Thoughts on...
Because we’re worth it - David Mann.
"Did we spend too much?" This question arises more often than not when scrutiny turns to our new public buildings. And certainly the new Supreme Court (featuring in this issue) saw its fair share of critics coming out of the woods.
As Project Managers it is our job and in our nature to question expenditure. We take pride in working out what is extraneous and trimming the fat. It doesn't always make us popular. But equally important is identifying false economies. When it comes to buildings, you get what you pay for. For that reason, I'd like to stop for a moment and ask: "do we spend enough on our public buildings"?
What is 'enough' or 'too much'? To judge value we need look at a building's whole of life costs, its function, durability, flexibility and what that building represents. We have to stop associating lowest price with best value and start taking into account how public buildings should set the standard.
It's vital to be rigorous in identifying unwise expenditure, but it needs to be done correctly. That a proportion of the public 'don't like' an architectural feature, is a question of aesthetic judgment, not a barometer by which to judge cost. It needs to be put in context and investigated properly. If the construction of a certain feature cost 10% of the building's budget, and could have been delivered for 5% then yes, 5% has been wasted.
To understand cost we need to consider a building's intended life and its cost per use, as well as what it will cost to maintain. Public buildings are not the same as those built by a developer who has to deliver immediate profit and immediate return. Buildings that are built to last a long time, cost more up front. Quality, durable materials are more expensive. Design that allows flexibility for a building to change takes longer and costs more.
We also need to be mindful that public buildings are not solely about their function. They also have meaning. When we invest in our buildings we make a statement to ourselves and our future generations. They tell the story of who we are, how we are changing as a nation and how we value ourselves, the institutions they house and principles they represent.
The people of New Zealand should expect the public sector to deliver a country full of interesting, high quality, long lasting, even controversial, buildings. These should inspire the private sector.
Green buildings are a case in point. If the government had not laid out their expectations for the buildings they create and rent, would the industry have been mobilised to change to the same degree? Certainly there would be less appetite amongst developers to invest upfront in efficient buildings without believing it would give them a competitive edge, particularly when it comes to securing public sector tenants. With fantastic examples of green buildings and projects (80 Queen St, Britomart East, 21 Queen St), popping up throughout the private sector can credit be given to the public sector for helping lead the way?
As a country we should expect taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. But equally we deserve high quality public buildings, like the Supreme Court, that are fit for function, will last and cost less to maintain. We also deserve great architecture, even if it is controversial, that represents who we are and where we are heading.
Email this article
Print