TECHNICAL FOCUS
CREATING A NEW AESTHETIC WITH AN INNOVATIVE TAKE ON TRADITIONAL MATERIALS Roland Jackson, Commercial Director of roofing, waterproofing and insulation specialist, Soprema, discusses alternatives to copper and why they should be considered to create stunning design features. SOPREMA
A
cross all aspects of building design, architects constantly face the challenge of balancing the creative with the practical. Their work needs to combine aesthetic appeal and some level of context with the local built environment. It may also need to make a statement, create a landmark or articulate the prestige of its purpose. Meanwhile, practical considerations not only include cost and length of programme, but also buildability, ease of maintenance and length of service life. As buildings become more complex, sustainability considerations take higher priority and legacy costs and management increasingly influence design choices. It’s the role of the construction supply chain to develop new products that fuel creativity, practicality and sustainability for architects. By re-thinking traditional materials to pioneer practical alternatives with a comparable aesthetic, the supply chain can open up new design possibilities for architects to transform roofs into jawdropping features.
Copper vs synthetic Copper has been a versatile and prestigious building material for centuries. Eye-catching, hardwearing and recyclable, it ticks lots of boxes for both aesthetics and practicality. But amongst its many advantages, there are some significant issues with specifying copper as a construction material in any sizeable quantity. Indeed, when it comes to designing a roof, the pitfalls of specifying copper can sometimes outweigh the benefits. FC&A – SEPTEMBER – 2020
The first – and often biggest – issue is cost. Copper is a material that will offer excellent longevity, but it can substantially increase the build costs of a project. Using a synthetic alternative costs 50 to 60% less per square metre, which, for a larger roof area, equates to a saving of thousands of pounds. The high monetary value of copper also creates risk for the building owner following completion. Like lead, copper is often stripped from buildings to be re-sold. For example, at Leigh Road Baptist Church in Leighon-Sea, thieves stole the copper used to refurbish the spire just before the scaffolding was removed. It was a devastating blow to the congregation, who had raised £20,000 to pay for the project. To protect the church from further incidents of theft, the spire and cupola were then refurbished using Soprema’s Flagon Copper Art. The synthetic waterproofing membrane has provided high performance and the appearance of copper at a lower cost and risk. 34
Collateral damage The potential for copper theft not only has an immediate financial impact; it can also have longer-term consequences too. When copper is stripped off by thieves, the building may suffer additional damage and, with the copper gone, water ingress can cause more costly issues with the substrate and the internal areas. Alongside the cost of replacing the copper is the impact on insurance premiums. Following one incident of copper theft, a premium is likely to rise. If the theft recurs, it may become uninsurable. By comparison, a synthetic membrane is more difficult to remove and, as it has no value as a scrap material, it is not attractive to thieves.
