Built on Poison: The Hidden Danger of Lead in Architecture

Picture a school in a bustling UK city, children laughing in a sunlit classroom. Beneath their feet, lead-laden pipes leach toxins into their drinking water. Walls painted decades ago begin to chip, releasing microscopic particles that invade their growing bodies. These children’s futures are being quietly rewritten, not by what they learn, but by what they breathe and consume.

What these children don’t know is that their school is killing them—one sip, one breath at a time.

The Poison Beneath Our Buildings

Even in 2024, lead poisoning remains a silent epidemic. According to UNICEF, one in three children globally suffers from lead exposure. Lead exposure causes a significant burden of disease. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has estimated that in 2017, lead exposure accounted for 1.06 million deaths and 24.4 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to long-term effects on health as stated in the WHO's report on the problem issued in 2019. The UK is far from immune. Our aging infrastructure, built in an era when lead was heralded as a miracle material, has left a toxic legacy.

Lead’s appeal in architecture was undeniable: it’s malleable, durable, and corrosion-resistant. Its widespread use dates back to ancient Rome, but it became particularly prominent during the Industrial Revolution and the Victorian era, when advances in construction saw lead used extensively in pipes, paints, and roof flashing. Victorian homes, public buildings, and even iconic landmarks still bear lead’s fingerprints. From pipes and roof flashing to paints and window frames, lead’s versatility made it ubiquitous. But as we now know, its cost was human lives.

Lead discreetly permeates our lives today. Peeling paint, deteriorating plumbing, and polluted soil around older structures are potential hazards waiting to strike. Much like carbon monoxide, lead acts as a gradual toxin, inflicting permanent harm on the brain, blood, and bones. This issue isn't confined to history—it remains a constant threat in contemporary environments.

The Human Toll — Stories of Impact

Lead doesn’t discriminate, but its impact is felt most acutely by the vulnerable. Take the case of Sophie, an eight-year-old girl living in a council flat in Manchester. Diagnosed with developmental delays, her parents discovered the culprit: lead dust from deteriorating paint in her bedroom. Or consider Mr. Jenkins, a retired teacher from Birmingham, whose mysterious chronic fatigue was traced back to years of exposure to lead-laden water in his school.

The evidence is undeniable. Lead exposure in children hinders cognitive development, reduces IQ, and heightens the risk of behavioural issues. In adults, it may lead to hypertension, kidney damage, and fertility problems. A mere gram of lead dust—less than a paperclip's weight—can contaminate an entire classroom. It's important to emphasize that children can encounter lead through seemingly innocuous household or school items like toys, ceramics, candies, spices, and playgrounds. These are in addition to environmental lead pollutants and lead-based materials used in the construction of the places where they live, play, and learn.

Despite the UK banning lead in paints in 1992 and in plumbing materials in 1970, its remnants persist in buildings constructed before these dates. Over 20% of UK homes built pre-1970 still harbour dangerous levels of lead, and schools, hospitals, and offices are no different. This is an even larger issue when considering the recommendation of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) which currently is recommending AGAINST universal screening of children for lead exposure. I will not go into too much detail as the reasoning is incredible, I will attach a link here for you to have a read, but the conclusion is that we cannot do much about low amounts of lead in children so why bother. This thinking, from one of UK's top agencies, show a severe lack of understanding of the issue. Screening is not done only to action the effects but the address and mitigate the causes.

The cost is generational. A child exposed to lead today will suffer the consequences for a lifetime, both physically and economically. The NHS reports that cases of lead poisoning, though underreported, still occur across the UK, often in low-income, high-density areas where lead-based infrastructure remains untouched.

Architects as Gatekeepers of Health

Architects are the gatekeepers of not only the building's designs, but to health and safety of those using its spaces. An inspiring example is the refurbishment of a 19th-century primary school in Nottingham, where architects prioritised lead abatement by replacing old pipes and paint with modern, lead-free materials. This not only ensured a safe environment for the children but also set a benchmark for retrofitting historic buildings responsibly. Our designs shape not only the spaces people inhabit but also the air they breathe and the water they drink. This responsibility cannot be understated or minimised.

Yet, ignorance—or indifference—has often allowed lead to persist in modern projects. Architects are the gatekeepers of material specification, and too often, decisions prioritise cost, convenience, or aesthetics over safety. It’s not just legacy buildings at fault; even recent renovations and construction projects can unwittingly incorporate lead-containing materials.

Take a recent school renovation project in London where imported materials slipped through regulatory gaps. The result? A “new” building with unsafe drinking water and peeling lead-based paints. A lack of due diligence created a situation that endangered hundreds of children. We also need to consider lead in places which are not directly accessible. Lead roofing can leak contaminants through rain water and pollute play grounds, toys and utensils that children and adults use during a regular day in the school or home environment. So next time you consider lead, do not only look at what can be touch but consider all surfaces as a holistic contaminant.

Architects must recognize this: specifying materials is not just a technical decision. It’s an ethical one. Ignoring lead’s dangers undermines public trust and contributes to a system that prioritizes profit over human lives. Just like pipes and paint, lead will be banned in other building components, but until then, we cannot hid behind the notion that it is legal therefore I can do it.

Why Lead in Architecture is still an issue

If the dangers of lead are so well-documented, why does it persist? Several systemic factors are at play:

1. Legacy Infrastructure: Many older buildings in the UK remain untouched. Lead pipes, paints, and fixtures persist because remediation costs are deemed too high. This is especially true for council housing and public buildings where budgets are constrained.

   
   

2. Restoration and Heritage Concerns: In listed buildings, the need to preserve historical authenticity often means retaining lead-based materials, particularly in roof flashing and decorative elements.

   
   

3. Regulatory Gaps: While lead is banned in modern construction, imported materials sometimes contain traces of lead. The UK’s fragmented testing protocols allow these materials to slip through.

   
   

4. Cost Over Safety: Lead-free alternatives are available, but they are often more expensive or harder to acquire. Developers and contractors under pressure to cut costs may bypass safer options.

   
   

5. Lack of Awareness: Many professionals in the construction industry remain unaware of lead’s persistence and the long-term health risks it poses.

   
   
   
   

Schools — A Crisis Waiting to Erupt

Schools, where young bodies and minds grow, are the front line of this crisis. Lead exposure is particularly devastating to children, whose developing brains are far more susceptible to its toxic effects. Schools built or renovated before the 1970s often contain lead in plumbing, paints, and window frames. Old sash windows are a particular danger as the constant use creates friction which releases lead into the air from the sliding mechanism. The issue is not limited to items with which the children can come directly in contact with. Lead in roofing is still widely used by the industry. Although I hope that no child will be able to directly touch a lead roofing, the water runoff, which in the UK happens fairly often, is a source of contamination which sticks to coats, shoes, hands and toys that often end up polluting the rest of the spaces that children frequently use.

The story of a Leeds primary school highlights the problem. In 2022, routine water testing revealed lead contamination well above safe limits. For years, children and staff unknowingly consumed tainted water. The school’s failure to conduct regular safety audits or prioritise infrastructure replacement turned negligence into harm. I am not arguing malicious behaviour, only ignorance, but it is not an excuse.

Young people are the most vulnerable, and their futures are shaped by these failures. The UK construction industry must treat schools as high-risk zones, mandating comprehensive lead audits and safe renovation practices, far above other constructions, considering the amount of time that young people spend in these types of buildings.

The Solutions We Can’t Ignore

A lead-free future requires commitment, innovation, and leadership. Architects, as industry stewards, must drive the change:

1. Mandatory Lead Audits: All renovation and new construction projects, especially in schools and hospitals, must include lead testing and abatement protocols. This mirrors the stringent policies introduced to ban asbestos in construction, which successfully mitigated its harmful impacts. Just as asbestos was recognized as an urgent health hazard, lead demands similar immediate action. By mandating audits, architects, developers, and regulators can collectively identify contaminated spaces and implement necessary abatement strategies, ensuring no building—new or old—compromises public health. This is a minimum course of action.

   
   

2. Lead-Free Specifications: Architects must insist on materials certified lead-free, holding suppliers accountable. By demanding certification and rigorous testing, the industry can close regulatory loopholes, ensure accountability from suppliers, and prevent dangerous materials from entering new and existing projects. A lead-free future is not just a possibility; it is an ethical and professional necessity. Just like fire protection considerations, architects should strive for the best rather than to what the minimum requirement allows.

   
   

3. Investment in Safe Infrastructure: Governments and developers must prioritise funding for lead remediation in older buildings.

   
   

4. Stronger Regulations: The UK must tighten restrictions on imported materials and enforce regular testing across public buildings.

   
   

5. Architectural Education: The next generation of architects must be equipped with knowledge of hazardous materials and the ethical responsibilities of design. Architecture programmes can be expanded or reformed to provide students with an awareness of hazardous materials. Sustainability in our industry should not be limited to greening up the facades of the buildings we design but should be expanded to more holistic understanding of cause and effect across the industry. Far too much time has been allocated to greenwashing as a final touch to a building, and far little has be dedicated to understanding what we are building with.

   
   

6. Innovation in Materials: Lead-free technologies and sustainable alternatives must become the industry standard, promoted and adopted across all projects.

   
   
   
   

The Moral Responsibility of Architects

Architects are more than designers; they are caretakers of human well-being. With every decision—every pipe specified, every paint chosen—we shape not just spaces, but lives.

The dangers of hazardous materials in construction are not new. Take asbestos, for example—a material once celebrated for its fireproofing properties but later linked to fatal illnesses like mesothelioma. It wasn’t until the late 20th century that legislation in the UK fully banned its use in buildings, marking a turning point for health and safety in architecture. The asbestos crisis showed us that decisive policies and industry-wide accountability can save lives. The question now is: Why haven’t we applied the same urgency to lead yet?

Lead, much like asbestos, has no place in modern construction. Its persistence in schools, homes, and hospitals demands immediate, enforceable policies to eliminate its use and remediate existing infrastructure. Architects, alongside regulators and policymakers, must act to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not perpetuated in the spaces of tomorrow.

The failure to address lead poisoning is not just a failure of infrastructure; it’s a failure of ethics. Our duty of care must transcend aesthetics and budgets. We cannot allow cost-cutting measures to compromise safety, nor can we remain complicit in a system that ignores harm.

In the RIBA Code of Conduct we are guided to continuously strive to improve our professional knowledge and skills, act competently and apply reasonable standards of skill, knowledge and care in the performance of all our work. Now that you reached the end of this post, you know, and I hope that your duty as architects and your moral integrity as people will guide your future research and allow you to strive for implementing this knowledge in your daily practices for a better future.

Building a Lead-Free Future

The legacy of lead is a scar on the construction industry, but it doesn’t have to define our future. Imagine schools where children drink clean water, homes free from invisible toxins, and cities built with safety at their core. This vision is achievable, but only if we take action.

Architects must lead the charge. By specifying safe materials, advocating for stricter policies, and committing to health-centred design, we can dismantle the toxic legacy of lead.

The question remains: Will we continue to build on poison, or will we design a healthier future for all?