Collapse and imposition in the regulation of fire safety

Evolution of the built environment presents numerous unknowns and a shifting context for the implementation of fire safety. Yet, prescriptive solutions are frequently applied fully or in part based only on building use and height without critical evaluation, assuming satisfactory performance of the resulting fire safety design. If this assumption held true, fires with unacceptable consequences would not occur. Unfortunately, catastrophic fires do still occur. There are, however, few attempts to make sense of the potential limitations of prescriptive solutions in modern building applications. This paper questions existing assumptions and highlights potential limitations of prescriptive solutions tracing their evolutionary patterns for the city of London. Specifically, an emphasis is placed on the shifting context of fire safety in the built environment. A sense-making device called the Cynefin framework is employed to conceptualize the changing context. Through the Cynefin lens, it becomes evident that imposition of new rules following a catastrophic fire often fails to account for shifting contexts, especially when non-linear cause-and-effect relationships are present. This, along with a culture that focuses on regulatory compliance as opposed to delivering fire-safe buildings, heightens the risk of complacency and potentially leads to catastrophic fires. These findings suggest that a deliberative and critical approach to any potential adoption of prescriptive solutions is essential to develop fire-safe buildings. Fire safety must therefore be implemented in a way that acknowledges the changing context of the built environment through adopting a systemic rather than a reductionist approach, focusing on mindful compliance.