Earth to CCTV: What happened to your sprinklers?
[UPDATE: Really remarkable video of fireworks (apparently) igniting the north tower's roof, here (h/t black and white cat)].
If the CCTV complex’s engineers could figure out how to accomplish the marvel of twisting the main CCTV building upon itself, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that they could accomplish the relatively easier task of devising a sprinkler system capable of shutting down a fire started by sparks no bigger than cigarette butts upon the roof? Maybe it’s because I’m not in Beijing, but the proportionality (or lack thereof) of the fire strikes me as totally off. Major international building commissions should not turn out to be as fragile as, well, paper lanterns.
In any case, lots of talk in advance of, and during the Olympics, about the “world class” nature of Beijing’s new buildings, and the materials used to build them. I can’t count the number of times that I was told that the Olympic-era buildings were not only “different” from what’s normally built in Beijing and the rest of China – they were substantially better. And maybe that really is the case. But the fact that this wonder of modern architecture burnt to the ground as a result of a few sparks on the roof is reason enough for this blogger to wonder whether or not the materials used in the building were up to “code” – whatever that might mean in modern Beijing.
Of course, it may very well be the case that something other than fireworks caused the fire. But that’s little comfort for those of us wondering where the sprinklers were, and just why the thing went up so quick.
[Sidenote: What kind of hillbilly continues lighting off fireworks in the shadow of a 40-story tower in flames?]
[Additional thoughts on fireworks and tall Chinese buildings: Actually, two. First, a photo - sent by a friend - taken from (what he thinks) was the 37th floor of the Hilton Shanghai on the first night of Chinese New Year. According to this person, individuals were igniting large canisters of fireworks in the middle of the street. Many rose above the fortieth floor, and bounced off the building. An example:
Net Damage: "Scorch marks on the windows."
Structural Assessment: "Building still stands."
Next example, taken during the first night of Chinese New Year, 2004, from my 23rd story window in the heart of Shanghai's French Concession. Just after midnight, a bunch of nut jobs started firing canisters of explosives that - lucky me - exploded directly in front of my windows. Below, an example:
Net Damage: "One shattered living room window."
Structural Assessment: "Building still stands."
Both of the buildings in question are more than a decade older than the CCTV tower, and - in the case of the apartment building - not outfitted with even the most basic fire safety equipment. And yet, it's the CCTV tower that burnt down. Go figure.]
12 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
The building is not yet finished, so I am guessing that the sprinklers were not turn on. And there might be alot of construction materials laying around that can catch fire very easily. Since the place is unoccupied, no body to put out the flames when it started or call 119 when the fire is small.
Comment by Sean — February 10, 2009 @ 4:43 am
Best Use of Hillbilly in a China Blog, 2009.
Comment by Jane — February 10, 2009 @ 4:55 am
Hey Sean – Good point on the construction materials … I bet that those would have contributed to the rapid spread of the flames. However, the building had been in use since the Olympics – it just hadn’t been used as a hotel. So, presumably, the safety systems should have been operating. We’ll know soon enough, I suppose.
Comment by Adam — February 10, 2009 @ 5:15 am
I agree with Jane and applaud you on your spectacular use of the word “hillbilly.” The behavior you describe could also occur in Shanghai, but “hillbilly” just works better in reference to Beijing. The word has been on my mind lately as I mourn the death of Lux Interior, lead singer of the Cramps. Someone asked me what their music was like, and I finally recalled that great line from Garbageman: “it’s just what you need when your down in the dumps, one half hillbilly and one half punk.”
Comment by Charlie — February 10, 2009 @ 9:02 am
Aren’t fireworks banned in Beijing?
Comment by BAML — February 10, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
I was expecting some buildings here to go up in flames when saw some large sparks hitting rooftops and trees. Nothing burned down as far as I can tell.
Comment by Chinamatt — February 10, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Charlie! I had NO IDEA that Lux had died … what a total drag. Didn’t they used to refer to their genre as “psychobilly?”
BAML – Indeed, they are. But during the Chinese New Year, the police look elsewhere (as people light off Class A explosives!). And during the rest of the year, so long as the fireworks aren’t too big or intrusive, they’ll pretend they’re not going off. Same situation in Shanghai, where, in my neighborhood, people like to have their photos taken, with fireworks, beneath a prominent “no fireworks” sign. I’ve seen people actually ask the police to snap the image for them.
Comment by Adam — February 10, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
News reports was that the fire suppression system was not installed in the incomplete building during the incident. Also apparently CCTV itself was responsible for the accident, as they had a film crew up there and had hired a professional fireworks display company to set it up. Apparently things didn’t go as planned as the first wave of fireworks went off at around 7:45 but something happened afterward and a fire broke out which ignited all the rest. Unfortunately for them, using industrial grade fireworks required notifying the Beijing government and getting authorization first, which they didn’t do. Talk about egg on your face. Ive heard someone mention that the design of the building itself may have been problematic as the facade is constructed out of a Zinc Titanium alloy which is popular in Europe (Rem Koolhass was the Dutch architect) for decorative purposes. Zinc titanium alloy has a very low melting point of only 400C and also a low boiling point. Worse is that when it reaches the boiling point, zinc titanium will ignite which maybe what caused the towering inferno look.
Comment by Jing — February 11, 2009 @ 12:22 am
At least, there will be work for the migrant workers to pick up the scrap metal from the demolition, and to rebuild the tower. They can use the break.
Comment by Sean — February 11, 2009 @ 4:00 am
BAML and Adam: It’s not the cops looking the other way. Fireworks are normally banned within the Fifth Ring Road, but from Chinese New Year’s Eve till midnight on Lantern Festival the ban is lifted, and during this period ordinary, civilian-grade fireworks (i.e. not the heavy duty stuff that started the fire) are legally sold and used within the Fifth Ring Road. Indeed, the last two years, several government departments (traffic management, PSB, fire, etc) have cooperated to close certain streets to traffic from 2345 to 0015 on New Year’s Eve and patrol them so that residents have safe zones in which to set off fireworks and any accidents are quickly dealt with.
In hindsight they could’ve used a patrol on the roof of the Mandarin Oriental, but as has been noted, CCTV didn’t get the necessary permit for its Class A fireworks display.
Comment by chriswaugh_bj — February 11, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Fireworks certainly hit my 11F windows here in Beijing and the scorch marks are still there.
That said, I am all for allowing fireworks within Ring 5 again next year, as long as CCTV and other illegal users of Class-A fireworks are adequately punished and deterred from ever using them again.
Comment by Cori — February 12, 2009 @ 12:17 am
Arguing against fireworks for the citenzry seems moot in this case. Even if there was a complete ban on fireworks for everyone this accident could very well have happened.
Comment by Pat — February 13, 2009 @ 6:59 am