Materials considerations for elevated ungulate housing
A feasibility study for the construction of a six-storey housing unit for giraffes in the Nuneaton area, prepared in response to a requirement the Civil Division is not permitted to discuss. The requirement exists. This report addresses the structure.
Distribution: the Department; Institute records (Nuneaton); the Civil Division's own records, which are extensive. This study has since been cited by the Materials & Biomaterials Division in a feasibility study concerning the fire-rating of a domestic animal, which the Civil Division found, unexpectedly, relevant.
The requirement, and its circumstances.
The Civil Division was instructed, in 2025, to assess the feasibility of elevated housing for giraffes in the Nuneaton area. The instruction was accompanied by a planning permission. The permission exists. The circumstances under which the town found itself in receipt of an elevated ungulate housing requirement are not a matter for this report. The Division has been advised that they are not a matter for this report, and has adopted that advice, which it describes as the firmest guidance it has received this decade.
The Division can confirm the following: the requirement exists; the permission exists; the two are not the same document; and the difference is material. The Department's current status page for the Giraffe High-Rise Housing Project describes the permission as approved because, in the planning department's words, “at this point, why not.” The Division's counsel has advised the Division not to read that sentence again.
The giraffe, in structural terms.
A giraffe is a live load of unusual characteristics. It is tall: adult specimens reach approximately six metres, which the Division notes is the height of the building being designed for it. It is articulated. It is, in the terms of the building regulations, unpredictable, although it is not, in the Division's experience, unpredictable without pattern.
The load is self-mobilising. It will not remain where it is placed. It will place itself. Any structural design must therefore assume that the load has read the design, or will, and that it has opinions.
The giraffe's entire mass is transmitted to the floor through two feet at any moment, both of them at the edge of the floor. This is not an exaggeration. The Division has observed the arrangement repeatedly, and the arrangement is the load case.
| Load case | Value | Division note |
|---|---|---|
| Dead load (tower) | Per design | Not the difficulty. |
| Live load (giraffe) | ≈ 1,200 kg, point loads | Applied at the edge of the slab, from a height. |
| Wind load | Design wind, plus giraffe | The tower is a sail. The giraffe is a second sail. The Division modelled both, and the wind won. |
| Dynamic load | Startle, gallop, disagreement | Not modelable. Budgeted for. |
For the avoidance of doubt, the Division has not modelled the giraffe's opinion of the public viewing gallery. The opinion exists. It is not included in the structural calculations, and the Division has declined to price it.
The structure, by element.
The proposed tower is six storeys, with a concrete core, a steel frame, and open-plan living across all floors with inter-floor visibility through internal voids. The internal voids are not an architectural choice; they are a requirement of the load, which expects to be able to see the ground floor from the fifth.
| Element | Specification | Consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Core | Reinforced concrete, 300 mm | Rigidity without obstruction. The core is the one part of the building the load has no opinion about, because the load has not noticed it. |
| Floor slabs | Composite, point-load verified | Verified against two-foot edge loading at full mass. The Division tested the slab with the load case, not with the load, which the Division considers a reasonable ordering of events. |
| Internal voids | Open, no guard within the load's envelope | The load's envelope is six metres. A guard at two metres is a suggestion. |
| Ground-floor entrance | 2 m clear width | Wider than the load. The Division notes that the load is, in section, narrower than its height, and that the entrance is not the constraint; the door is. |
| Wind bracing | Full-height, both axes | See §2. The wind won once; it will not win twice. |
What the study establishes.
The tower is technically feasible. The Division has not identified a structural reason not to build it. The Division has identified reasons, but they are not structural, and this is a structural report.
The Division understands that its treatment of live-load behaviour in biological structures has since been cited by the Materials & Biomaterials Division in a feasibility study concerning the fire-rating of a domestic animal. The Civil Division found this, unexpectedly, relevant. The Civil Division notes that its live-load findings were derived from an ungulate of six metres; their application to a load of 4.2 kg has not been verified by this Division, and is not this Division's responsibility. The Materials Division's interpretation of the term “live load” is, in this Division's experience, uncharacteristically broad.
The Division has reviewed the wildebeest garment trial (HIB-MAT-2023-0022) for live-load containment data. The wildebeest's performance — a cleared 1.4 m fence and an 11 km recovery — is the strongest live-load dataset this Division holds. It is also the only one.
The Division's position.
The tower can be built. The materials are available, the load case is understood, and the wind has been accounted for. Whether the tower should be built is a question for the Department, the planning department, and, in the Division's assessment, the giraffe.
The Division's conclusion, adopted by the Department and reproduced in its current status page, is that the tower is technically feasible, architecturally unusual, and entirely in keeping with the Nuneaton townscape, which has seen stranger things.
The Division has considered adding a further sentence to that conclusion and has decided against it. The conclusion has been quoted. The Division has learned that a conclusion that is quoted is a conclusion that is final.