Letters: September 2010

We welcome letters but retain the right to edit them. Email (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), fax 020 7490 4957, or write to us at RIBAJ, Atom Publishing, Clerkenwell House, 45/47 Clerkenwell Green, London EC1R 0EB

Still smoking
Since the publication of ‘Smouldering Issue’ (RIBAJ July 2010), the timber frame industry has come under attack from BBC London and the chairman of the London Fire Authority, Brian Coleman.  I would welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of the issues raised by Sam Webb and correct some inaccuracies.
In his piece Mr Webb looks specifically at the BRE test TF2000, carried out in 1999.  This test was a substantial research project into the process improvements offered by timber frame. The six storey building was also used for structural research, measured for its acoustic and thermal performance, and to assess its ability to withstand the 60-minute compartment fire test – in this regard it was successful. Mr Webb refers to a subsequent fire that penetrated the cavity. This was not referred to in the report as it had little relevance to the outcome of the impact of fire in the very specific compartment fire test.  However, Webb suggested that the fire in the cavity was ignored. This was far from the case. The fire in the cavity led to further tests being carried out under the management of Chiltern Fire. The result of these tests, which included statistical data on the causes of fire, was published in a report by Chiltern Fire in March 2003.
In a later statement, Mr Webb comments that one had to be ‘a real detective’ to make the link between the Chiltern Fire report and the TF2000 report, despite the fact that the Chiltern Fire report makes several references to the TF2000 project.  Perhaps if Mr Webb had engaged with timber frame industry experts Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA)  or the UK Timber Frame Association (UKTFA), he might have been able to produce a more balanced and useful article. The UKTFA is a progressive association and would welcome constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including Mr Webb, to ensure issues are fully understood and addressed.
It should also be noted that the Chiltern Fire report statistics showed that 0.07% of all fires start in the cavity wall and of the eight fires that occurred in both masonry and timber frame buildings, and investigated by Chiltern Fire, most were caused by trades people not using tools, such as blow lamps, correctly.
Geoff Arnold, Chairman, UKTFA

Sam Webb responds: It is difficult to see how the TF2000 fire in a flat in the BRE six storey timber frame block can be counted as a success if, after the fire brigade put out the fire, the same fire which was burning undetected in the cavity then burnt out the top four floors of the building. This fire, which took many hours to bring under control and extinguish, presented the fire brigade with serious problems.
On Christmas Day 2007 a small fire in a bedroom in an occupied four storey timber frame block of flats in Croydon was apparently extinguished. A thermal imaging camera was used to determine that no hotspots remained in the room. The brigade left at 21.20. (LFEPA Fire Investigation Report 23.03.2008)
At 22.20 another 999 call was received from the flat. By 10.40 the next morning the flats had collapsed. This was a very serious eight-pump fire which completely destroyed the building. Like the Cardington test rig, this fire, despite the best intentions of the fire brigade, was never extinguished. It burned unseen in the cavity. Luckily no one was hurt. The Croydon fire is not an isolated example.
Geoff Arnold, as chairman of UKTFA, obviously wishes to put the best spin possible on his explanation, but I am left with a nagging feeling about this form of construction. Exactly how safe is it in practice – given the variable nature of workmanship on site and the apparent inability of the BRE to build a block to conform to the Building Regulations under laboratory conditions?

Get real
I admired the image on the August cover of RIBAJ – it’s very beautiful.
I also admired the feat of co-ordination where the photography, weather and practical completion had all been brought together to allow a high quality picture to be taken.
But perhaps the result owed a little too much to the digital airbrush. Sadly, the image was not even enhanced and buffed-up reality, but was entirely computer generated, and thus a fantasy. As architects our role is to design and deliver real buildings in a real world, so why would we want a fantasy image on the cover of our professional journal?
What then is the message when highlighting computer generated imagery in RIBAJ? CGIs should be used with great care, and certainly not be elevated to the cover. Is there a policy or attitude on this?
I suggest that wherever possible the Journal should illustrate a real building, in use. Minimise the use of CGIs and only do so with a health warning, ‘CGIs can damage your perception and sense of reality’.
Ian Tod, Leeds

The cover image in question (shown here) is a rendering of a facade detail. Far from being ‘fantasy’, it is an accurate depiction of what part of a real building is going to look like. Yes, it shows it in a good light. But so can a pencil or pen drawing. It’s not fantasy, just architecture – Ed