High rise does not mean high risk???

[Tadees]

In the purpose-built blocks of flats guide it states that high rise does not mean high risk, yet on page 19 it states that although as a percentage of the population, few people live in blocks of flats, most dwelling fires and deaths occur in blocks of flats.  Is this not contradictory? 

By virtue of the fact that high rise has more flats, the likelihood of fire within a flat increases although, admittedly, the consequence is no different to a low rise block.  Therefore if the likelihood is higher and the consequences are the same, the risk rating will be higher?

[colin todd]

There are not more fires because the people are sitting higher off the ground.  If, in bungalows, you had the same number of fires per million population that they have in blocks of flats, the death rate from fire in bungalows would be higher than the death rate in tower blocks.  But bungalows would not be high risk.  The point is that it is nothing to do with the architecture, it is social factors.  Hence, no, there is nothing contradictory about what is written in the guide.

[Bruce89]

And the guide says as much.

[colin todd]

Yes, BruceAlmighty, it's a cracking guide is it not.

[Mike Buckley]

Am I being pedantic or is this thread similar to the two threads which have recently been locked?

[wee brian]

Its fine to talk conceptually - just no conjecture about things under investigation please.

[Owain]

The point is that it is nothing to do with the architecture, it is social factors.

Although isn't it accepted there is a greater risk above the first floor, even in single-family dwellings? Hence stricter requirements for three-storey houses.

After Edinburgh suffered a series of fires, an Act of the City Council in 1674 gave the Court authority to enforce new building regulations, ratified in 1698 by an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Among other things it restricted buildings to five storeys.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/regulations.shtml

Also in any block of flats or non-detached housing there is a greater risk you will be affected by fire in a neighbouring dwelling.

[colin todd]

Buckers:  you are being pedantic.  I took the question to be one of a general nature, not linked to any incident.

WeeB!!!!!! you are back from your desert island.  Well, I have done my best to keep them in order in your absence, but now it's over to you again.

Auntie Wainright, Isn't it accepted that you are greater risk of falling from 30,000 feet than falling down stairs, but, wait a minute, don't more people in the UK die from falling downstairs than die in aircraft that take them up to 30,000 feet.  Must be something to do with the precautions they take before they put us up to 30,000 feet but that they don't take on staircases.  For years I have been advocating a review of Approved Document K.  Wee B if you are not busy at the moment, can you please put that in hand.

As for Edinburgh, I remember sitting in the debating chamber in Parliament Square as they brought in the Act and thinking it was too prescriptive.  Having said that, it would have stopped the residents of Muirhouse dropping washing machines from a great height on Lothian and Borders police.

[Owain]

As for Edinburgh, I remember sitting in the debating chamber in Parliament Square as they brought in the Act and thinking it was too prescriptive.  Having said that, it would have stopped the residents of Muirhouse dropping washing machines from a great height on Lothian and Borders police.

Do the residents of Muirhouse have washing machines?

Anyway, a mangle dropped from the 4th floor will still dent the roof of a Cortina quite effectively.

[colin todd]

What's a Cortina?

[lyledunn]

High rise with attendant control measures should not mean risk extends beyond tolerable. For some cities the only viable alternative is skywards. The problem is that certain recent fires in high buildings has seeded a notion that high rise is high risk. Even if experts and developers understand the notion to be wrong, some considerable persuasion will be needed to house folk much above a level safe to drop a baby.
The advent of ropeless lifts that can move laterally, the first of which is due to be installed in the East Side Tower in Berlin, will mean architects will be free to go as high as they like, restrained only by structural boundaries and, of course, people's fear, well-founded or otherwise!