Ferocious Six-Alarm Fire Destroys Condo Complex

Red_Barchetta said:
Wow! I didn't think there were so many construction and fire prevention experts in our community.

This x1000

Red_Barchetta said:
Wow! I didn't think there were so many construction and fire prevention experts in our community.

Isn't it ridiculous!

Buildings are vulnerable during construction. Without the fireproof materials like drywall and without rated walls and doors, and without sprinklers and smoke detectors, things can happen.

New buildings constructed to the latest building codes are much safer than old buildings.

Between MOL and Facebook I've been stunned by all of the ignorant half baked responses I've seen today. The completed half of the building didn't burn, and we have no idea what caused the other half to burn. But tons of people are happy to throw out half baked opinions as if they are facts. Let's see what the investigation shows.

i don't think it's half baked to suggest that if you keep putting up these big constructions made out of wood, they will occasionally burn down. New York City got hip to that nearly 200 years ago.

tom said:

i don't think it's half baked to suggest that if you keep putting up these big constructions made out of wood, they will occasionally burn down. .

Dennis_Seelbach said:

author said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

h4daniel said:

How was this building even built with these past violations? Why did Maplewood allow this???? Is there any justice in this world? Feeling down about the whole worldly state of affairs....this is just another example that ****** people can keep doing what they want.

WOW ! The building was built because it is private property and met all code standards, to the best of my knowledge. Following the Englewood fire, the builder met with town officials and agreed to additional steps, above and beyond the mandatory. It's private property and the town had ZERO right to prohibit its construction. While I understand your feelings that the world is going to hell, on this you should at least get some facts before you opine.

Yes the town had zero right to prohibit the building............providing it met all zoning standards etc.

However are inspections permitted during the building process to certify it is being built to code.? A little late

to do that once the building is constructed. Also since the project got a tax abatement, don't they all. I would

think the town would have the right to inspect during construction. Maybe it is a different matter , but the

building I live in was built in 1929 and has yearly inspections from town inspectors as well as separate inspections

by the fire department

Keep up the ignorance quotient...Vic specifically stated that they had been in last week for an inspect.

Excuse me Prime Defender of the Establishment......."...they were in for an inspect last week?" And what is left of

the building this week? Something was done inadequately..............or are we looking at different pictures?

^^^ We are looking at different phases of construction. The completed portion of the building had fire retardant properties that the incomplete portion of the structure did not yet have but would presumably have gotten as construction progressed. This was mentioned earlier in the thread but obviously needs repeating. While explaining how one portion of the project could burn to the ground and the other portion not, it still does address the valid question of how the fire started. For a answer to that question, I would suggest waiting for the inspectors' findings.

ska said:

The fire went through areas that were still under construction where components meant to act as fire breaks were not yet installed. So I think judgement should be reserved.




http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/essex/2017/02/04/fire-destroys-maplewoods-avalon-apartment-complex/97486008/

Quote from link: "After the giant Edgewater fire left hundreds homeless in 2015, AvalonBay voluntarily added extra sprinklers and masonry firewalls at the Maplewood complex and other projects, including one in Teaneck. Glenn Corbett of Waldwick, an associate professor of fire safety at John Jay College in New York, said that the developer should be praised for that. But he said the lightweight wood construction used by AvalonBay should only be used in “smaller and shorter buildings.” Now, it’s allowed to be used for buildings of up to 60 feet tall, if the first level is concrete, such as a parking deck, he said.

The lightweight wood material construction was pointed to as an issue in the Edgewater fire: (If the link is glitchly try reloading.)

http://www.truthaboutwood.com/avalon-apartment-complex-fire-edgewater

The fire didn't start because of the wood. Most buildings are still framed in wood. Every construction site, however, is dangerous. There are many ways for a fire to ignite, and I will wait for the report before I jump to the conclusion that the developer is to blame.

author said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

author said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

h4daniel said:

How was this building even built with these past violations? Why did Maplewood allow this???? Is there any justice in this world? Feeling down about the whole worldly state of affairs....this is just another example that ****** people can keep doing what they want.

WOW ! The building was built because it is private property and met all code standards, to the best of my knowledge. Following the Englewood fire, the builder met with town officials and agreed to additional steps, above and beyond the mandatory. It's private property and the town had ZERO right to prohibit its construction. While I understand your feelings that the world is going to hell, on this you should at least get some facts before you opine.

Yes the town had zero right to prohibit the building............providing it met all zoning standards etc.

However are inspections permitted during the building process to certify it is being built to code.? A little late

to do that once the building is constructed. Also since the project got a tax abatement, don't they all. I would

think the town would have the right to inspect during construction. Maybe it is a different matter , but the

building I live in was built in 1929 and has yearly inspections from town inspectors as well as separate inspections

by the fire department

Keep up the ignorance quotient...Vic specifically stated that they had been in last week for an inspect.

Excuse me Prime Defender of the Establishment......."...they were in for an inspect last week?" And what is left of

the building this week? Something was done inadequately..............or are we looking at different pictures?

Posts are so hard to read

when there are gaint gaps in them , followed by smaller bursts of text that return to

gaint gaps. Its almost like the thought train left the station without any

passengers.......

JPhotos said:

author said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

author said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

h4daniel said:

How was this building even built with these past violations? Why did Maplewood allow this???? Is there any justice in this world? Feeling down about the whole worldly state of affairs....this is just another example that ****** people can keep doing what they want.

WOW ! The building was built because it is private property and met all code standards, to the best of my knowledge. Following the Englewood fire, the builder met with town officials and agreed to additional steps, above and beyond the mandatory. It's private property and the town had ZERO right to prohibit its construction. While I understand your feelings that the world is going to hell, on this you should at least get some facts before you opine.

Yes the town had zero right to prohibit the building............providing it met all zoning standards etc.

However are inspections permitted during the building process to certify it is being built to code.? A little late

to do that once the building is constructed. Also since the project got a tax abatement, don't they all. I would

think the town would have the right to inspect during construction. Maybe it is a different matter , but the

building I live in was built in 1929 and has yearly inspections from town inspectors as well as separate inspections

by the fire department

Keep up the ignorance quotient...Vic specifically stated that they had been in last week for an inspect.

Excuse me Prime Defender of the Establishment......."...they were in for an inspect last week?" And what is left of

the building this week? Something was done inadequately..............or are we looking at different pictures?

Posts are so hard to read










when there are gaint gaps in them , followed by smaller bursts of text that return to







gaint gaps. Its almost like the thought train left the station without any







passengers.......

I was going to apologize for the choppy sentences Computer is in it's dying days and have tried various methodologies

to correct condition. All to no avail

I have never understood why MOL writers feel the need to insult one another. Sort of paved the way for Donald Trump. So sad

FilmCarp said:

The fire didn't start because of the wood. Most buildings are still framed in wood. Every construction site, however, is dangerous. There are many ways for a fire to ignite, and I will wait for the report before I jump to the conclusion that the developer is to blame.

Maybe it didn't start because of wood, but it burned to the ground because of wood.

It burned to the ground because it was not completed. I think it is likely significant that the more completed parts did not burn to the ground.

ska said:

It burned to the ground because it was not completed. I think it is likely significant that the more completed parts did not burn to the ground.

When I was in Grammar School in Newark, our manual training room, Shop, was on the top floor. The teacher had a habit of storing old oily rags in cabinets. Eventually one night, due to spontaneous combustion a number of them caught fire. The entire top floor of my school was incinerated. The building was complete but the act was one of stupidity as their was no air circulation to prevent a heat build up.....and the materials to burn were right there. Fires do not start out of now where and with out a reason

True, but wooden buildings are beyond salvage in 5-10 minutes after the accidental fire starts.

Brick/concrete buildings are safe to enter even 1/2 hr after fire started. And, they can typically be rebuilt, as the basic structure has not been compromised.

True, but wooden buildings are beyond salvage in 5-10 minutes after the accidental fire starts.

Brick/concrete buildings are safe to enter even 1/2 hr after fire started. And, they can typically be rebuilt, as the basic structure has not been compromised.

JPhotos said:

Red_Barchetta said:
Wow! I didn't think there were so many construction and fire prevention experts in our community.

This x1000

There appears to be many people in our community who are experts in everything. They know it all.

you don't have to be an expert to know that wood burns and masonry doesn't.

tom said:

you don't have to be an expert to know that wood burns and masonry doesn't.

Keep up the fear-mongering!

Fine. Construct all buildings out of masonry due to fear, not reality. Be prepared to pay double for rent.

Fine. Construct all buildings out of masonry due to fear, not reality. Be prepared to pay double for rent.

Fine. Construct all buildings out of masonry due to fear, not reality. Be prepared to pay double for rent.

Trip

tom said:

you don't have to be an expert to know that wood burns and masonry doesn't.

But, again, the protected wood in the more finished sections did not burn. It appears that the fire blocks in the areas in which they were installed worked as intended. That is encouraging.

We build in wood in this country due to the abundance of the natural resource.... it would be impractical to building all houses in just masonry. Due to all the man made materials, fires these days burn hotter and faster. Also masonry and concrete structures can be damaged by fire and at times need to be torn down and rebuilt.

If you warn me three times that the rent will double, does that mean 2^3?

I'm really rolling the dice. My last four homes were made of wood. I haven't burned to death yet.

tom said:

If you warn me three times that the rent will double, does that mean 2^3?

Yes

FilmCarp said:

I'm really rolling the dice. My last four homes were made of wood. I haven't burned to death yet.

I concur. Spent the bulk of yesterday in the common area of another Avalon property shooting pics at a superbowl party. None of the residents I spoke to indicated that they were overly worried about their condos burning down. A few even said they were waiting for all of the facts to come in before forming an opinion.