Most architects, as well as the general public, tend to focus on form and aesthetics - what you see is what you get. However, it is impossible to tell just by looking at a building what it cost to construct, what it costs to operate, and how efficient it is in terms of space utilization. Buildings don't come with this type of information and perhaps they should.
Studies have shown that original capital costs for a building account for only 12% of the overall costs over its useful life. The true cost and the real value proposition is out of sight. Initial costs do matter a great deal and they are often the reason whether a project gets built in the first place. But it’s only a small part of the overall picture and, considered by itself, tells us relatively little. Capital expenditure only reflects market dynamics at a given point in time. The cost of labor and materials can vary significantly over a relatively short period. To be meaningful, first cost must be measured against such issues as highest -and-best-use, location, energy efficiency and other operational considerations.
Design issues such as form, function, and aesthetics are important. But there’s more to good design than that. Value creation needs to be a part of the dialog between owners and architects. Design can be both a verb and a noun — a process as well as a thing. The how (a building is designed for operational and space efficiency) is often just as powerful as the what (a building looks like).
12%? I didn't know that. I may have to use that statistic in the future.
Posted by: Bucket Trucks | October 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM