Another colossus in flames

The tragedy in Valencia on February 22nd brings to mind the recent images of the Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017.

The enormous similarity between the two is surprising, both in terms of the speed with which the fire spread and the materials covering the facade, which were almost identical, as well as the origin of both, which apparently was a short circuit in a refrigerator in the case of London and, although at first it was thought that the one in Valencia could have been in an outdoor awning, it seems that it was also in a refrigerator. A macabre coincidence.

As usual, the rush to inform and the desire to turn everything into a spectacle resulted in some scenes that could have been saved. Moved by the news of another colossus on fire, established news anchors from some channels went to the scene in person to describe in great detail the smell of burning in the building.

Meanwhile, they assumed that the fire’s rapid spread was caused by polyurethane, the thermal insulation in the building’s outer chamber, when it was finally discovered that this was not the case, since it was rock wool, which is non-combustible, as was already seen in the live images.

But of all this haste, what probably caught the most attention was the speed with which the conclusion spread that the developers had saved costs on the construction, which led to the belief that this was the true origin of the fire: the developers’ greed. In a tone of denunciation, some television channels even broadcast videos promoting the sale of the homes, where they assured that high-quality materials would be used, insinuating that in the end this was not the case.

This is a recurring accusation: the builders, or the developers, save money on materials to the point of endangering the building itself. A scene that appears precisely in the film The Towering Inferno, from 1974, by John Guillermin, where an angry Paul Newman, in the role of the tower’s architect, seeing the irremediable progression of the fire, explodes in reproaches and shouts against the developer of the works, accusing him of having reduced costs by saving quality in the electrical installation and the fire extinguishing system.

It is a recurring accusation: the builders, or the developers, save money on materials

Today we know that the block in the Campanar neighborhood of Valencia burned down due to a confluence of factors that had little to do with reducing costs. The facade was an expensive solution compared to other conventional ones, perhaps with the desire to give it a sophisticated air, more typical of offices or a tourist complex. But it was not until the London fire in 2017 that it was discovered that the aluminum and plastic siding that covered the exterior, helped by the building’s uninterrupted air chamber, spreads the fire quickly. It was also discovered that, contrary to what happens in a normal fire, in this case it spreads in two directions, upwards, but also downwards, because the material melts into flammable droplets that spread the fire to the lower floors and make it difficult for firefighters to access it.

Today it is a prohibited solution, but when the Valencia building was built, this was not certain. In fact, the court that is investigating the matter to investigate possible negligence recently dismissed the case because it found no evidence of a crime.

On the other hand, we have learned that the block had an adequate fire extinguishing installation, with a dry column, an empty vertical pipe where the Fire Department connects the water to feed all the landings and facilitate their extinguishing. Unfortunately, not even these safety measures worked in the Valencia homes, given the speed of the flames, fanned by the strong wind that fateful day.

The London experience changed the regulations in almost all countries and here it was modified in 2019, but this does not prevent some buildings built this way from still being there.

History shows us that, from time to time, fires do occur. Some, in the past, devastated entire cities: Chicago, Tokyo, London or Paris. Who could have imagined that a cathedral like Notre Dame, mostly built of stone, would burn like that just five years ago? Some scenarios are attempted to be predicted and technology helps us simulate reality with fire trials and resistance tests. However, not all the circumstances of a real fire are reproducible in a test and sometimes it is regulated after an accident like the one in Valencia. The truth is that fire regulations are the strictest of those in construction, and it is not logical to think that it is something that responsible professionals can skip.

As technicians, we have to think beyond the regulations, trying to imagine errors in the law itself to get ahead of ourselves and avoid misfortunes like this.

And it is up to the media to report responsibly in such delicate circumstances, with loss of human life, avoiding a spectacle worthy of a Hollywood movie.