1) Very sorry there was loss of the firefighter. We are all very lucky that this building was unoccupied, or the loss of life in a functioning hotel/cinema/ theater complex could have been tragic.
2) The TVCC (Television Cultural Center) is the building that burned. NOT the CCTV famous double tower-suspended corner building. TVCC building is part of the entire CCTV site complex but is completely separate from famous Big Brother, which appears to be unaffected. The two buildings are in reasonably close proximity (maybe 2/3 length of a football field), but probably not close enough for even a collapse of the TVCC structure to affect its bigger brother too much.
3) The building in daylight is clearly a crispy critter, and probably a total loss. Unclear if the shell structure is salvageable, and I suspect it will take another couple of days of cool-down before fire officials and engineers are able to carefully venture in to take a look-see. It is possible parts of the structure have been irrevocably weakened and it could collapse or need to be taken down.
4) The site perimeter now has military posted outside, with some city police. There is a large police presence parked on the main roads surrounding the site, mostly stationed on opposite sides of the streets for crowd control and in case additional traffic control is needed. Not really sure what they are supposed to be accomplishing at this point.
5) The building went up so quickly that it is shocking--about an hour from first visible signs of fire to becoming fully engulfed. It appears that fireworks started the fire. Within the last few hours, some "official" sources say that CCTV itself commissioned the fireworks display from a company and arranged for the show to be launched from the site. These were extremely powerful fireworks (you can see on Youtube) and supposedly require a permit from Beijing city...which rumor has it was NOT obtained.
There are other possibilities that could have set this thing off--in a building under construction, welding equipment or electrical overload off the temporary panels--especially here in China--is always a major concern. But fireworks seems to be the most likely culprit, given the timing. I tend to doubt the arson-for-insurance conspiracy theories, as this is a government-owned building and what would be the point, especially here in China?
6) Other factors (now I'm wearing my architect/constr mgr hat and in some cases making educated professional guesses):
--The building was still under construction, and its fire suppression system was not yet viable and operating.
--Likely lots of flammable construction materials awaiting installation were up on the roof and throughout the building...providing great tinder.
--Fire doors were likely propped open, fire glass not installed etc. allowing fire to spread everywhere and quickly.
--The interior building design is a giant atrium, which in effect acts like a big chimney and especially if fireproof interior glass, fire doors, sprinklers etc are not installed or not operable.
--Fire seemed to spread surprisingly fast along the exterior surface, so the cladding material may be an issue in the post-mortem analysis.
--Building codes for this type of building in Beijing are more stringent than you might expect, but a building under construction is extremely vulnerable and much more unsafe than one that is up and running, all other things being equal. Construction site practices in China are very slipshod and UNsafety-minded.
--To my knowledge this building was still not yet ready to go through final inspections and occupancy permitting. I don't recall it being used during the Olympics (site seemed pretty much locked down), but maybe something slipped past me at that time.
I live 5 minutes away from the TVCC and it was quite a conflagration. Amazingly, fireworks and firecrackers from other locations continued to go on in the general vicinity. I'm mostly surprised that we haven't seen more of these fires and greater number of injuries with all the dangerous and cavalier use of explosive devices by unqualified people around this city. I'm hoping for next Chinese New Year, the City goes back to a complete ban such as it had several years ago.
Oh, and if you had a reservation for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel here, you need to change it.
very sad indeed...and the loss of life was very regrettable...wonder if the ""UNIQUE "" architecture had anything to do with making it difficult to fight the fire. ......if only it had been the beijing grand theatre instead...[when it is totally unoccupied of course] - ...something akin to cortorizing a scab or wart.....not promoting arson but some kind of super laser would do the trick phaps ??......not that i was partial to the MO bldg either....any fire is horrid but lets hope something nice will come out of this tragedy.
3) The building in daylight is clearly a crispy critter, and probably a total loss. Unclear if the shell structure is salvageable, and I suspect it will take another couple of days of cool-down before fire officials and engineers are able to carefully venture in to take a look-see. It is possible parts of the structure have been irrevocably weakened and it could collapse or need to be taken down.
Thank you for the report. Putting my civil engineer hat on, the entire shell will have to be taken down and scrapped because the exposure to the fire's extreme temperatures will have permanently weakened the steel structure. There is also an excellent chance that the building's concrete foundation mat (the part near the surface and above the caissons) will have to be broken up, removed, and re-poured. The reconstruction will be considerably more expensive than building the original structure because of the demolition work that must be done first.
Location: EWR-land -- You are in a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO & NW forum moderator
Posts: 19,185
From the pictures it seems that fireworks were going off in/on the building. Some reports blame firecrackers. Other than firecrackers possibly causing premature ignition of far, far larger fireworks, I can't see how that is possible. There was just far too much fire for this to have been an accident caused by a few firecrackers. I think that this quote from the BBC story reveal the real cause:
Quote:
...The authorities said the broadcaster had gone against police warnings and set off fireworks in the complex that were far more powerful than those allowed for public use.
__________________ OnePass -- Arcane rules, fine blue carpets!
I support meaningless jingoistic cliches
Wow: Star MegaDO 2009 - Tschüss
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 14,927
This was MO's first foray into mainland China and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they will walk away and never go back. Unless someone else takes all the risk next time and builds to the MO's requirements.
This was MO's first foray into mainland China and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they will walk away and never go back. Unless someone else takes all the risk next time and builds to the MO's requirements.
Given the glut of top-end hotel rooms even before the economic recession started to bite, walking away might seem a good idea, although probably even if repairs/reconstruction started today the hotel would be two years and probably three away from opening, and who knows what the economy will be like then?
However, it should be understood that Mandarin Oriental merely has a management contract for the hotel part of the building (which contains a large theatre and other assorted cultural facilities) and doesn't own any part of it. It's hard to imagine that another building of the same prestige, whose mere architecture will to the same degree act as a draw, is going to become available in the near future.
Having visited the interior of the building with the chief engineer in late October I can confirm (at least then) Jiejie's educated professional guess about the disarray of the interior, with plenty of flammable materials awaiting installation, and general debris, no different from other Chinese hotels I've visited while they were under construction, in Beijing and elsewhere. The interior spaces were impressive, the eye-level views of the upper portion of the neighbouring 'big shorts' (CCTV building) were stunning, and the GM a thoughtful man who looked set to deal with the difficulties of delivering in mainland China the levels of service for which the Mandarin Oriental group is justly famous elsewhere.
I have to admit I hope that even if they have to tear it down, they do so and then rebuild it. It will be all the more remarkable for that.
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 14,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_N-H
However, it should be understood that Mandarin Oriental merely has a management contract for the hotel part of the building (which contains a large theatre and other assorted cultural facilities) and doesn't own any part of it.
Well that was a main question I had. Are you sure that MO has no skin in the game? I might have thought that the owner (CCTV?) would have pressured MO to be a part investor in the project.
Well that was a main question I had. Are you sure that MO has no skin in the game? I might have thought that the owner (CCTV?) would have pressured MO to be a part investor in the project.
I was merely reporting what I was told. But here is Mandarin Oriental's published statement following the blaze:
You may note that CCTV's apology specifically refers to the 'country's' property. It is difficult to imagine an outside agency being allowed an investment in such a politically sensitive government-owned operation even if it wanted one. The complex is to be the main headquarters for the government's most powerful domestic propaganda tool, as well as for a vast expansion in its overseas propaganda efforts, attempting a 24-hour 'news' channel to compete with the genuine news operations of US (well, sort of), British, US, French, and German channels, as well as Al-Jazeera, etc. In short, this is a government building, not an independent commercial one.
Perhaps there's some indication of the sensitivity of the matter in that while apparently it was CCTV employees who caused the fire (by arranging an illegal fireworks display in close proximity to the building), and that the fire was the biggest story from the capital for quite some time, the same CCTV ignored or downplayed to near extinction the dramatic destruction of part of their globally famous new HQ. Private coverage put on the Web continues to be the best source of images and news about the conflagration, although much of that is being harmonized, and it provides the source material of most comment in foreign media.
Note in passing that reports on the apology also confirm Jiejie's informed guess that the fire-suppression system was not yet in operation.
Well that was a main question I had. Are you sure that MO has no skin in the game? I might have thought that the owner (CCTV?) would have pressured MO to be a part investor in the project.
MO has a management contract to operate the hotel. Obviously unless the hotel is built, that won't happen. They have no equity in the property.
Neither CCTV or MO operational at time of fire. CCTV was to move in shortly and MO later this summer.....now I guess the insurance companies will sort through the mess.
The damage to the TVCC Building is reminiscent of the aftermath of the Windsor Building fire in Madrid a few years ago (click on 'Siguente' to see the individual photos):
Thank you for the report. Putting my civil engineer hat on, the entire shell will have to be taken down and scrapped because the exposure to the fire's extreme temperatures will have permanently weakened the steel structure. There is also an excellent chance that the building's concrete foundation mat (the part near the surface and above the caissons) will have to be broken up, removed, and re-poured. The reconstruction will be considerably more expensive than building the original structure because of the demolition work that must be done first.
While in general you are correct, and may well prove to be in this instance, know that most buildings of this size/type/height built in Beijing are much more reinforced cast concrete structure rather than steel. Or they are mixed structures. Which gives some of them a better chance at core-shell salvageability than pure steel. Also, when steel is used, much of the time it is literally encased in concrete for protection--spray on fireproofing typically is used in developed countries is much less used here. My hesitation in calling TVCC as an absolutely clear-cut demolition case is that I don't recall exactly the exact structural design/construction methodology used as this building was going up (bad memory)--and I have never seen detailed plans as I was not connected to this project in any way. But from the looks of the remains, just about every part of the building from top to ground floor and all 4 sides had actual fire activity, not just smoke-soot marks. Unknown is the condition of the below-grade area. Will be interesting to see what the investigating engineers find.
From the Wall Street Journal today. Looks like some heads are going to roll. Robyn
"BEIJING -- National broadcaster China Central Television said an unauthorized fireworks display organized by one of its employees set off a blaze that destroyed a 44-story building next to its iconic new headquarters in Beijing, in a statement that included an apology for the "great loss" to "national assets."
Fire authorities in Beijing said the fireworks were high-explosive devices that were set off illegally Monday evening during celebrations to mark the end of the Lunar New Year holiday. One firefighter died after inhaling toxic fumes while battling the fire and seven other people were injured.
CCTV issued a statement Tuesday saying one of its employees hired a company without authorization to set off fireworks in a compound that houses the tower that caught fire, the new Television Cultural Center building, which was expected to be completed in May.
That building, which resembled a silver boot, is next door to the landmark $800 million CCTV tower, which a fire-department official said appears to be undamaged. Both buildings are within a 20-hectare compound created by the state broadcaster for its new headquarters, which was supposed to be open and fully operational later this year.
The two buildings are part of an award-winning design by architect Rem Koolhaas that helped to transform the Beijing skyline ahead of the Olympics in August.
The admission of culpability is an embarrassment for the powerful state broadcaster. CCTV's statement said the broadcaster feels "sorrowful" and "sincerely apologizes for the traffic congestion and inconvenience that affect residents nearby."
...Officials say the exterior of the boot-shaped TVCC building -- now a blackened hulk -- is seriously damaged, but didn't say if the damage was irreparable. The blaze raged for about six hours Monday night, and chunks of the building's alloy cladding that fell were still being picked up by street sweepers Tuesday.
It is unclear what insurance liability CCTV now faces. The ravaged building, partly designated as a five-star flagship hotel for Mandarin Oriental International Ltd., is insured by state-owned People's Insurance Company of China Holdings Co. under a construction-risk plan due to expire June 30. "As the site of the fire was still cordoned off for more investigations, it's still hard to estimate the loss caused by the fire," People's Insurance said in a statement on its Web site.
Mandarin Oriental said in a statement that it signed a long-term contract to manage the hotel and has no ownership interest in the building.
Both CCTV and Mandarin Oriental had been scheduled to move in later this year.
Officials told a news conference that CCTV defied police warnings not to set off the powerful rockets. "The owner caused the fire because it violated regulations and set off fireworks at the construction site," said government spokesman Zhu Xu...
Luo Yuan, deputy chief of the Beijing Fire Control Bureau, told reporters that police on patrol attempted to intervene when CCTV launched their fireworks show, but were ignored. "We have videos of the scene and remnants of the fireworks, which will serve as strong evidence in the investigation," Mr. Luo was quoted as saying by the state-run Xinhua news agency.
The CCTV Tower project has been mired in controversy since its inception, when hundreds of local residents protested their forcible eviction to make way for the complex.
Now the blaze appears to be fueling complaints of press control, with Internet users complaining Chinese media reports appeared to play down coverage of the inferno. Major Internet portals such as Sina and Sohu didn't prominently feature news of the fire Tuesday. Some local journalists say coverage of the fire was hampered by the enforcement of a media regulation that requires domestic press to use only Xinhua's state media coverage for events Beijing deems sensitive...
From various online sources and from friends in Beijing, the building was apparently in final stages of conversion into the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Interior fit out for the most part was complete, and the hotel pre-opening teams were already in full-swing setting up the hotel for it's opening.
The building was also apparently used/occupied by various vendors/suppliers during the Olympics and so, presumably, an occupation permit should have been issued for the building - which mean't that technically it should have met various building/fire codes?
I saw the early part of the fire works in the area, and i can't fathom how "sparks" from the fireworks could have ignited this fire - but i'm no pyro-expert. My gut tells me that there is something more to this fire...and certainly a lot of people in Beijing will be feeling the heat - in more ways than one.
Maybe a shell went up crooked.
It still doesn't explain why it went up like a torch, though. At first I thought this was a construction fire but today's news on this rules that out.
Programs: UA MP Premier Exec, MPC Silver, Priority Club Platinum
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpy
This was MO's first foray into mainland China and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they will walk away and never go back. Unless someone else takes all the risk next time and builds to the MO's requirements.
I believe the Mandarin Oriental Resort in Sanya was the first foray into China for MO.
So while the buildings owners may be covered through insurance, MO has also incurred heavy cash outlay in the pre-opening stage - if they walk away, would they be entitled to any compensation from CCTV?
It's going to be lose/lose for MO as there is probably going to be a strong negative effect on their goodwill as well since everyone refers to this as the 'Fire at the Mandarin Oriental Beijing'......
__________________
...Flying the Friendly Skies since 1980...
I'm mostly surprised that we haven't seen more of these fires and greater number of injuries with all the dangerous and cavalier use of explosive devices by unqualified people around this city. I'm hoping for next Chinese New Year, the City goes back to a complete ban such as it had several years ago.
