Comment on Inquiry into remediating use of ‘weaker’ concrete expanded to include UK’s wider public estate | New Civil Engineer

tal@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• C4d@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is going to be a big expensive mess isn’t it?

  source

  • tal@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In all seriousness, it may be that a lot of countries have something of a mess with RAAC.

    Also, while RAAC may have been popular in the UK in public buildings for a span of some decades, it's not at all clear to me that it's not an issue in privately-owned buildings as well. I've seen a handful of articles pointing out that the British government is only acting on their own buildings. They aren't inspecting private-sector buildings.

    googles

    Yeah:

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/14/uk-public-buildings-feared-to-be-at-risk-of-collapse-as-concrete-crumbles

    The government has an extensive property portfolio, which was valued in March 2021 at £158bn and estimated to cost the taxpayer £22bn a year to maintain.

    Some of the estate has been sold off the private sector – raising the prospect of expensive and extensive inquiries into the material’s use by private landlords.

    The association has issued guidance for councils that says the concrete was “used by some municipal architects primarily in office and schools”. But it says it has been “found in a wide range of buildings, not all of which are still in the public sector”.

    “The problem may be more serious than previously appreciated and … many building owners are not aware that it is present in their property,” it said.

    I read another article that had some professor of civil engineering or something saying that it might be necessary to wind up treating RAAC the way asbestos is treated today -- that is, there is a legal obligation to know if it is present in a building if you own that building.

    source