen roofing material which ignites as it melts through the structure.

Older woodframe buildings here go up quickly because the firedoors at the stairwells are woefully inedequate and often don't even close, turning these buidings into a chimney once it gets into the hallway. Also often lacking any sprinkler system.
[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Thanks for the detailed post, retro_orange. I was surprised to see that in one of the Surrey fires cited as having been fed by negative attic space, the building has a flat roof (the Access development). So even flat-roofed buildings have negative attic space? I would have thought that's only the case for pitched roofs.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A word about sprinklers, they can be a double edged sword. I know of one recent incident in a Concord building where an absentee owner let their bathroom fan run, which ignited a fire in the motor. The sprinklers sent torrents of water into the elevators shafts and down into over 20 units. Literally millions in water damage. Still, better than a towering inferno I guess.

Water escapes are the biggest single problems with condo towers these days, to the point that very few insurers will play in the sandbox any more, and some towers have been blacklisted because of too many floods.

[retro_orange]

This is the main issue with sprinkler systems, there needs to be better targeted fire suppression as opposed to the current blanket approach. Although newer sprinkler systems use heads that give a finer and more easily diffused spray requiring less water, older systems just gush water uncontrollably.

The sprinkler system can and often does cause almost as much damage as the fire, minus major structure damage, the water destroys all interior finishes and occupants belongings.

This would require each sprinkler head to be it's own sensor unit, all connected to a central computer in the fire suppression panel that accurately reads smoke conditions and air temperature.

If each sprinkler head could act independently, the computer could decide which heads require more or less water and which heads should remain off entirely unless the fire spreads. The sprinkler heads could monitor which areas should be isolated and report to the fire panel where the firefighters will know immediately exactly where there are hot spots or just smoke accumulation, reducing the risk to the firefighters.

This can enable the air control system to clear the air in areas that have smoke but no fire but also cutting off fresh air supply to areas that have heat, suppressing the fire without the need for huge amounts of water flow.

This technology is more or less in the making but still 10-20 years out before we have more intelligent systems. I feel this would require a government mandate to update buildings and offer some funds to enable this which would prompt companies to design better water heads for sprinkler systems. I'm surprised the insurance industry doesn't press for these intelligent systems to be retrofitted in existing buildings as it would save them money if they just required this system in problematic buildings and new construction.

The tech. for this is already there in individual fire alarms you can pick up at the hardware store for less than $50, what needs to be done is making one of these detectors for each sprinkler head. In large new multi unit structures these detectors are already connected to the fire panel but they are lacking the integration with the sprinkler system and the intelligent technology to manage the fire before it spreads and before the fire department has time to act appropriately. The investment needed for an average sized residential unit would probably be less than $1000. Certainly reasonable for the reduced liability of a problematic sprinkler system.

[christmas]

DailyHive article:
Downtown Vancouver's Orpheum Theatre laneway is getting a 'psychedelic' makeover

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-laneway-makeover-orpheun-theatre-more-awesome-now





So happy that this is happening. It would be better should some of the markets be facing the alley, but a step towards the right direction nonetheless.

Look at how much of a dump it is now:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2810196,-...FZw!2e0!5s20160601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2799912,-...ONYeuRu9LtA-c6Cu7iLAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Metro-One]

Haha, they actually colored the dumpsters.

Just fuckin remove them if you really want to revitalize alley spaces!

No fucking off putting dumpsters in any of the countless vibrant alley ways I have ventured down in Japan.

This is such an obvious step, why is it always ignored?

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Haha, they actually colored the dumpsters.

Just fuckin remove them if you really want to revitalize alley spaces!

No fucking off putting dumpsters in any of the countless vibrant alley ways I have ventured down in Japan.

This is such an obvious step, why is it always ignored?

It's amazing how in the pursuit of glitz and glamour the small important details get ignored.

If this space is going to be successful, the dumpsters need to be moved somewhere else. Alleyways are spaces that Vancouverites have no habit of going through, getting people to use them requires both enticement and given them reasons to stay. I think this space could potentially good at both, but I see a few things are missing that would help like seating and awnings.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Haha, they actually colored the dumpsters.

Just fuckin remove them if you really want to revitalize alley spaces!

No fucking off putting dumpsters in any of the countless vibrant alley ways I have ventured down in Japan.

This is such an obvious step, why is it always ignored?

Vancouver's alleys were designed to allow garbage collection. So how does the Orpheum or surrounding businesses get rid of their garbage without the dumpsters? Perhaps dumpsters that can pop out from the ground when the garbage trucks come a-calling?

Anyway with that said, a lot of civic projects in Vancouver are nothing but piece-meal/half-butt ventures.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Haha, they actually colored the dumpsters.

Just fuckin remove them if you really want to revitalize alley spaces!

No fucking off putting dumpsters in any of the countless vibrant alley ways I have ventured down in Japan.

This is such an obvious step, why is it always ignored?

I'd rather have dumpsters than the piled bags of trash on the street you get in New York and London. That always disgust me.