New schools 'won't win any awards'
Government’s Priority Schools Building Programme seeks traditional designs with high spec
New facilities designed under the £2.4 billion Priority Schools Building Programme “won’t win any awards,” a government adviser warned last week.
Speaking at the British Council for School Environments conference, Mairi Johnson, deputy director for design at the Education Funding Agency, said the government was looking for traditional school designs, where classrooms can be reconfigured if necessary.
But Michal Cohen, director at Walters & Cohen, said that despite attitudes to traditional styles, it remained up to architects “to create fantastic spaces”.
“They don’t need to be iconic but they need to be good. Architects and designers care deeply about our schools and we will make the best with what we can,” added Cohen.
At the conference Johnson also revealed that the government wanted new school designs to prioritise high spec over area, and that bids would be judged on this basis during procurement.
“The output spec has been re-written from that of BSF,” she said. “The big changes are that we’re trying to prioritise efficient and effective environmental performance. [We’re] targeting ventilation, heating and acoustics.”
Parameters around these will be relaxed to make them easier to meet. For example, the acceptable temperature range for classrooms will not be measured against an absolute scale, but be judged in relation to the outside temperate.
“If it’s a bit hotter outside then it can be a bit hotter in the classroom,” explained Johnson. “It looks at thermal comfort rather than absolute temperatures.”
Michael Buchanan, head of education at Galliford Try, warned that this could lead to procurement that was only focused on cost. “If there’s no incentive to squeeze more area out of it, then the intention is to build schools more cheaply and the successful bids will be chosen on price,” he told BD.
Baseline design packs
Mairi Johnson said that baseline design packs were due to be sent out in July.
These contain information on output specification and area calculation tools, as well as plans and sections. Architects can use them as indicative designs, which don’t have to be replicated.
However, the government will use the baseline designs to speak to planners before procurement begins with a view to providing a better brief for designers.
Related Articles
- Architects invited to improve on government school designs
1 October 2012 | Updated: 2 October 2012 9:19 am
- BSF schools boost pupil performance says buried report
9 July 2012
- RIBA awards reflect a new realism
21 June 2012
- Pupils 'will be taught in tin huts', warns Manchester council chief
6 June 2012
- First school builds go to academies contractors
31 May 2012
- Act now to win schools stake, says contractor
31 May 2012
- Do you have confidence in Gove’s school building strategy?
25 May 2012
- School Building: what the government wants from architects
17 May 2012
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (11)
At last, a return to sanity! For schools, as for housing and other building types up to about 6 storeys, traditional designs with pitched roofs and brick or block walls have a proven record of lasting a century or more, and being easily and cheaply adaptable over that period. New wings can be added, and rooms reconfigured, with the greatest of ease by ordinary designers and ordinary builders, using familiar materials and working to well-understood design rules. They can be very attractive if based on successful models, and are likely to fit in well with the local residential character. None of the above can be said of the vast majority of ‘modern’ school designs, whether system-built or innovative one-off designs by big-name architects. These typically cost more, have shorter lives, look shabby after a mere 20 or 30 years, and are expensive or impossible to reconfigure or adapt. Maritz Vandenberg.
Don't jump the gun. They might win plenty of prizes at the ibstock awards
I see no reason why a more traditional design and construction approach might also be award-winning.
Of course you’re right – but that depends on who is giving the awards. At present architectural prize-giving is dominated by a restricted clique of people who admire buildings that are different and strange-looking, and ‘speak for their age’; and disdain ones that are based on precedent, modestly fit in with what’s already there, and speak for all ages – past, present and future. What is needed is to break this secluded magic circle of commentators/trend-setters, and let in the daylight of sensible public opinion. Maritz Vandenberg.
“The big changes are that we’re trying to prioritise efficient and effective environmental performance.
Parameters around these will be relaxed to make them easier to meet, Mairi Johnson?
Also, why should a restricted budget mean that we cannot win awards? Surely the aim should be to excel within the parameters of budget and needs, just as it always is.
“If it’s a bit hotter outside then it can be a bit hotter in the classroom,”
What?? How is changing the rules on performance the same as improving performance?? Please enlighten me
Such a horrible headline. You're reporting this really badly, perhaps even intentionally mischaracterizing in order to slap a sensational headline on a mundane story. She didn't "warn" that schools with low budgets wouldn't be eligible for awards. She was saying that they won't have the budget to be flashy and "award-winning" in the Alsop/Rogers vein of cutting edge tech design, but can still be great buildings.
Get some sense of context, Klettner, and you nerds reading this, stop reacting to the exact wording and figure out what's actually being said.
“If it’s a bit hotter outside then it can be a bit hotter in the classroom,”
Oli I think she means that the temperatures will lag behind the temperature ouside unless it is normal room tempertature outside. So instead of heating or air con keeping the room temp at say a constant 18 degree's regardless of the weather outside if the weather outside is 8 degree's then the building may heat to 12 degree if the weather outside is 28 degree then it air con will cool building to 22 degree. So, I guess they are hoping to save money on heating and air con costs by not having to heat or air con to the standard classroom temperature. Whether this will make it comfortable or not will have to be seen if classrooms are heated up too little or air con too little to save the pennies this idea may not get the best reputation. Has energy performance improved, well your using less energy but not necessarily achieving the same outcome in terms of building temperature.
I think traditional design is the way to go, less formal and stark than modern design. Pitched roofs better than those old 60's & 70's flat roofs that require so much maintenance. Think its a mistake to do a piecemeal and patch up job of it though, BSF was better in that way, just do the whole lot and have done wih it otherwise your just spending good money constantly patching up schools that have just had it.
Franz, I guess you just hate all forms of progress? Lets just cancell all ongoing research in the world and just be happy where we are. mentalist.
Maritz Vandenberg is welcoming the return of traditional designs & materials, but he is not commenting on Mairi Johnson’s talking about relaxing environmental parameters to make them easier to meet.
But no new school building should be “dumbed down”, but built to achieve high performance and true sustainability targets. For example a “Passive House School” can be built to be adaptable & fitting the local residential character, regardless of which materials are used. What it does require is attention to detail and good workmanship in design and construction. And it can be done getting value for money. Not a school, but to see how, please have a look here: http://www.beattiepassiveprojects.com/fife/index.html.
All new buildings have to consider aspects like energy performance (heating & cooling), healthy living (sound pollution, indoor air quality, etc.), carbon footprint (operational & embodied), climate change mitigation & adaptation. That applies for schools too and it can be done with traditional designs & materials, but with “modern” as well.
Christian Nialki
Christian. The problem with strict sustainable guidelines for schools has been that it made the refurbishment option virtually impossible to adopt. Once BSF money had been assigned, then any school with historic stock had to be demolished if it was going to meet future energy consumption targets. And in each case - no-one calcultated the carbon ratio related to retention vs demolition/construction. This was not part of the guidelines.
In my view - refurbishment is always the most sustainable option. And in loosening the guidelines, this can now be made moer viable, without risking loss of funding for schools projects.