Architecture / June 7, 2018 /
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.
The relationship of quality to cost is often expressed in the saying that you get what you pay for. Cost is a critical factor in most building projects and some clients will seek a low price. Low price and maximum price competition, however, often have negative impacts on quality standards and achieving best value for money overall. In the current economic climate below cost tendering has heightened the risk of contractor insolvency and it may be difficult and expensive to obtain protection from this risk. Unrealistic and inadequate budgets often lead to projects becoming finance driven where cheaper options are preferred to better or more sustainable alternatives. Certain clients may have fixed budgets which may not be exceeded in any circumstances. In such circumstances the client will expect the quantity surveyor to maintain rigorous cost control during the project in order to deliver the project within budget. Designing to achieve such cost limits might curtail the introduction of beneficial features and or variations which may result in excessive running and maintenance costs later on.