Gemma Sapiano took a more supportive
view: “I imagine they would have had an awful lot of resistance from the [International Council of Monuments and Sites on the] Charter of Venice and their equivalent of English Heritage on what they were actually allowed to do.” Likewise, the panel was unsure what to
make of the budget: was the eye-watering figure of £10,000 per m2
a fair reflection
of the costs of a first-rate project and the risks inherent in any refurbishment, or was it simply poor cost control? Stefan Eriksson commented: “Yes, the
budget is massive, but it’s probably there for a reason, which is they wanted to do a fantastic project. If you look at that [construction] picture, that’s not a ceiling you could take care of in one day!” DCA director Alexander Schwarz told
CM the cost plan had come out at higher than the submitted tenders — around ¤230m (£197m) versus ¤210m (£180m) — mainly because the design and client team had factored in more risk items than the contractors ultimately priced for. Again, Sapiano viewed this positively.
“On every refurb that I’ve done, the cost plan goes out the window, because you’re dealing with unknown factors!” But Heathfield was sceptical, arguing
that a different contractual approach would have saved German taxpayers’ euros. “I suspect that there was so much provision in the design for the unknown eventualities, that in the end it cost what it cost. We’ve done a number of highly complex projects where to try to work out the price in all the detail upfront is just ridiculous.” Overall, the panel was impressed by the
project’s scale, originality and quality. Eriksson summed it up: “Anyone working in the construction industry would love to work on it.” Pros: Renovation at its best Cons: A different contractual approach could have saved money
“ These days it’s an oddity for us not to have a BREEAM project. Projects that aren’t BREEAM assessed are a real rarity” Peter Caplehorn
ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM
From Germany’s pre-eminent cultural project, the panel turned to the extension to Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum. This came in at a more palatable £6,100 per m2 — a relative bargain for the British lotto players who part-funded it via the Heritage Lottery Fund. The panel were impressed by the sheer technical challenge BAM had faced in building a six-storey state-of-the-art gallery within a walled-in enclosure, especially when the neighbours on the other side of the 19 party walls were Oxford colleges and academic institutions, and the basement excavation took them dangerously close to the water table. BAM’s fixed price, traditional contract
also involved making breakthroughs and connection to the grade I-listed museum itself, and dealing with the tolerances and differential movements of a three-storey concrete frame, topped by a three-storey steel portal frame, and all wrapped in a brick envelope and steel roof. In dealing with all these challenges,
BAM’s only site access was a footpath 3.8m wide and 10m long. The contractor had to funnel all the equipment and materials it needed
through that narrow gap, including the crucial tower crane that sat in the middle of the atrium. Afterwards, in the words of Stuart Cade from Rick Mather Architects, it had to “build its way out”. The panel didn’t have any photos of the
construction phase, but descriptions of the build were enough for Gemma Sapiano to comment: “I imagine this was actually
more challenging to construct than the Neues Museum. You could deal with a lot of the problems there because you had an open site. Whereas with this, you’re dealing with such a restricted site.” Bob Heathfield pointed to the fixed
price JCT contract: “They tendered a fixed price, but they also developed aspects of the design with the specialist trade contractors. It was a difficult construction, and they had to work their way out of it. That’s pretty good.” But the panel also highlighted the
lack of BREEAM certification, despite the project’s creditable sustainability strategy. It features as much natural ventilation and daylighting as possible, innovative “adiabatic” air-handling units, and exceeded Part L 2006. “They certainly had good aspirations,” Peter Caplehorn commented. “But these days, it’s an oddity for us [at Scott Brownrigg] not to have a BREEAM project. Five years ago, it was only some clients that wanted certification, but since then it’s shifted — so the projects that aren’t BREEAM assessed are a real rarity.” Stuart Cade of RMA had been impressed
by BAM’s commitment to sustainability and reducing energy use on site. However, the panel wasn’t quite so overwhelmed. “I’d say they should be monitoring it on site anyway, we do it and have done it for five or six years at least,” said Sapiano. Pros: A major technical achievement, delivered with good attention to the carbon footprint Cons: Why no BREEAM certificate?
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER | OCTOBER 2010 | 17
JOERG VON BRUCHHAUSEN
CHRISTIAN RICHTERS
ANDY MATTHEWS (2)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60