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.
The worst part about lowering the quality as you increase the size is that it eventually lowers the re-sale price. Take a look online in the neighborhood or area of town you are interested in and look for only homes that all cost the same amount of money, say a million dollars. When I do this exercise, I almost always find some larger homes that are not all that attractive and some smaller homes that are well-designed and beautiful. Bigger does not translate into better resale value. The price per square foot of a home with a focus on quality is higher than a larger home that sacrificed quality for size. And this only becomes more evident as the home ages.