What next for public architecture?

Earlier this week, I outlined my worry that the new austerity brought on by COVID-19 may lead to new public buildings being built on least-cost principles. With the country’s finances in difficulty, it would be tempting to see the lowest-cost option as the best option. But going down that route would mean compromising on the kind of inspirational architecture that is so important. The fact is that public buildings can revitalise or depress, creating towns that we want to live in or move away from.

The importance of public sector expenditure cannot be underestimated.  It makes up well over 30% of the UK’s expenditure on construction. I would like to see the government commit to a bold vision of what the next generation of schools, libraries, or hospitals should aspire to be. As part of that, I would like the government to pledge its commitment to the highest standards of architectural quality. 

Because what the public sector builds today will be with us for a generation or more – long after COVID-19 has passed into history. The simple fact is that increasing the initial cost of a building’s envelope has a small impact on lifetime costs. Not only that but by, for example, making energy efficiencies can deliver long-term savings.  Combating climate change is, after all, a priority for all of us.

That lifecycle approach is now accepted by HM Treasury and the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Both recognise, or did recognise, the value of adopting a whole life cost perspective whenever appropriate. However, costs are never simple.  For example, the operating costs of a hospital can equal the value of its capital cost every two to three years. That same equation is the same is true for a school, whose operating costs can equal capital cost every four years or so.

I’m reminded of a ministerial forward to the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework which applies in England.  It said, baldly, that “our standards of design can be so much higher.