Many new-build schools have benefi ted from the BSF programme in recent years, but will the drive for streamlined design change the face of the sector?
where possible. ‘Avoiding bespoke and special elements is the key to avoiding costs,’ says Philip King, director at Hilson Moran. ‘The rise of building information modelling (BIM) will also reduce costs in the longer term.’ Such measures don’t just apply to
schools, of course. ‘There’s a correlation between the James Review and what’s going on elsewhere in the industry, which is to reduce costs,’ says Matthew Dickinson, schools sector leader at Max Fordham. ‘In many ways, if you’ve got the money it’s a good time to build, as consultants’ fees and building costs are down. What may have cost you £10m to build, you can now get for £7m to £8m.’ Consultants are working with architects
and contractors to develop school buildings that can be modularised, yet still provide an individual identity and are fl exible enough to be site specifi c. Innovations have started to come to the market in recent months,
www.cibsejournal.com
from Interserve and Arup’s classroom pod solution PodSolve (see box) to Wilmott Dixon’s menu-driven Sunesis approach and Laing O’Rourke and Atkins’ standardised school solution. All claim similar results, with typical cost savings of 30% over a conventional approach. Laing O’Rourke and Atkins have
developed a model for delivering primary and secondary schools using standardised building components manufactured and assembled at an offsite pre-assembly facility. Philip Watson, education director at Atkins, says: ‘The blueprint utilises a kit of parts that responds to the needs of the end- user. This allows us to create a large variety of fl exible, customised layouts that deliver huge cost effi ciencies at a time when every penny must count.’ Certainly, such solutions are a far cry
from the prefab classrooms of old, still found in many school playgrounds. Yet, is there a risk that design promoting comfort,
March 2012 CIBSE Journal 21
We must ensure that ‘fi t for purpose’ buildings are adaptable, comfortable all year round, have low energy use and do not revert to the tin sheds with insuffi cient ventilation which have given such problems once occupied
Tim Soar
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