Good architects create value in property, by using their design and negotiation expertise to:
- Demonstrate how disused and low value sites can be brought back into use and made commercially viable.
- Contribute to a ‘good’ (cost effective) planning permission which can increase the value of a site many times.
- Reduce running (and life cycle) costs of a new or existing building.
- Specify good value efficient materials and construction processes.
- Help you decide on whether to expand in your existing premises or relocate your business to a new site.
There has been a campaign for many years to make architects fees reflect the added value they provide, but it has never taken off, so for the forseeable future, these things are ‘all part of the service’.
This is the first of a short series looking in to what good architects can do for you. If you’d like to suggest another topic in this series, please drop me a line.
Resources:
I’m just talking about commercial value here, hard cash. There have been some attempts to articulate the broader value of design, if you’re into detail take a look at:
The RIBA’s Constructive Change report for a background look.
“In particular, the lack of research evidence as to the value created by design, lies at the heart of architects’ inability to articulate their
value-add.”
The Value of Good Design (CABE, 2002)
Richard Saxon Be Valuable. A Guide to Creating Value in the Built Environment. Constructing Excellence (2005). Martin Brown hosts a copy of Be Valuable on his wordpress site here.
This reads like something to be stamped on an architect’s head or on his or her work screen. Obviously a very pertinent list for our current economic times. Keep up the good work Su.
Great post and spot on. If only owners and developers had the same concerns when deciding to build the next building or project. Many times I find that we are defending decisions made along these lines because they are the right thing to do and in the best interest of the client despite the client’s intent to go with something else. Also- in reference to your Twitter Post I will put this here as I believe your implied statement was: Dont confuse Design with Aesthetics. What might look good may not function well.
I know many buildings that fall into this category. What happens most often is that sculptural buildings are designed and program is then added. Some interesting spaces are created this way, but they might not always work the best for the client both from a programmatic standpoint and from a constructibility one also.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your comments, very interesting.
I entirely agree about non functional buildings, I’ve always seen good architecture as an holistic discipline, balancing all the different pressures. Avoiding any is a failing.
Of course this means that good buildings must have presence, integrity and be attractive.
You mentioned in your tweet about aesthetics being subjective and I agree that in the ‘real world’ (rather than the rather exclusive world of architectural aesthetic academia) there will be a wide range of tastes. Perhaps it is one role of the architect to articulate these tastes and respond to them with integrity.
I believe that most people would prefer a practical ugly building to a beautiful useless one.
It is only natural for clients and building users to desire value in their buildings. Architects need to be creative and provide real recognizable value through the thoughtful design of all three factors. The value of aesthetics, balanced with the value of function, further balanced with value of minimizing economic waste needs to be clearly demonstrated to clients, building users and society.
The greatest architectural creativity springs from respect for the factors that constrain the design.
My hope is that architects will come to understand the importance of creating an Equilibrium of Appropriate Balance. This will lead to a better understanding of the value of an architect’s design. When someone other than the architect decides to modify a building design through value engineering, the whole design suffers when parts are excluded or deleted from the design with no artistic consideration given to the impact on the whole design. This leaves the client and building users with “half a design”. In the end it will not be the “value engineer” but the architect who will receive the criticism for an unbalanced design.
My practice remodelled the Stafford Hotel in St James’s over the last 10- 15 years ( I left it 6 years ago). Bought by the Client for £16 million it has now sold for £76 million. I think the practice should get a cut! A 1% bonus would do…
Su,
I feel that architects are seriously let down by the RIBA on this, its rare to see them really taking a position or lobby for architects.
In the meantime we have seen the emergence of new professions such as Approved Inspectors, CDMc, Project Managers etc who all carry out functions that Architects once did or could do, watering down the profession and with it fees.
The secure and Sustainable buildings act created the principle of an appointed person http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040022_en_1 (scroll down to 9)- should the RIBA be calling for this to be an architect?
I would also want to see more RIBA ‘products’ to sell.
For example why didnt RIBA get in before BRE and offer an eco certificate scheme . Or a building warranty. Why not market Site waste Management plans and CDMC services. MOT’s for Buildings.
All of these services would increase the ammount of work available to architects, increase demand and create an income stream in tough times.
But then I might just be brainwashed by having worked in large Multi displinary organisations all my life!
Your comment that you are talking about hard cash value is most important. When real estate developers create value through the entitlement process on raw land, the expected increase in value of that land is 300 to 500%. That’s why they drive the nice cars.
Architects have never really gotten that. The AIA’s 2008 convention program, “The Value Proposition: Moving the Profession from Best Value to Added Value” started with a George Bernard Shaw quote: “The reasonable man adapts the to world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Therein lies the problem–yes, I see it as a problem. Because architects often look at the world and see value based on what they conceive value to be, not on what the rest of the world conceives value to be, including their clients. When we look at design opportunities, we need to be looking through the eyes of our clients to see the world as they see it–to see value as they see it.
Love your blog, Su.