130 P O’Malley
safety – in accordance with that specified in the BCA – is therefore rationalised (in both senses of that term) as increasing sustainability.
However, minimising initial construction costs, now rendered as reducing
carbon, is not the sole concern of the developers’ conception of sustainability as most of a building’s carbon emissions are produced not at the time of
construction, but over the course of its operation. Potential owners, seeking
to reduce their own costs, prize energy-efficient buildings, and this, in turn,
drives demand for sustainable building designs. Not only are buyers and
renters attracted to long term energy savings but building owners recognise that therefore they can charge higher rent from tenants (Carter 2011,
p. v) Through the pricing of carbon, it has become clear to developers that
‘a building’s operating costs are where the greatest cost savings are to be
made’ (Gritzo 2009, p. 4).
While it is thus clear that there are economic incentives to developers
to ‘go green’ in doing so they have often had to run against traditional fire
protection principles – particularly those concerning passive fire protection.
Under previous prescriptive building regulation, these performance-based
‘sustainable’ designs would not have satisfied the BCA requirements. The
sustainable building industry has thus rested on the technological promise
of performance-based fire safety engineering. The issues created may be
illustrated by the efforts of developers to tackle energy costs by substituting
natural for artificial light. The developer can, for example, opt for skylights,
larger windows, open floor plans, or atria. All of these present immediate fire
safety issues: skylights weaken the structural integrity of ceilings and pose
a danger to the firefighters; larger windows may reduce the fire resistance of
the glass; open floor plans promote a faster fire spread; and atria pose problems for the vertical containment of fire spread and may delay the activation
of smoke detectors. On their own, these problems could decisively condemn
sustainable designs. Yet solutions to all of these problems have been devised
that depend upon performance-based fire safety engineering to meet the
BCA’s requirements. Basically, in each example, a finely tuned, computer
modelled and simulated interconnected network of fire protection technologies ensures that the various contingencies are taken into account. This
involves an assemblage of active fire prevention, including smoke detectors,
automatic fire sprinklers, sophisticated smoke evacuation systems, fire curtains, fire doors, manual fire suppression devices, etc. These together function in interlocking ways to provide what developers insist is a fail-safe fire
safety system. Another example, of course, is the use of such technologies to
negate the risks posed by flammable building claddings.
Fire insurers and the economisation of sustainability
Nonetheless, these ‘solutions’ reliant on active fire prevention have not satisfied fire insurers or their allies the fire services, and passive fire protection manufacturers. For example, sprinklers can fail, and when they do, the
safety – in accordance with that specified in the BCA – is therefore rationalised (in both senses of that term) as increasing sustainability.
However, minimising initial construction costs, now rendered as reducing
carbon, is not the sole concern of the developers’ conception of sustainability as most of a building’s carbon emissions are produced not at the time of
construction, but over the course of its operation. Potential owners, seeking
to reduce their own costs, prize energy-efficient buildings, and this, in turn,
drives demand for sustainable building designs. Not only are buyers and
renters attracted to long term energy savings but building owners recognise that therefore they can charge higher rent from tenants (Carter 2011,
p. v) Through the pricing of carbon, it has become clear to developers that
‘a building’s operating costs are where the greatest cost savings are to be
made’ (Gritzo 2009, p. 4).
While it is thus clear that there are economic incentives to developers
to ‘go green’ in doing so they have often had to run against traditional fire
protection principles – particularly those concerning passive fire protection.
Under previous prescriptive building regulation, these performance-based
‘sustainable’ designs would not have satisfied the BCA requirements. The
sustainable building industry has thus rested on the technological promise
of performance-based fire safety engineering. The issues created may be
illustrated by the efforts of developers to tackle energy costs by substituting
natural for artificial light. The developer can, for example, opt for skylights,
larger windows, open floor plans, or atria. All of these present immediate fire
safety issues: skylights weaken the structural integrity of ceilings and pose
a danger to the firefighters; larger windows may reduce the fire resistance of
the glass; open floor plans promote a faster fire spread; and atria pose problems for the vertical containment of fire spread and may delay the activation
of smoke detectors. On their own, these problems could decisively condemn
sustainable designs. Yet solutions to all of these problems have been devised
that depend upon performance-based fire safety engineering to meet the
BCA’s requirements. Basically, in each example, a finely tuned, computer
modelled and simulated interconnected network of fire protection technologies ensures that the various contingencies are taken into account. This
involves an assemblage of active fire prevention, including smoke detectors,
automatic fire sprinklers, sophisticated smoke evacuation systems, fire curtains, fire doors, manual fire suppression devices, etc. These together function in interlocking ways to provide what developers insist is a fail-safe fire
safety system. Another example, of course, is the use of such technologies to
negate the risks posed by flammable building claddings.
Fire insurers and the economisation of sustainability
Nonetheless, these ‘solutions’ reliant on active fire prevention have not satisfied fire insurers or their allies the fire services, and passive fire protection manufacturers. For example, sprinklers can fail, and when they do, the