Architecture / June 25, 2018 /
The factors influencing this decision include: Is the more expensive option a worthwhile investment? If it can be demonstrated that savings will arise as a consequence of incorporating the more expensive alternative, then the client is well advised to choose this option. The quicker the payback period, the more likely it is that the more expensive option will be chosen. How flexible is the client‟s budget to finance more robust, better quality or more economic structures or systems? Regardless of whether the client wants the more expensive alternative he or she may not be able to afford it. Retrofitting, however, is inconvenient, disruptive and much more expensive subsequently. Will the client occupy the building? Clients who develop to sell or lease may be less concerned with the operating and maintenance costs of the facility which will be passed onto the eventual purchaser or user of the facility. Clients who spend more initially will seek to recover their investment through higher rents or sales price. This approach may be adopted by future oriented private sector clients concerned with sustainability and green building issues. What is the life-span of the building? The shorter the planned life span of the building the less appropriate it is to incorporate robust and durable materials and systems.
A project may be completed on time and within budget, but unless it achieves the specified quality or performance criteria it will be considered to be a disappointment or even an outright failure. High profile building failures such as Priory Hall only serve to strengthen the public concern expressed in the Egan Reports findings that 30% of buildings fail to meet the expectations of their owners. Such failures may be prohibitively expensive to rectify, dangerous and can ruin reputations overnight.