The challenges
We know that badly designed schools, hospitals, surgeries, parks and homes cost us in the long run. They are expensive to run, unsustainable and hard to maintain. They hinder educational attainment, increase patient recovery times and cost more to police. Well-designed buildings and spaces, by contrast, are cheaper to manage and better cared-for by the people that use them. To realise these benefits – and minimise the costs – we need early and consistent investment in design. Doing design well requires an understanding of more than aesthetics. Of course looks are important, but the usefulness of the end product is what really matters. Good design is about ensuring that a product – be it a building, neighbourhood or even a city – makes life better for anyone who comes into contact with it.
School and hospital buildings are intensively used every day. Large numbers of students, patents and staff are constantly circulating around the buildings and classrooms. The level of use is much greater than for offices and more like that of an airport. The buildings inevitably receive very heavy wear and tear and the quality of finishes must take account of this. One of the most common problem areas is door ironmongery. Typically doors and ironmongery account for approximately 2% of the construction budget, yet account for 80% of post occupancy defects. It pays to get the quality of product and fitting right as it can otherwise seriously affect your reputation.
Weaknesses
Materials used were consistently identified as being inadequate for the wear and tear of a school environment. Nearly all schools showed signs of strain or damage, both deliberate and from wear and tear, partly due to the cheapness of fittings or materials. This was a surprising revelation, particularly amongst the PFI schools visited, as a key part of the PFI contract usually involves maintenance and upkeep over decades. The quality of workmanship, installation and detailing was also extremely variable.
Both clients and assessors expressed concerns that materials, fixtures and fittings, would fail in the short term. They felt that poor-quality materials were often used that would be likely to deteriorate quickly and that some of the poor design would lead to vandalism. Typical comments included:
"What’s it going to be like in 40 years time… unloved and rubbish."
"I feel the people who are building schools don’t take into account that it will be used by 1,500 boisterous 11- to 18- year-olds. Painting everything pristine white, especially down corridors that are not enormously wide, is not ideal. Corridors get scuffed up and yet contractors seem surprised by this. One of the impressions we have is that the people who are building schools need to be constantly reminded of the audience. Schools are not built for a genteel group of users."
Some common failures of specification included poor-quality windows and doors and inadequate ironmongery, indicated by broken window stays, doors splitting at lock points and requirements for new door closers and stops. Systematic replacement or re-installation was not reported. Toilet cubicles and lockers formed a prime focus in schools for vandalism, and un-repaired facilities and fittings continued to be targeted. The quality and specification of fixtures, fittings and loose furniture seemed variable.
Many schools used a common, recognisable palette of basic, minimum standard materials for fit-out. This typically included extensive drop-in suspended ceiling tiles, vinyl flooring (reports of flooring failure were common) and blockwork walls. A lack of colour or departmental identity contributed to inward-focussed spaces that were described as ‘joyless’ and ‘functional’.