Managing Editor James Parker

Advertisement Manager/ Joint Publisher Anthony Parker

Assistant Editor Teodora Lyubomirova

Production Assistants Mikey Pooley Shelley Collyer Carmen Simpson

Editorial Assistants Roseanne Field Jack Wooler

Editorial Coordinator Sue Benson

Contributors Jess Unwin

Sales Executives Suzanne Easter Ian Fletcher Kim Friend Steve Smith

Audience Development Manager Jane Spice

Managing Director Simon Reed

netMAG media

publishing – ver tical search

netMAGmedia Ltd Cointronic House Station Road, Heathfield East Sussex, TN21 8DF

Advertising & Administration t 01435 863500 f 01435 863897

Press Releases

Circulation enquiries


This will long be remembered as the year when regeneration became devastation.

Beyond the appalling human tragedy which the Grenfell Tower fire represents for the individuals killed and injured and families traumatised for life, is a wider shadow cast across the construction industry.

While the investigation is going to be necessarily long and complex, this only reflects the horrendous web of complexity and, possibly, laxity when it comes to the regulations which are intended to protect building users. At the time of writing, all 120 samples of cladding which have been sent to the BRE for testing by 32 local authori- ties have been found to be below the threshold needed to qualify as “limited combustibility” which would make them suitable for use under the Building Regulations.

For whatever reason however, Building Regulations appear vague and/or confusing on of all things, fire perform- ance, and are open to interpretation to the extent that according to some commentators it’s unclear even whether the cladding material itself is required to be fire retardant. This means that Grenfell may have ‘complied with regs’ but the cladding could still have fatally compromised the fire performance of the exterior. According to David Metcalfe of research body the Centre for Window and Cladding Technology, the current testing being done by the BRE is looking more comprehensively at combustibility throughout the external system – when previously cladding materials could be passed on the basis of their surface spread of flame being Class 0. This begs the question, have materials potentially been given an easy ride?

Approved Document B of the Regulations may be flawed in not explicitly stating that cladding should be of limited combustibility, but as Metcalfe told the BBC, “most have interpreted it to mean that it doesn’t have to be.” As he stressed though, focusing on the cladding may not be giving the full picture, when the whole external build-up could be equally relevant. What is not in doubt is that this tragedy is forcing unprecedented and welcome scrutiny onto how we specify our buildings.

Annual subscription costs just £48 for 12 issues, including post and packing. Phone 01435 863500 for details. Individual copies of the publication are available at £5 each inc p & p. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording or stored in any information retrieval system without the express prior written consent of the publisher. Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material published in Architects Datafile, the publisher can accept no responsibility for the claims or opinions made by contributors, manufacturers or advertisers. Editorial contributors to this journal may have made a payment towards the reproduction costs of material used to illustrate their products. The manufacturer of the paper used within our publication is a Chain-of- Custody certified supplier operating within environmental systems certified to both ISO 14001 and EMAS in order to ensure sustainable production. Printed in England

There may also be much more to this than the building’s exterior, and the questions are as numerous as the theories. Why did the fire spread so quickly internally? Was the fire stopping between floors replaced effectively following the installation of the new heating system last year? At the time of writing, it is unclear that it was. The refurbishment of Grenfell Tower took place in 2016, following that a fire risk assessment was signed off by Kensington and Chelsea. This was in a context where if sufficient test data do not exist on products’ fire performance, and because Building Regulations have not been adequately updated, ‘desktop studies’ can be submitted to the Building Control approval. Reportedly, the NHBC has been accepting sub-A grade materials, based on previous desktop studies. Nothing here suggests a belt and braces, robust system, to say the least.

Theresa May has said that she wants a “major national investigation” into not just Grenfell but the use of cladding. While just investigating one material type will be a huge task, it’s a much broader issue than that – about how buildings are specified, and what has happened to our regulation system.

None of this conjecture is of any consolation to the victims’ families and friends. The least that they could expect is that the investigation is pursued as deeply, transparently but also as rapidly as possible to give a real signal that the industry wants to take the initiative in avoiding further disasters.


James Parker Editor


New York City Supertall tower is Russian architect Meganom’s first commission in the US page 08

CYGNET HOSPITAL, COVENTRY Tangram Architects brings its expertise to a mental health challenge on a gateway site

DAVID ROSS SPORTS VILLAGE Breaking down the scale at Nottingham centre

262 Fifth Avenue,

ON THE COVER... 262 Fifth Avenue is a 1000-foot supertall glass and aluminium tower in Manhattan, by Russian architects Meganom Image © DBOX For more information, go to page 08.



Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84