Feature Alternative Stirling Prize

CLAPHAM MANOR SCHOOL

In five of the six projects, the design and construction teams went out of their way compliment each other’s contribution. But at Clapham Manor, which involved a three- story, seven-classroom extension joined to the existing primary by a new glass link, it was noticeable that the architect and contractor held each other in distinctly muted affection. Although the interviewees were polite and respectful when discussing each other, there were clearly tensions in the background. The source of the problem wasn’t hard

MAAXI MUSEUM

Zaha Hadid Architects certainly knows how to seduce. The panel imagined themselves into the cool, curved gallery spaces, or peering over the balcony into the atrium at the three-dimensional Escher painting. “It’s a class act, isn’t it? And I’m not even a fan of hers,” said Peter Caplehorn. But what made an equally striking

impression was the fact that it took six years to build. A localised credit crunch resulted in work almost grinding to a halt in 2006/07, inflating the out-turn price by 10-20% due to the fixed costs of running the site over the elongated programme. ZHA project architect Gianluca Racana

said this had not had a negative impact on the quality — and the panel was surprised that anyone might think otherwise. Its view was that the same project could have been built in the UK in two years. But viewing photographs taken mid-

construction, Gemma Sapiano felt the Italian JV contractor had demonstrated good practice: “Look at all the formwork — it’s a complicated job, but it’s a tidy site. From the way they dealt with things like having the concrete mixing plant on site [to avoid disruption during the concrete pours], they thought it all through.” But Sapiano also suggested MAXXI

might have been more straightforward to build than it looked. Essentially, it has been built up from repeating elements. “There’s not a lot to it in terms of finish — literally the epoxy floor and concrete walls. It’s very architecturally over- powering, but the materials aren’t.”

18 | OCTOBER 2010 | CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Peter Caplehorn begged to differ. “I

would say that is complicated to construct — sometimes, the simpler it looks, the more complicated it is to deliver. And it’s got interesting hints of things going on like CO2

sensors to [detect the number of

visitors and] limit the incoming fresh air.” But the two did agree on the waste of

resources involved in the architect and contractor’s pursuit of concrete perfection. A test wall of 6m by 20m was demolished and rebuilt “at least 10 times”. “I don’t like it from a sustainability point

of view,” said Caplehorn. “I think we should surely be in an industry where we can set things up early to achieve the right answer first time.” Sapanio agreed that architects needed

to know when to draw a line. “It’s not sutainable to give the contractor a spec that’s unachievable,” she said. “They would have known by the second or third pour that they were struggling, so to go to 10 pours is not really sustainable.” Caplehorn felt the panel had touched

on an important issue. “I think in future awards we will want to look at the waste generated by a project, how efficiently it was delivered, and how much resource was used overall.” From its initial awe at the project photos,

the panel concluded that the MAXXI was another example of a project setting its sights lower than it should in terms of innovation and resource efficiency. Pros: Good construction management and a stunning design. Cons: Wasted resources.

“ I think in future awards we will want to look at the waste generated by a project.” Peter Caplehorn

to find. The primary school extension had completed in May 2009, but the final account was still “subject to negotiation”. While a spokesman for the contractor suggested this was “normal” for a traditional contract, the panel gave that idea short shrift. “On most projects, you’d negotiate the final account well in advance of practical completion,” Stefan Eriksson commented. “Or if there’s an issue, usually there’s a deal to be

made and you make it.” The project was competitively

tendered under a traditional contract.

But the contractor’s view was that Lambeth Council missed an opportunity by not pursuing a partnering route, forfeiting the advantage of getting the contractor on board early and benefiting from its design advice. As the discussion continued, the panel

pieced together a clearer picture of what might have happened. Peter Caplehorn’s attention was drawn to a list of the building’s design features. “It’s a concrete frame job, but it’s also got steel columns, a bit of a challenge. Perforated plasterboard and plywood on the walls. Underfloor heating and slightly cushioned sports floor for the classroom and poor man’s terrazzo and a floor that incorporates a map... It’s not surprising it ended up in some sort of debate! How many floor finishes can you incorporate in one school?” he asked. The panel also questioned the

So which project won

Our judges looked at the evidence from different angles. Bob Heathfield was drawn to contractual and procurement issues, Gemma Sapiano examined the projects as a construction manager. Peter Caplehorn was concerned with energy efficiency and evidence of innovation, and Stefan Eriksson highlighted resource efficiency and value for money.

IWAN BAAN

HÉLÈNE BINET