What’s needed to avoid another Grenfell catastrophe

Public fury simmers in the United Kingdom over the appalling death toll in the fire in London’s Grenfell Tower high-rise block. The ghastly event should be ringing alarm bells in Thailand too. 
British police this week said 79 people are dead or missing and presumed dead as a result of the horrifying blaze last Wednesday. The gutted 24-storey tower built in 1974 underwent a major refurbishment not long ago, but the changes made could well have spelled doom for its inhabitants. Concern now centres on fire risks at hundreds of other UK high-rises built around the same time.
Thailand’s big cities are chock full of tall residential and business buildings, and their occupants are understandably nervous after the news from London. This week a local construction-trade association warned that thousands of Bangkok structures lack safety certification required by law. The danger of a similar fire and resultant tragedy is clear enough – and it will linger ominously unless the government and local authorities enforce the law and the buildings’ owners obey it and impose other necessary safety measures.
The rain-screen cladding added to the exterior of the ill-fated London tower last year as part of the refurbishing has been blamed for the fire’s inescapably rapid spread. The cladding – said to contain a non-fire-resistant material – has reportedly been sold in Thailand, though it’s not known to be affixed to any tall buildings here. That’s something we’d like the authorities, architects and construction firms to be absolutely sure about. No one anywhere wants to see a repeat of the London tragedy.
Britons are also angry over their government’s poor response to the emergency and want to know, given the shockingly high death toll, if safety measures were ignored, as reported. Prime Minister Theresa May, confronted by an incensed crowd following the fire, admitted that the official response was “not good enough”. Panicked Grenfell residents calling an emergency 
hotline were told to “put towels around doors and stay put until help arrived”.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan blamed the disaster on “mistakes and neglect” and acknowledged that growing public frustration and dismay at the official response was exacerbated by the fact that Grenfell Tower was social housing and part of a working-class enclave within one of Britain’s wealthiest urban districts. “There is a feeling from the community that they’ve been treated badly because some of them are poor,” he said.
The Sunday Times described the disaster in an editorial as “a massive safety failure” and avoidable, “the most unforgivable tragedy of our age”. “The anger that such an appalling thing could happen in a modern capital city is entirely justified,” it said.
Lest all those lives have been lost in vain, urban leaders and planners everywhere must learn from the catastrophe. In addition to the apparently fire-friendly aluminium and plastic cladding and poor response from the authorities, too many safety concerns were long ignored. Grenfell Tower had no central fire alarm system. Its sprinkler system was inadequate. There was just one stairwell for 600 residents, many of them senior citizens of limited mobility. Electrical equipment was seen emitting smoke. 
Residents had complained about these shortcomings for years, but said their words fell on deaf ears.
In London, in Bangkok and elsewhere, is anyone now listening?