What caused the Glasgow School of Art fire? Here’s what we know

The fire on Friday night. Image: Getty.

For the second time in four years, the Glasgow School of Art has been devastated by fire. The art school’s historic Mackintosh building, which was well on the way to being restored after the fire of 2014, has been extensively damaged in the blaze, badly affecting every floor.

More than 120 firefighters and 20 fire engines were at the scene late on Friday 15 June, but were unable to stop the fire spreading to the Campus nightclub and O₂ ABC music venue on Sauchiehall Street. The ABC has also been badly damaged, with a major part of the roof collapsing.

Iain Bushell, the deputy chief fire officer on the scene, called the fire an “extremely challenging and complex incident”. Thankfully nobody was injured. Yet well into Saturday afternoon, firefighters were still working hard to put the blaze out.

While the city’s residents come to terms with yet another dreadful fire in the city centre – an area only a couple of blocks away is still cordoned off following a major nightclub fire in March – here are our early thoughts about the causes and implications:


1. The cause of the fire

At this stage there are more questions than answers. It could have been caused by a small fire that burned for a substantial length of time and then accelerated – or it could have grown much more rapidly. Either way, there was a fully developed fire when the Fire Service arrived soon after the alarm was raised in the late evening.

The undiscovered, slow burning fire seems less likely. The upper floors and roof appear to have been well ablaze from the first images reported, which suggests the fire started on the upper levels and burned down through the building.

When a building is under construction – or in this case reonstruction – it is much more vulnerable to fire. It can mean more timber is exposed, as well as there being other openings in the structure that can allow a fire to spread unchecked.

Having said that, a typical cause of ignition on construction sites is “hot work” involving flames. Yet our understanding is that there was no such work taking place, and no workpeople actually on site.

Another common cause of fires is old faulty wiring. In 2002, for instance, a fire in the Gilded Balloon building in Edinburgh’s Old Town started from a faulty fuse box. It took 52 hours to fully extinguish and engulfed 11 buildings. Yet in the case of the Mackintosh building, faulty wiring is unlikely to have been the cause, given the late stage of the refurbishment.

2. How it spread

While it is not certain from the video footage and photos, the collapse of the roof of the O₂ ABC appears to have been caused by fire inside the building as opposed to fire penetrating the roof from the McIntosh building. This might raise issues about the fire separation between the two buildings.

When such a close group of buildings is erected today, there are strict rules about separation in the building regulations. But these cannot apply to historic buildings that have been adapted over many decades. Fires in historic buildings are not uncommon – see here for all those that were damaged in the UK last year, for example.

The School of Art building in 2005. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The restoration work to the Mackintosh building was well underway from the fire four years ago – apparently around 80 per cent completed. It was due to reopen next year with a final bill estimated at between £20m and £35m. Investigators will want to know about the specialist work that was being done, what materials were being used and which were on site.

Once you have high enough temperatures, of course, most things will start to burn. The Fire Service appear to have had a very challenging job just to limit the spread – let alone put the fire out altogether.

3. What happens next?

The damage at the Mackintosh building appears overwhelming, and much worse than in 2014, when recovered materials were painstakingly assessed and used in the refurbishment wherever possible. It seems questionable whether anything will be salvaged in the same way after this fire.

The ConversationIt remains to be seen if it will be possible to retain a facade from the current building. If not, damaged buildings have been taken down almost stone by stone in the past and rebuilt with a new, internal frame. This sort of project would cost a great deal more than the current refurbishment.

Iain Sanderson, Lecturer, Fire Risk Engineering, Glasgow Caledonian University; Billy Hare, Professor, Construction Management, Glasgow Caledonian University, and Tony Kilpatrick, Senior Lecturer, Fire Risk, Glasgow Caledonian University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Does it matter that TfL are renaming White Hart Lane station Tottenham Hotspur?

New White Hart Lane. Image: Getty.

Pretend for a moment that you’re travelling in the London of 1932. You’re taking the Piccadilly Line northbound and alight at Gillespie Road station. The name should be obvious: it’s inscribed in bespoke brown tiling on the platform.

But that 31 October, following an intense campaign by the eponymous football club, the London County Council changed the station’s name to Arsenal (Highbury Hill). The area’s growing association with the name “Arsenal” ended in a lengthy negotiation that changed maps, signs and train tickets alike. Football had acquired so much power that it changed the name of not just a Tube station but an entire suburb, even before the era of Wenger or the Emirates.

Now the spectre of name changes is on the horizon once again. As Tottenham Hotspur FC inches closer to completing its new stadium, the club is clamouring for a renamed Overground station. Despite the fact the new stadium is located on almost exactly the same site as the old just off White Hart Lane, and fans have long been calling the scaffolding-laden mess “New White Hart Lane”, the club’s executive director is adamant that the station’s existing name cannot stand. White Hart Lane station, on the Overground line leaving Liverpool Street, is set to be renamed “Tottenham Hotspur”, at a cost to the club of £14.7m.

Little has been made of the fact that this peculiar PR kerfuffle is tied to Spurs’ failure to convince Nike to sponsor the venue. Some sources have even claimed that the sponsorship is yet to be finalised because it is somehow contingent on the renaming of the Overground station; beyond the ridiculous Johnson-era vanity project that was the Emirates Air Line, it seems improbable that TfL will allow any more corporate-flavoured information pollution. There will be no “Nike Stadium” station on the way to Enfield, much as there is no “Emirates” on the way to Cockfosters, especially if public consultation gets a look in.

The scene of the crime. Image: TfL.

But there’s a problem with the new name, all the same. “White Hart Lane” already means “football stadium”, in the same way Loftus Road or Stamford Bridge do. Changing it to “Tottenham Hotspur” risks opening the floodgates to an “O2 North Greenwich” or a “Virgin Euston” at some point in future, names as banal as there are dystopian. The Greater London Authority has promised to spend the £14.7m fee on community programmes in the local area – but that’s not much money to set the precedent that a private company can mess about with the Tube map.


What’s more, as CityMetric has often observed, there are plenty of station names across London that could do with a tidy up. Picking one that’s perfect already and asking for £14.7m to change it is adding insult to injury. How much would it cost a community group if they asked to change the name of Goodge Street to Fitzrovia? Why does a vast corporate entity backed by international sponsors and thousands of season ticket holders get to set the standard?

Back in Arsenal’s day, changing names on the Tube must have been easy; changes could be accommodated gradually without bothering the every day traveller. But in our world of online information, maps and apps, name changes are rather more complicated.

The question is – if TfL can bring itself to balefully accept this particular proposition, why can’t it accept ours? Why sort out a single non-issue on the Tube Map when you can catch lots of real ones in one go? A day’s pandemonium might just be a price worth paying to fix the Bethnal Greens problem once and for all.