martymac – Am i the only one who finds it slightly odd that both times it caught fire were on a Friday night?

correct me if I’m wrong of course.

The original fire was reported to SFRS “At 12:27 on Friday the 23rd of May 2014″ (For the avoidance of doubt that time is in 24h clock so lunchtime not “night”.

project – One thing is for sure due to the desimation of the fire service it want be the last major building to be lost.

Are you suggesting that the fire service response was inadequate and that 10% more fire fighters would have been able to save it?

Are you suggesting that the fire service response was inadequate and that 10% more fire fighters would have been able to save it?

Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?

Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?

Are you suggesting that he should prove a negative?

Are you suggesting that cuts to public services have no impact on their delivery?

That is a hell of a leap of logic from what I wrote.  FWIW I am sure that sometimes cuts to public service budgets can be achieved without an impact on the service delivery.

However, project quite clearly seems to link a “decimation” of the fire service to the loss of the building.  I’m wondering where that link comes from.  AFAIK the nearest fire station to the building is still the same one, so not clear if the initial response would have been any quicker ten years ago, nor have I seen anything in the media suggesting that the response was inadequate.

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not particularly keen on cuts to emergency services (although sometimes it can force overdue modernisation), but I do much prefer evidence based decision making rather than knee jerk blaming government (either Westminster or Holyrood) for a building fire.

I’m still suspicious of foul play. But, i am a cynical old fart 😂😂

Careful now, cynical old farts are the most flammable.

😁😁😁

not to mention foul

Poly,If you reduce the number of fire engines and pumps to actually pump water onto a fire along with skilled people to operate them, then a fire is going to get bigger before resources from other areas arrive, fire engines and staff that may be dealing with other fires, our local fire station had 3 pumps and a hydraulic platform it now has a pump and a paramedic car based there.

Project – that is (at least in simple terms**) true.  However you are implying that there was some lack of resources on Friday night/Sat morning.  Your local fire station may have less resource, but SFRS deployed 120 firefighters and 20 vehicles to the scene*; with the closest fire stations still the same as ten yrs ago.  So explain how the cuts are linked to the severity of the fire/loss of the building.

*id need to go and look it up but I think that is more than to the previous fire at the same building.

**its somewhat simplistic because it assumes that the type of fires, equipment and resources needed to tackle them remains constant – which it doesn’t; until 1980s Glasgow had a separate Salvage Corps but as large wharehouses (and therefore wharehouse fires) became less common the need for that diminished.

“SFRS deployed 120 firefighters and 20 vehicles to the scene”

Including vehicles and crews from as far as Perth. Obviously I can’t say whether that distance made a difference (though it seems fair to assume that if they’d arrived after 10 minutes instead of 45 that could have helped, as Project says) but it certainly shows why you have to be careful talking about the resources deployed.

That is a hell of a leap of logic from what I wrote.

No it isn’t, it simply reversed the emphasis of your question in order to highlight how silly it was.

But those local fire stations may have less engines less staff to attend so resources have to be dragged in from further away, which takes time, time allows a fire to develop even further, perhaps if the alarm was raised earlier the fire may not have spread so massively taking out more than one building,

as a SFRS employee, I couldn’t possibly comment on the above, however I’ll just watch from the sidelines

Northwind – 

Including vehicles and crews from as far as Perth. Obviously I can’t say whether that distance made a difference (though it seems fair to assume that if they’d arrived after 10 minutes instead of 45 that could have helped, as Project says) but it certainly shows why you have to be careful talking about the resources deployed.

Certainly if there happened to be 120 crew and the right 20 vehicles parked up on Renfrew St for some training exercise or firefighters convention then the building might have been saved.  However that situation never arose before any cutbacks either so is a totally hypothetical nonsense.  I haven’t seen a timeline of what resource was requested and arrived when.  Was the long distance stuff relief crews or specialist equipment?  Was that equipment available in Glasgow 10 yrs ago?  Its only fair to assume the delay was an issue if it was kit that is needed at the drop of a hat.  If its welfare facilities, BA replenishment, or the major pumping equipment drawing water from the Clyde it probably was no use in the first hour or two anyway.

project –

But those local fire stations may have less engines less staff to attend so resources have to be dragged in from further away, which takes time, time allows a fire to develop even further,

Do they?  Because your conjecture that the loss of the building is attributable to cuts in the fire service is a bit of a nonsense if you have no idea what cuts were made in Glasgow’s night time fire fighting capability.

perhaps if the alarm was raised earlier the fire may not have spread so massively taking out more than one building,

Indeed – in what way is the time to raise the alarm linked to Fire Service cutbacks?

fifo –

No it isn’t, it simply reversed the emphasis of your question in order to highlight how silly it was.

My question merely points out that Project is seemingly just making up a connection between cutbacks and the building burning down.  If he actually has any evidence that there is a link, I’m sure the Scottish (and indeed UK and international) media would love that story and happily help promote his cause.  Especially since its quite likely that government funds will be part of the rebuild solution. But I haven’t seen anyone question the efficacy of the firefighting (although I do appreciate we have a weird cultural thing where we never doubt the ability of our Emergency services).

(although I do appreciate we have a weird cultural thing where we never doubt the ability of our Emergency services).

I think you may have answered your own question.

Of course there’s no way to point direct causality to cuts, but given the way fires spread, a small fire that could have been stopped by a few firefighters if they’d got there in time can rapidly spread to a conflagration that nobody is putting out. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that a better funded service could respond quicker and with more resources.

But it depends on the nature of the fire itself. When we had a salvage corps and firemen everywhere shit still burned down.

Atrributing any blame, in any direction, at this point, with absolutely no facts at your disposal is **** stupid. Go join the Space Corps.

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum. I expect I’ll see peer-reviewed references to back up every comment you make on here from now on, squirrelking

Difference is, I’m sticking to facts any you’re just peddling speculative nonsense.

How in the name of god could you say the fire could be put out quicker when you don’t even know how it started or how it spread? You’re talking utter pish and passing opinion off as fact.

How in the name of god could you say the fire could be put out quicker when you don’t even know how it started or how it spread?

Well, I’m willing to put my neck out and suggest that it didn’t start across the whole building simultaneously, which means there must have been a delay between it starting small and ending up large. It therefore stands to reason that if more firefighting resources arrived sooner, they’d have had more chance of controlling it faster than fewer crews turning up later. I’m really not sure how you can argue against such logic, unless you’re  proposing that it was bombed with napalm.

If it’s a smaller local fire and was caught early, surely a few firefighter could have put it out. Why would you need 20 fire engines and 100 firemen to do that. Your logic doesn’t really compute

Sounds like it spread and got out of control fairly quickly tbh. But not something you’ll find out till the investigation is complete, so you could speculate all day and go in circles.

^ Exactly. We don’t know yet how established the fire was before the alarm was raised, what the primary cause was or exactly how it spread. It may have been small enough to be put out by an extinguisher or it may have been a massive flare-up from the beginning that quickly spread due to favourable conditions.

On a different note here’s a decent case for facade retention:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009161603584020482.html

And some footage that shows how fast the fire spread:

Is there a GoFundMe site for the restoration project yet ??

I’m not really sure what a ‘facade retention’ really achieves. Partly because Mackintosh was really about the interior – he designed the function from the inside and the exterior was really just the result of making those interior spaces function as he intended.. plus a few flourishes. But also because its not really in an incredibly prominent position you can’t really see it until you’re standing right in front of it and you wouldn’t pass it by accident. But to a great extent the exterior doesn’t really give you a lot to look at apart from a nice door and theres not really anywhere to stand back and see it all from.

Unless the building remains a destination – either for the students that would occupy it or for tourists then you’d be retaining some exterior fabric at great expense but  for no really benefit.

I think you’d want to reinstate the interior pretty faithfully if you were going to retain the exterior. Not necessarily so that its as if the fire never happened- but the spacial qualities inside – the airy light expansive studios, the dark little cool circulation spaces where what the architecture was about and what made it work for the people who used the building. The craft in the detail was what made it a destination for visitors. You kind of need to reinstate one or both of those aspects otherwise you’re just creating a memorial.

You can do all of that but what you can’t do is make a complete recreation and then wonder why it burns down again in however many years. I understand the inside is as important as the outside but unless significantly modernised will be doomed to the same fate.

will be doomed to the same fate.

neither of these fires were something that was bound to happen. The building – and the countless buildings of a similar age/size/fabric such as your local museum, library, town hall, country house or hospital – isn’t just sitting there desperately trying to catch fire.

For over a century students have been splashing turpentine and linseed and shellac and meths and polyester and epoxy and acetone and polyeurahane and nitric acid and wax and and flames about the Mack. Usually with a rollie hanging off their bottom lip and more often than not drunk, stoned or hung over. And the building didn’t burn down – and nor did Margaret Street or the Gamble or ECA or any other purpose built art schools of the same vintage and used in the same way.

Its nuts to think that what has happened is either typical or probable or in anyway particular to the building or its use.

You’re twisting my words.

The building was vulnerable to fire, two incidents in short succession have proven this beyond doubt.

To build it again to the exact same design and same materials would be madness. I’m not talking anything radical here, just some compartmentalisation and modern fire resistant materials.

You’re twisting my words.

Well, you’d certainly never do that 🙄

It burnt down and destroyed a few other buildings nearby, its now a vacant site to build something else on the site, like happens in a lot of destroyed buildings plots.

Just be a huge waste of cash to try and rebuild a replica like some sort of disney land theme park building, build something new and different, which will be a lot cheaper, and nobody has mentioned if the insurance companies will pay out for anything, before or after a police and insurance inquiry has finished to apportion blame and what caused the fire etc.

You’re twisting my words.

Only by copy and pasting them. But much worse could happen by doing that here. 🙂

#< span > 🙂

Just be a huge waste of cash to try and rebuild a replica

It would be an expensive way of building something if the result was unsuccessful. But the value of the building to the city is pretty immense – not just in terms of being fond of it –  in terms of academic, cultural and tourist revenues. GSA is a big driver of the Scottish cultural industries – bringing in the talent and keeping in here. Across scotland thats a £4.6bn/year industry and 98% of the businesses that generate that revenue are registered in, and pays tax in, Scotland. So its a big deal.

So any cheaper solution would be very expensive if it wasn’t also utterly brilliant.

What I meant was that an exact replica would have no more fire resistance than the original. Surely you agree that’s a bad thing? I did word that badly in retrospect.

Fifo – u ok hun?

Maccrusikeen – the building was not all about the interior.  The design of the facades is revered the world over.

Squirrelking – they will not build an ‘exact’ replica.  The design would be modified to improve fire resistance and other aspects of construction methods and building services.  This would be done ‘invisibly’ where possible.

Project – building something ‘cheaper’ is not the goal here.  Iconic buildings are not known for their cheapness.  Crap buildings generally are.

But the value of the building to the city is pretty immense – not just in terms of being fond of it –  in terms of academic, cultural and tourist revenues. GSA is a big driver of the Scottish cultural industries – bringing in the talent and keeping in here. Across scotland thats a £4.6bn/year industry and 98% of the businesses that generate that revenue are registered in, and pays tax in, Scotland. So its a big deal.

But how much of that is the GSA and how much is the Mac Building?  Realistically the GSA is going to be temporarily uprouted for a decade.  What will the economic and cultural impact be?  If none of the talent that GSA has created is able to come up with something even more inspiring and potentially more suited to the 21st century then surely it has failed?

will be doomed to the same fate.

neither of these fires were something that was bound to happen. The building – and the countless buildings of a similar age/size/fabric such as your local museum, library, town hall, country house or hospital – isn’t just sitting there desperately trying to catch fire.

We don’t know what caused this fire or enabled it’s rapid spread.  I assume there have been other small fires in the previous 100 or so years of the Mac.  The  original fire in the exhibition space was extinguished pretty quickly – unfortunately a panel had been removed from the wall that provided access to a service void, and that service void in keeping with much of th building was wood lined and acted as a brilliant chimney and spread the fire very quickly.  I’d  not be quite so confident that many buildings of a similar era don’t also have such voids, aren’t routinely left with cover panels off, and have any more effective detection and extinguishing equipment.

it is almost inevitable that at some point any building will have some sort of fire – increasing use of electrical equipment makes that more likely – good fire resistance is about ensuring that any such fire stays contained in the space it starts in.