Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Bartlett plans post-Grenfell fire-safety design course


A proposed new course on fire-safe design could deliver a ‘paradigm shift’ in how architects create buildings, according to the head of the Bartlett School of Architecture

The school, part of University College London (UCL), is developing the one-year master’s programme with a view to welcoming its first students in September 2021.

Bartlett director Bob Sheil said the course was a result of watching the ‘horrific’ Grenfell disaster unfold and thinking through the questions it raised for the industry. A detailed report covering the first phase of the public inquiry into the fire will be officially published tomorrow (30 October).

‘It was one of those moments where you had to stop in your tracks and ask what can we do about this,’ said Sheil, who believes the programme will be the first of its kind. ‘One of the things we have come to realise is there is a huge amount of research and development and education that can go into understanding building design through safety as a fundamental starting point, not as a late fix.’

He said that, for too long, the issue of safety had been approached as ‘an add-on or a rationalisation of something else that has already been proposed’, but the programme would seek to bring these considerations into early design decisions.

Bob sheil

Sheil (left) added: ‘What we are really proposing here is a paradigm shift and [to] think about safety in the early stages of design propositions as a positive contributor to good design.’

The proposed course, which is yet to be approved by UCL, will have an intake of about 20 students a year. It will be aimed at qualified architects or people working in other areas of design, and be offered on both a full-time and part-time basis.

The curriculum will cover issues such as escape routes, fire separation and how and where to introduce fire suppression systems like sprinklers.

Bartlett professor of innovative technology Stephen Gage said there were two types of building that were ‘really quite complex in the fire context’: tall buildings, particularly residential tower blocks, and ‘big areas of assembly’ such as theatres and shopping centres.

The AJ100 top-ranked architecture school is drawing on the university’s engineering expertise for the course. The programme is being developed in collaboration with Jose Torero Cullen, head of UCL’s department of civil, environmental and geomatic engineering, who specialises in fire safety engineering and building design. He is acting as an expert witness in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Cullen said construction processes had become more complex over the past 15 years. ‘As they become much more complex, they are introducing new hazards which are being, in many ways, not accounted for,’ he said. He claimed Grenfell Tower, with the introduction of new cladding driven by energy reduction and sustainability concerns, was a ‘perfect example’ of this.

He added: ‘The problem that I think architects are facing is, by not being able to be familiar enough with the implications of this new technology, they are inadvertently incurring a risk in their choices of systems and materials that in the past was not the case.’

Cullen said the need to change architects’ ‘baseline knowledge’ was fundamental to the new programme. ‘I think if architects have a better understanding of these systems and the new complexity they will also have a lot more freedom when it comes to design because they are understanding better what risks they are taking – and the risks they are avoiding.’

He said it was the architect’s role to correctly set the problem and the engineer’s to deliver the solution. ‘We are not trying to create engineers,’ Cullen said. ‘What we are trying to create is architects that can design the best buildings for engineers to be able to work with.’

Last year, proposals outlined in the Hackitt report on building and fire safety regulations suggested that the Architects Registration Board (ARB) should assess the competency level of architects in relation to fire-safety design issues for higher-risk residential buildings.

Sheil said the proposed new programme was not a reaction to regulation. But he said the Bartlett recognised that the issue of fire safety was increasingly being talked about in the mainstream and that there was a ‘vacuum’ on who would lead on it.

He said there was a shortage in the industry for many specialisms, including fire-safe design. The Bartlett, which teaches 23 masters and undergraduate degree programmes, is also looking to introduce specialist programmes in climate resilience, advanced media and urban computing, all of which would build on core architectural training.

‘We can’t keep force-feeding the general practitioner with demands for expertise that are really specialised,’ he said. ‘What we need to offer in the future of architectural education is the choice for students to elect to take on board a particular specialism on the back of their general knowledge.’

The Bartlett is looking to gauge the level of interest in its fire-safe design course and has launched an online survey to collect feedback. 


Readers' comments (8)

  • This is an important and welcome move. It will encourage an ethos of designing out risk via a holistic approach, instead of, at worst, transferring risk to someone else who may be less qualified.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is just PR. No British architecture students or international students intending to get qualified in the UK would do an extra 1-year masters course after completing part 2 or part 3. We're already in debt, and experience is more valuable than extra degrees. Fire safety design is precisely the kind of thing that should've been integrated into the part 2 course itself. But part 2 is just a pretty image-making course where you learn nothing practical about fire safety, and everything about photoshop and illustrator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That sounds quite cynical Heathcliff...are you sure that you are doing an architecture course and not a graphic design one?! I have to agree with Paul that this new course is a very welcome move, particularly after the inquiry seems to be 'arse about face' by considering the fire first and blaming the fire brigade! Surely, the design should have been considered first, as we can't expect the fire brigade to respond to flammable cladding!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Daniel Lacey

    Make a fire safety review and statement by a qualified 'fire safety consultant' (fire officer) part of the required information for a planning submission. The same as transport, waste, ecology, drainage, conservation etc. It's certainly at least as important as these. It will then need to be considered earlier rather than being kicked down the road for those 'less qualified' professionals to crowbar in retrospective safety solutions that haven't been considered by the 'more qualified' designers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That's a good idea Daniel, but I think that it is a question of questionable procurement routes that are building contractor led (Grenfell was PFI), such as D&B. This marginalises the designer and encourages cost cutting during construction (and the substitution of specified materials and components), which is what happened at Grenfell. I think a return of the clerk of works (mandatory for all construction) might help here?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Daniel Lacey

    Can't agree more on the procurement issues. But including items at planning stage mean they are then linked to the approval, so any variation from this is a breach of planning law unless approved by the local planning authority. It means if a developer wants to vary a condition relating to 'the fire safety statement', they would have to get a legit fire consultant on board to justify it, thus keeping controls in the hands of the right people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sounds good, but this all needs robust regulation and policing in an age of deregulation! Roll on the general election...there's probably a new role here for the 'Fire Architect'...or 'Fire Prevention Architect'?! So the new Bartlett course would appear to be at the cutting edge...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Industry Professional

    While I accept that tall residential buildings and large areas of assembly are the most specialised and that there is the need for such a course, I hope in the future that all students for various building design disciplines will leave college with a basic understanding and appreciation of how important designing against fire needs to be taken. Jeffrey (Engineer)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more