New Acton Fire, the morning after.

I-filed said :

You also don’t leave open fireplaces in heritage buildings unless they are going to be supervised whenever they are lit, and that there is nothing flammable within spark distance other than very slow-burning e.g. wool carpet. Stopping the fire from spreading to another building with a firewall is beside the point. The point is that precautions on the face of it were inadequate. Let’s see what the investigation comes up with.

Canberra Times reported yesterday that the current belief is the ACT Services Club fire was caused by residual heat from fires lit, breaking out while closed and no one there.

creative_canberran said :

I think you’ll find many heritage buildings have wood fire places and old fashioned stoves, which is to say nothing of sometimes ancient electrical wiring. Old buildings have hazards, it’s a fact.

Old-fashioned stoves had triple brick chimneys which would never allow beams to be exposed to enough heat to cause a fire – even if the chimney itself caught on fire. Old electrical wiring is checked and replaced in any heritage upgrade. You also don’t leave open fireplaces in heritage buildings unless they are going to be supervised whenever they are lit, and that there is nothing flammable within spark distance other than very slow-burning e.g. wool carpet. Stopping the fire from spreading to another building with a firewall is beside the point. The point is that precautions on the face of it were inadequate. Let’s see what the investigation comes up with.

I-filed said :

The proof of the pudding and all that. Easy to put out a media release announcing an intention.

Let’s wait and see whether: oh dear, it’s going to be awfully expensive to do up … more than we expected … so sorry Canberra, we’ll just have to ….(sob) … put up a horrid building after all. You know we really would prefer to rebuild to 1930 heritage quality standards … really really

I still think ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards that would prevent a potentially development-convenient fire in such an iconic building.

Pardon my cynicism, but, frankly, given the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation in this town over the years, I think it is justified.

I think you’ll find many heritage buildings have wood fire places and old fashioned stoves, which is to say nothing of sometimes ancient electrical wiring. Old buildings have hazards, it’s a fact.

As for not requiring fire standards, I don’t know what conditions were attached to the development so I couldn’t speak about requirements. What I do know is the development included a fire wall which alone stopped the fire spreading to other buildings. Whether that was a requirement or just smart thinking by the developers, the point is it was there and did the job.

mouthface said :

[… assumed that the building was not properly fire protected (see “ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards”).

Clearly a risk assessment that was adequate would have identified that having a pizza oven in a heritage building that is largely made of wood is an extreme risk of fire. If experts deemed that the risk could not be completely neutralised through fireproofing, any Heritage Commission worth its salt would have said, “sorry, no pizza oven”. ACT Heritage have been negligent if the building custodians were allowed to take such a fire risk.

I-filed said :

mouthface said :

I hope your house burns down arsehole.

My house isn’t heritage listed and on prime inner-city commercial land, and I’m fully insured. But I hope your post wasn’t a threat. I am entitled to be cynical about developers. Sure, we’re, um, speculating, but as I said, we will only know in time whether the (cheap) words are followed up by a heritage rebuild.

No, it is not a threat, it is an expression of frustration at a number of people (like you) that have smugly put the boot in while the place is still smouldering. Lets see, in one post you have implied that the developers may have lit the fire (see “potentially development-convenient fire”), implied that the developers are being dishonest in announcing they will rebuild (see “Easy to put out a media release announcing an intention”), implied that some developer friendly conspiracy exists (see “given the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation in this town”), accused ACT Heritage (as if they are the people who regulate fire protection standards) of incompetency and assumed that the building was not properly fire protected (see “ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards”).

Here’s a thought: Maybe the fire was accidental (it started in a restaurant kitchen in the middle of the day while there were lots of people in the building etc), and maybe, regardless of all the fire standards being met, the fire just won. And maybe some people, like the developers and the restaurant owners and the people who worked there were lucky to not have been hurt, but are all genuinely upset that their businesses, jobs, property went up in smoke, regardless of whether they were insured or not. Regardless of whether they are in a prime city location or not. Regardless of whether they are heritage listed or not.
So you’re insured and not heritage listed? Good for you. So then it’s ok if your house burns down. (Please note: This is not a threat)

I was still getting over the Downer Club fire, the sign on the wall said Danger! Asbestos! Empty unused building full of that wouldn’t have been easy to flog off, fix up or keep! Is easy to be suspicious and I don’t think that warrants your house being burnt down, why would anyone want to wish that on anyone.

I’m glad no one was hurt and that they’ll rebuild in this case, at very least it does seem like the owners care.

mouthface said :

I hope your house burns down arsehole.

My house isn’t heritage listed and on prime inner-city commercial land, and I’m fully insured. But I hope your post wasn’t a threat. I am entitled to be cynical about developers. Sure, we’re, um, speculating, but as I said, we will only know in time whether the (cheap) words are followed up by a heritage rebuild.

Wily_Bear said :

I-filed said :

The proof of the pudding and all that. Easy to put out a media release announcing an intention.

Let’s wait and see whether: oh dear, it’s going to be awfully expensive to do up … more than we expected … so sorry Canberra, we’ll just have to ….(sob) … put up a horrid building after all. You know we really would prefer to rebuild to 1930 heritage quality standards … really really

I still think ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards that would prevent a potentially development-convenient fire in such an iconic building.

Pardon my cynicism, but, frankly, given the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation in this town over the years, I think it is justified.

+ 1, Couldn’t have said it better.

Hmm… what exactly is the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation? Please enlighten us. Totally ignorant comments anyway. Typical negative dribble. You probably haven’t even been to this development and don’t utilise it at all, otherwise you would know how much was invested in it by the developers. I’m really getting tired of the know-it-all asses on this site that can only contribute cynical remarks. At a time like this as well. You are aware that this place belonged to real people, and they are probably quite upset that their offices, and their restaurants went up in smoke, and you just want to carry on like this. I hope your house burns down arsehole.

I-filed said :

The proof of the pudding and all that. Easy to put out a media release announcing an intention.

Let’s wait and see whether: oh dear, it’s going to be awfully expensive to do up … more than we expected … so sorry Canberra, we’ll just have to ….(sob) … put up a horrid building after all. You know we really would prefer to rebuild to 1930 heritage quality standards … really really

I still think ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards that would prevent a potentially development-convenient fire in such an iconic building.

Pardon my cynicism, but, frankly, given the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation in this town over the years, I think it is justified.

+ 1, Couldn’t have said it better.

The proof of the pudding and all that. Easy to put out a media release announcing an intention.

Let’s wait and see whether: oh dear, it’s going to be awfully expensive to do up … more than we expected … so sorry Canberra, we’ll just have to ….(sob) … put up a horrid building after all. You know we really would prefer to rebuild to 1930 heritage quality standards … really really

I still think ACT Heritage are the culprits for not requiring fire standards that would prevent a potentially development-convenient fire in such an iconic building.

Pardon my cynicism, but, frankly, given the Barr-Stanhope-Developer situation in this town over the years, I think it is justified.