Architects developing ‘kit-of-parts’ schools
“Flatpack” schools, such as this design by Capita Symonds and Wates, could still be adopted by individual contractors.
James Review’s standardised solution approach expected to be ditched
Leading schools architects are working on “kit-of-parts” approaches to school building in anticipation that ministers will disregard key proposals from the James Review.
The review, carried out by Sebastian James, group operations director at Dixons, earlier this year recommended establishing a central body that would procure standardised schools on behalf of local authorities.
But many industry insiders now expect ministers to seek a less prescriptive approach. Former RIBA president Sunand Prasad said that if the government adopted standardised solutions, it would have to ensure substantial volumes of schools were built in order to keep costs down.
He warned: “Even if you build every school that can be afforded in the current climate, the numbers are not looking very optimal for serious standardisation across the board. But the industry is producing solutions.”
Contractor Galliford Try has appointed architects Sheppard Robson, Scott Brownrigg and Sarah Wigglesworth to work on a standardised construction method dubbed “optimum schools”.
Tony Poole, partner at Sheppard Robson, said: “We looked at how we could assemble schools as efficiently as possible but make them adaptable to different sites, conditions and constraints.”
Michael Olliff, group director of education at Scott Brownrigg, added: “You can’t have a standardised school but you can have a standardised approach based on a standard kit of parts.”
Galliford Try is one of several firms examining solutions in the expectation that ministers will ask contractors to suggest ways of building schools more efficiently.
Michael Buchanan, education director at Galliford Try, said architects would be central to this process. “Our solution is much more likely to be achieved if you have early contractor and design team involvement,” he said.
Willmott Dixon, Wates, Capita Symonds and Laing O’Rourke are also working up proposals, while Cartwright Pickard Architects has been working on its own solution called Nurture Future, which uses pre-cast concrete.
James Pickard said: “One of the reasons Building Schools for the Future was so expensive was that each school was a prototype. Architects love design prototypes but they are very expensive.
“We believe it’s possible to build perfectly good schools for less money using a degree of standardisation. That doesn’t mean every school has to look the same.”
Tim Byles, former BSF chief, agreed that, while the government might seek to impose restrictions on building costs, it was likely to seek design solutions from contractors and architects.
“We want to use the skills in the design world to make sure we get appropriate, sustainable buildings at good value for money,” he said.
WHAT ARE OPTIMUM SCHOOLS?
Optimum schools are one of several options being devised which could provide a standardised solution to school building.
The concept has been likened to that of a Lego set, providing a kit of components that can reduce construction costs while maintaining the flexibility to respond to individual sites and clients.
Michael Buchanan, education director at Galliford Try, said this approach was favourable to a design template set by central government.
“We don’t think templates work because most sites are urban, constrained and may involve extending an existing building,” he said. “That’s not to say you can’t have a large degree of standardisation — 80% of a school building is fairly standard; the other 20% is the critical bit.”
Related Articles
- Cabe backs standardised schools
9 March 2012
- Government warned not to drop Breeam standards for schools
25 January 2012
- Jestico & Whiles to design south London schools
20 December 2011
- Wales unveils £1.4bn school upgrade plan
7 December 2011
- Gove asks RIBA how to cut school design costs
8 July 2011
- Capita Symonds launches standardised school plans
7 June 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (8)
One of the main reasons BSF costs were so high was/is because the levels of LEP/Contractor/framework agreement involvement often made complicated tiers of client bodies and people getting paid for essentially doing nothing.
I love the 40m floor plates, artificial lighting and low ceilings in the image.
Dixons advising on school building! Why don't architects start advising on brain surgery?
The costs of BSF were high for many reasons - not least of which was the fact the we handed ultimate responsibility for the entire process over to contractors who were completely and utterly motivated by profit. This goes for all PFI driven schemes.
Emboldened, contractors used their increased influence to stretch their supply chain muscle - to whittle away at design quality in favour of their own margins. They aligned themselves to a particular band of weak architects who would not stand up to them on the issue of design or quality. Local authorities with no in-house expertise to make confident design decisions were happy to sit back and let them get on with it, to spend money that wasn't theirs on new school buildings that they calculated would make them popular with the electorate.
And so we are now in the situation where we have a new generation of poor quality schools that we will still be paying for in twenty years time, long after the cheap render has lost its lustre.
tom mason hit it square on the head..... Its pretty sad, but of very true!!
but this format still continues and will as long as major contracting firms are involved. I always wondered why people pointed the finger at architects just cause a few big names produced over priced landmark school designs
robert, in the current economical times, these weak architects = anyone wanting to maintain and keep a job :(
the constrains put on the schools by the contractors are based on what the supply chain to provide at mass. often having such contraints as 3 choices of bricks, reducing the need for lintels (cause its cheaper and faster to put up frame work and clad it).
Its a constant fight!! but in the end.... bottom line counts
John.
You're right - It wasn't my intention to apportion blame. Times are hard and everyone needs to adapt to the situation we find ourselves in.
If blame should be cast, it should be with the policy decision makers who set these wheels turning, and frankly, the construction giants who lobbied for it in the first place.
What we now need to do though it take a breather and develop a procurement and delivery system that has design quality as well as cost at it's heart.
I think that for this to happen, the contractors need to take a step backwards.
I think blame must be apportioned, Architects so steeped in morality and truth are so quick to abandon their principles, generations will be living with their compromises.