The Academy of St Francis of Assisi in Liverpool

Whether talking about the Skye Bridge or the Scottish Parliament, some people will always ignore the architectural ambition of such projects and focus on the design and contractual disputes that can ultimately ring the death knell for their respective budgets.

But how should we be valuing the buildings around us? How should we pay for them and what should they deliver? These are questions that have come increasingly to the fore over recent years as the UK has turned to private finance initiatives (PFI) to pay for its public infrastructure.

Now the Scottish Government has put these PFI initiatives under the microscope and is looking at alternatives. Indeed it is currently in consultation with the nation over its plans for a Scottish Futures Trust, which it hopes will replace PFI styled projects in the years to come.

Whether the Scottish Futures Trust comes into existence and what form it eventually takes will be revealed in time. However, no matter how we choose to pay for our future infrastructure, we should be demanding more from it. It needs to represent better value for money than at present and projects need to deliver on more than just basic functionality.

Buildings should be inspirational. They should invoke our senses and at the very least create an environment which empowers those living, learning and working within it. Now that we have evidence of Sick Building Syndrome, which manifests itself through the depression and ill health of those condemned to long periods in poorly designed buildings, it is imperative that we do not disadvantage society at large by sanctioning badly designed projects in the future.

Looking at a specific example of what can be achieved through excellent design. The Academy of St Francis of Assisi in Liverpool is a wonderful case of a building that brings form and function together at a reasonable cost and delivers way above its basic function as a school.

The academy brazenly advertises its environmental status through the sustainable materials used to build it, the turf roof which insulates it and the tanks that harvest the rainwater running off it. The design of the building also maximises the sunlight that hits it and so cuts the amount of electrical lighting it requires.

Not only are the students proud to attend the school, but they are also learning from the sustainable aspects of the architecture resulting in a dramatic rise in academic achievement.

Getting down to brass tacks, the project was completed for somewhere in the region of just £20m. This equates to the money spent on many other schools across the UK, although there are few that offer so much value over and above their basic function. Surely it is this sort of value for money we should be demanding from our public buildings and infrastructure in the future?

Given the financial demands placed on lead contractors for public sector projects, it is no surprise that pressure is often put on architects to deliver safe solutions, which have been replicated time and again over the years.

The problem here is that such an approach often stifles development and makes it more difficult to generate added value by delivering over and above basic functional requirements.

In many cases there is too high a priority put on the basic delivery of a project. However design and delivery are compatible bedfellows and by allowing them both into the equation, it becomes possible to not only meet budgets and deadlines, but also to generate better value for money by making the buildings in question so much more than just basic schools, hospitals or libraries.

In the coming months there is going to be a lot of discussion over how Scotland funds the ongoing improvement programme for its national infrastructure. Most of the wrangling will be political and we will have to wait and see just how the push towards a Scottish Futures Trust turns out.

Creating better value for the taxpayer has been at the very heart of the SNP’s decision to overhaul the PFI structure that has been so commonly used in recent years. However once a decision has been reached on the way forward for the future, it can only be hoped that the politicians and local authorities do not then ignore the improved value that could be delivered by better design.

By better aligning the design and delivery aspects of future work, and squeezing as much as architecturally possible from each project, we could significantly improve the value we are currently getting.

Value is not always measured in pounds, shillings and pence, and by taking a more forward thinking approach it will be possible to significantly improve the value that Scotland’s public procurement programme offers, without it necessarily having to cost us more.

For further information contact Adam McGhee (adam.mcghee@capita.co.uk) on 0141 285 3600 or at Capita Architecture, 2nd Floor, Skypark, 8 Elliot Place, Glasgow, G3 8EP.

Comments