Interesting article from CNN explaining how a flashover probably turned the bar into an inferno in seconds.
Opening windows upstairs to escape introduced oxygen into the mix.
You can clearly see the flammable acoustic tiles being fitted in that photo.
Continental European buildings rely heavily on fire compartmentalisation to limit fire, heat and smoke spreading. The lack of it in this case fed the flames and allowed it to go to ground level.
The sound dampening makes me believe the floor between the basement and the ground floor was pretty thin. probably only joists and floor boards.
Might be misinformation but I read somewhere that in VS the canton was responsible for writing the regulations but enforcement was delegated to the communes, at least the larger ones.
This is true. Like building permits, tax, etc, these tasks always have a town or âbezirkâ level officer doing the routine checks and approvals. Open to corruption or âturning a blind eyeâ due to local familiarity.
This a fundamental weakness in the Swiss local diversity system. Imagine in a small village where the responsible person from the Feurpolizei (fire police) went to school and/or was in the army with those they are supposed to enforce safety rules.
Plus money is a great driver to cut rules. I have experienced this in Zurich where a venue operator offered to seat more people in their theatre than the building was approved for. I declined the extra seating as in the event of a problem, whose name was on the contract?
I think this is going to be one of the major consequential issues of this disaster - the venue was operating in full public view in the main street - how was this situation allowed to happen ?
This is the video:
twimg.com/amplify_video/2007108167637803008/vid/avc1/592x1280/XzJh6tVEQvN2ueEZ.mp4
I wondered about sprinklers.
The 2015 VKF regulations (the current ones) state that they are not needed:
Sprinkler Requirements (Sprinkleranlagen â Part 19)
2.2.2 Shops
Shops with a fire compartment greater than 2,400m2
, including the attached storage and
offices, are to be protected with a sprinkler system.
2.2.3 Buildings and structures with rooms with a high occupancy loading
In buildings and structures with rooms with a high occupancy loading the fire authorities can
require a sprinkler system.
Under Article 13 of the Brandschutz Norm this is defined as more than 300 people or a shop
larger than 1,200m2
.
The current International Building code (2024) say they are required where the occupancy is 100 people or more.
The Older one stated 300 or more. Not sure what the Bar Official Occupancy rate was.
You can read the codes here but I cannot copy/paste the relevant sections:
There is a bar/club owner, and a building owner. Iâd wait for info from authorities to determine if theyâre the same person (or legal entity), or different ones. Swiss laws tell that building ownership matters.
PS. even Blick talks about Operators (Betriebers).
In the fire, the narrow staircase from the basement to the ground floor became a doom for many victims. Here it came to a great crowd, when the people wanted to escape from the burning room. Photos from the operatorâs Facebook page now show that exactly this staircase was probably narrowed during the 2015 conversion.
The first four identified victimâs bodies have been returned to their families. All four were Swiss aged between 16 and 21, two young aged 16 and 21 and two young men aged 16 and 18.
It must be utterly devasting for all the families involved.
I believe in the US, they sometimes show the video of the Station Fire in schools in fire-drills.
At least in this generation, when they see fire dripping from the ceiling, theyâll know what to do.
That said, Iâve seen an interview with a 19 year old who was maybe in one of those videos trying to put the fire out with a bottle of water. After that failed, he went for the exit, but due to the narrow exit, almost didnât make it.
That will take a very long time to deal with the aftermath for those who survived.
Honestly nothing surprises me in Switzerland many ridiculous laws for day to day things and then when things get serious like we saw in Crans Montana or I see in healthcare facilities on a daily basis many crucial things are bypassed as those with financial clout can do as they wishâŚI really hope this will be a wake up call to authorities in Switzerland on many levels not just one off reaction to this tragedy..
Switzerland looks wonderful and efficient from the outside but once you start to lift the carpet there is a lot of junk and corruption swept under the carpetâŚ.
[quote="Axa, post:67, (legal entity)], or different ones. Swiss laws tell that building ownership matters.
[/quote]
It will come down to the lease contract. In a residential building, the owner normally bears all responsibilty for fire compliance. But in a commercial lease, the owner offers a compliant âwarm shellâ, and the leasee is responsible for the rest. And the operator/leasee is naturally required to ensure fitout and operative compliance.
It also may be that because of the âtheoreticalâ maximum occupancy, the bar wasnât required to have a fire alarm system (Pfichtanlage). No doubt this will now changeâŚa much needed safety improvement, but no doubt will put many small gastro operations out of business.
Iâm not a lawyer.
AnywayâŚthe operator has a big responsibility when doing modifications and ensuring operative compliance (from open flames to training personnel). My understanding of the laws is that emergency exits remain a responsibility of the building owner because theyâre integral part of the building, unlessâŚthe contract says otherwise. So, itâs an open question for now.
The owner did supply emergency exits, but not for the use as a basement bar. I assume. The central open staircase reminds me of some alpine sports shops Iâve been to with two levels, which is probably the original use. I assume the space was vacant for some time, so when the current operators proposed a bar, the owner didnât object.
At my last company, we had a room that was big enough to seat 50 people. However, because the owner had installed the door opening inwards (against the escape flow) we had to limit occupancy to 20.
The owner would have a responsibility to report any breaches of fire safety to authorities, but this is difficult to prove he/she was aware.
As predicted, the cantonal prosecutors have now formally opened a criminal investigation into the bar owners (not building owners) for manslaughter, negligence causing injury and negligence causing fire.
Link to BBC story
I hope, for the victims sake, they were well insured.
Sadly, Iâm guessing that somebody whoâs willing to do a diy job on a club isnât going to spend more than the absolute minimum on insurance.
Iâve felt really, really sad since this story broke on New Years Day. Just the thought of all the young people who have lost their lives or are seriously injured and the families who are having to deal with intense grief. I cannot even comprehend how they are trying to cope with this.
Agreed.
Itâs shocking, tragically, sad for so many young lives to be wasted in this way.
Thereâs sadness but theyâll be anger too.
I hope something gets learned from this tragedy and rules and re-enforcement of building safety are brought up to date to meet international standards and that smugness is wiped of the faces of some of those officials because they all seem to think things are perfect here so thereâs no need for improvement.
Have the bar owners actually said anymore than We âdonât feel well but we have lawyered upâ.
I suspect that they will be in court for the next decade, at least.
And I hope the federal authorities conduct a strict audit to determine how they received approvals for such poor safety measures. Pity they canât access banking records.
