Why good projects must get built
The construction industry has been at the mercy of viability issues for some time and design teams have not really been in a position to do much about it. Land values, finance and demand sit largely beyond our reach but recently we’ve been thinking about construction costs, as an area where design teams can exert some influence.
In Build Lean, our latest research initiative, we forensically examined six of our projects, in some cases going back to first principles, interrogating and reimagining briefs, MEP systems, and sustainability strategies, to see just how much cost (and while we were at it carbon) reduction could be achieved. Three key areas for collaborative action emerged which we debated with our colleagues on the night.
Challenge the brief
Some elements of a brief add cost and carbon without adding equivalent value. Flexibility is a good example. Buildings are routinely designed to accommodate a wide range of future uses from day one, many of which will never happen. That optionality has a real price: heavier structures, tighter vibration criteria, more extensive building services and worse net-to-gross ratios.
Adaptability is different. It means designing a building that can be sensibly altered when a new need actually arises, rather than paying upfront for every need imaginable. The industry is good at adapting buildings over time. The question is where the sweet spot lies between genuine future-proofing and over-engineering for a future that may never come.
The same scrutiny should apply to standards and certifications. BREEAM has given the industry a common language for sustainability, but an Outstanding rating does not automatically mean the most sustainable building – partly because the system can reward process as much as outcome. Adopting adaptive thermal comfort ranges, for example, can cut MEP plant requirements by up to 20%, with no credits needed.
Be prepared to change course
Conventional value engineering accepts the fundamentals of a scheme and looks for savings within them, element by element. But sometimes the biggest cost is buried in an early assumption that the whole project has been built around, made for good reasons, under different conditions.
On certain schemes, our research found potential savings of tens of millions of pounds simply by revisiting those early decisions. These conversations are difficult. They reopen work that designers, clients and planners have all invested in. But treating an early decision as permanent is not the same as protecting its value.
Rethink collaboration
Our industry follows a linear process – the RIBA Plan of Work – in which programme tends to come first. We found examples where that actively got in the way of viability. Stage 2, squeezed between feasibility and planning, is under particular pressure. Reaching planning quickly is sometimes the right call, especially when it unlocks funding. But teams should be honest about what that locks in, and what it will cost.
Where programme allows, a few extra weeks at Stage 2 can pay back many times over.
The most important finding, though, is about who owns viability. On too many projects it sits as a separate workstream, understood by some and shared with few, meaning the people making design decisions cannot see the numbers those decisions affect. Where the whole team had visibility of what was driving viability, we consistently saw better decisions and better outcomes.
Viability transparency should be the norm, not the exception. These conversations need to happen together, and early.
