One of the biggest changes I’ve seen since the introduction of Gateway 2 is that risk is now being considered much earlier in a project’s life. The focus is increasingly on establishing certainty around compliance, performance and buildability before a project reaches the gateway process. In façade specification, this is changing when manufacturers are brought into the conversation – and the questions we’re being asked. It reflects a wider shift towards evidence-led decision-making, where project teams are looking to establish key façade design decisions earlier, with robust, reliable evidence to support the proposed performance, before those decisions are locked in.
Safety and product performance have always been central to good specification, alongside the need to demonstrate compliance. What has changed is the level of scrutiny applied to the evidence supporting specification decisions, and the expectation that the right information is available, understood, accessed and recorded at the right point in the process. In some cases this evidence has always existed. The difference is that manufacturers and project teams must now ensure it can be relied on throughout the project lifecycle, supporting building safety and demonstrating that performance requirements have been met.
This is particularly relevant for higher-risk buildings, for example high-rise residential buildings or student accommodation, where the Gateway process brings additional scrutiny and approval requirements. For some, this may mean reassessing the types of projects or delivery strategies they take forward, with alternative typologies sometimes offering a more predictable route through design, approval and delivery. The important shift, however, is not simply about avoiding risk – it is about understanding where risk sits and how it can be managed earlier.
Rather than simply asking whether an individual component meets a particular requirement, project teams need to understand how it contributes to the performance of the complete façade system, and whether the supporting evidence is appropriate for its intended application. For manufacturers, early involvement provides an opportunity to address these questions. For architects, it can provide greater confidence that the proposed specification is technically sound before construction begins.
EARLY ENGAGEMENT MATTERS
Early manufacturer involvement is often discussed as a general principle, but its value becomes particularly clear when seemingly straightforward performance requirements are considered in the context of a complete façade system. A good example is calculating U-values. Assessing the thermal performance of a façade system is not simply a case of looking at the insulation’s declared thermal conductivity. The complete wall build-up – including brackets and fixings – can significantly influence the final result. This means insulation cannot be considered in isolation; the design and interaction of the complete system need to be understood from the outset.
Projects can initially appear capable of achieving the required performance with a particular insulation thickness, only for the complete build-up to require considerably more once all components have been properly accounted for. This can have implications for wall thickness, the building footprint and the amount of internal space available. Addressing these intricacies earlier gives project teams more scope to find the right solution while there is still design flexibility. It can also help avoid situations where technical requirements or design implications only become apparent when a project is ready to build, when the scope for change is much more limited.
ROBUST SPECIFICATIONS
One positive consequence of the increased scrutiny is that specification can become far more robust. Where a product has been properly assessed and incorporated into a project from the outset, there is less scope for late-stage changes to create uncertainty around performance – particularly when value engineering or product substitutions are being considered. The aim isn’t to prevent change, but to ensure that when changes are proposed, their impact on the wider system can be properly understood and evidenced.
A NEW WAY OF WORKING
While the industry is still navigating the learning curve of Gateway 2, the wider shift towards evidence-led specification and earlier collaboration is likely here to stay. Ultimately, good façade specification is no longer simply about selecting products that meet required performance. It is about understanding how those products work within the complete build-up, having the evidence to support their application and addressing potential risks while there is still time to respond. www.ursa-uk.co.uk