3.4
Design, Construction and Handover
This section summarises important issues which affect project outcomes during the life of a development project with reference to Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios’ Manchester School of Art as an example project at each stage.
People: Developing Trust and a Shared Vision
Post-occupancy studies of new buildings are demonstrating clear links between positive client engagement in the briefing and the design process, and subsequent good user satisfaction and building performance in use. When the user client group has been closely involved in the visioning and detailed briefing process, an engaged operation of the building develops which brings out the best in the use of the facilities. This should not come as any surprise. What is surprising, however, is that so little effort is put into ensuring that client project teams and their counterpart design teams and contractor teams retain consistency through the different stages of the project process, losing so many opportunities for better understanding of the context of decisions at each stage.
Continuity in these processes is a critical factor for success. Once a clear overall strategy defines the parameters for an individual project, so that priorities in the context of the university’s ambitions are established, the success of any project is dependent upon the understanding, skills and drive of the individuals and teams involved.
- A strong project champion – a senior client figurehead – should remain involved throughout to hold onto the vision to help steer decision-making through the opportunities and challenges of the process.
- Continuity of the client team members, so that ideas can develop through each phase of the project, this should include the early involvement of both users and the facilities management (FM) team so that decisions on operation and maintenance are made within a common understanding of the aspirations for the project.
- A clear strategy for choosing the project team, identifying the skills and attributes that are sought from the construction industry in terms of design, management, cost control and construction will influence how and when the university chooses to appoint the design team. This selection process should be used to provide clear parameters for the priorities of the project, so that the skills of the team are suited to the ambitions of the client body. A design competition may be inappropriate for choosing skills in dialogue and briefing, while a developed, construction tender could elicit strengths in programming and process.
These factors create the context for the project and set the stage for the development of the brief through a creative dialogue with the client: prioritising where design effort and money is best spent to the overall benefit of the project. A building design project is, by its very nature, a vehicle that enables us to imagine a better future, and the process of that journey should in itself be an enjoyable and stimulating one. The best projects are those where a synergy develops between client and design team without too much intermediary project management, and where the solutions that arise through the process exceed the expectations of the client.
People: The Manchester School of Art
This project established, and subsequently benefited from, strong working relationships between client, users, design team and contractors.
The architects had previously completed a successful project for the university, and a trusting relationship had developed with the estates office as a result of the approach and success of the earlier building.
There was a visionary and proactive Vice Chancellor, strongly advocating the benefits of good design and championing the importance of the physical estate.
The Dean of the Manchester School of Art wanted to engage in the design process in the pursuit of a transformational building for the school. Professor David Crow led a team who were interested to explore how the new environment could respond to their teaching ideas, and help shape a new collaborative culture. He wrote:
Professor Crow’s observations on the relationships between disciplines in the Art School working in the completed building resonate for me with the process of creating architecture – and the relationships which I feel are so important for the creation of successful buildings:
It is important to develop a good understanding of the expected quality, cost and time parameters for the project, and to highlight the critical features of the development. Benchmarking against other buildings and spaces within the same client’s estate, as well as visiting precedent buildings and exemplar schemes is useful. The design team should establish how the building will be operated and maintained, and encourage serious debate about whole-life value to inform decision-making affecting capital cost by consideration of in use costs, performance, adaptability and sustainability targets. The design team should take care to understand the levels of experience of the university client body – some of whom may never have been involved in commissioning a building and may not readily understand two-dimensional drawings and building jargon. The designers and client team should agree on appropriate presentation methods (using models, drawings and other presentation techniques) to ensure that ideas can be explained in order to enable the client group to engage in the briefing and design dialogue. At all stages, the use of models and mock-ups to demonstrate scale, design ideas and to establish quality standards is invaluable. It is useful to set out a clear programme for design development, to help the client understand when different decisions need to be made. It is important that this ties into a consultation programme so that separate internal client engagement and stakeholder consultation can genuinely feed into the design process at the most suitable times to benefit the outcomes in a timely manner. Figures 3.20 and 3.21 Manchester School of Art, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios The design team response to the academic briefing, estates priorities and sustainability targets builds up through the work stages (as described earlier on page 93) and is usefully captured in design stage reports which should become ever-more detailed reference documents describing the project as it develops. Complex projects which require detailed coordination are well served by a design programme which allows for a comprehensive design team report at RIBA Plan of Work Stage 3 Developed Design, which should ideally be in advance of submission of a planning application, and before commencement of detailed design (RIBA Plan of Work Stage 4 Technical Design) There is often time pressure to submit both an early planning application and to commence technical design without a period to enable a strong 1:50 and 1:20 scale coordination process to be completed – both of which can add risk into the project, and could have adverse impacts on out-turn cost, quality and programme. Complex building briefs require careful thought, and time is needed to coordinate holistic solutions incorporating timely client input and review. A well-integrated and strongly led design team is key to successful outcomes in projects which generally set demanding targets and have highly aspirational agendas. University clients deserve exceptional design and professionalism. The design team need to capture the essence of the building brief, reflecting that back to the client so that the base functional data can be verified as correct, and so that interpretations of the brief can be explored in order to help prioritise issues and highlight the most critical features desired in new environment. User consultation needs to be understood and categorised.
Figures 3.22, 3.23 and 3.24 (top row)
Existing and anticipated uses need to be understood and represented in the brief
Figures 3.25 and 3.26 (middle row left and centre)
Ideas need to be well communicated
Figures 3.27 and 3.28 (above and below)
Different drawing styles and models are useful communication tools to represent design intent
The positive impacts arising from continuity of staff experience and mutual understanding discussed at the start of this section equally apply to the individuals in the contracting building teams, and this has led many universities to develop framework arrangements with contactors (and design teams), which operate with varying degrees of success. The large scale of development that some universities are now engaged in can make frameworks attractive as long as cost issues are dealt with in a transparent and controlled process. On the other hand, the specialist nature of certain projects is better served by one-off procurement in order to obtain very tailored services from specialist contractors and designers. Highly constrained sites, either through their geography, urban context or building adjacencies sometimes create conditions which require significant construction advice early in the design process. Appointing contractors to give early advice, through framework arrangements or separate appointments to review access and building impacts is often critical for development decision-making. Mitigating construction impacts on the life and productivity of the existing estate – especially when a building project might run for the full length of a student’s attendance on their course – become business critical issues. The increasing use of less adversarial construction contracts, such as the NEC New Engineering Contracts, forms used in the UK is improving the building process and reflecting the idea of the more joined-up complete project team, where the contractor is seeking a similar set of successful outcomes as the client. Better integration between the client and contracting team is particularly relevant to the commissioning and handover process, where there can be genuinely improved outcomes by facilitating the early engagement of the client’s building management team into witnessing commissioning and understanding the building systems on site, and then subsequently retaining the same client team to operate the building in use, alongside members of the contractor team to help optimise performance in the first years of operation. Any stand-off between contractor and building operator during the first year (‘defects period’) of operation resulting from apparent problems, can cause enormous damage to users’ attitudes to their new environment. Contract terms must be established to enable more proactive responses. Once the building is handed over, much can be done to review and improve the performance of that building is in use, informing decision-making on the design of better spaces in the future, and influencing building design and strategic planning of the estate. Value and Performance are discussed in Part 4. The design team needed to communicate design intent clearly for the contractor – providing clarity on the required quality of the completed building, and wherever possible engaging individuals in the contracting team to input ideas into construction methodology and best practice. On this project, the contractor was appointed before all the details for construction were complete, allowing for detailed development to incorporate contractor input.
Figure 3.29
The detailed design of the façade was fine-tuned using tested mock-ups
Figure 3.30
Sustainable design features were prioritised with the contractor
Figures 3.31
Development of the patterned feature concrete columns was a joint enterprise between mould casting manufacturers, the concrete contractor, the main contractor, architect and client
The Design Process
The Design Process: Manchester School of Art
Construction
Construction: Manchester School of Art
