by Roger Perrin
Most industries have a clear idea of the needs of their customers. The car industry, for instance, is now light years away from Henry Ford’s “any colour as long as it’s black”. The cost to a company of renting or buying a building is far in excess of the most extravagant car, yet clients’ requirements are insufficiently understood and inadequately served in the design and development professions.
This is the conclusion of a major piece of research into the B1 market — low-rise office/light industrial developments which have become a feature of economic growth in the 1980s. Commissioned by Tartan — a company much involved in B1 projects — and conducted by Cambridge Architecture Research, the principal aim of the research was to discover the degree of consistency between the attitudes of those who will ultimately work in office buildings and the development professionals who are responsible for designing and constructing them.
The research began with a series of personal interviews and intensive seminars which were followed by a questionnaire sent to a sample of nearly 2,000 architects, estate agents, development professionals and companies occupying this type of building. Two reports have now been produced — Selection and use of B1 Buildings by End-Users, and Design in Commercial Developments.
The results indicate that firms may end up working in a building the design of which is dictated by fashion or the intuition of personnel involved in the development, rather than by the actual needs of the user.
Excluding architects, three times as many development professionals as users agreed with the statement “one office user’s needs are much like another’s”.
Neither is it true to say that users are unable to explain what they want. During the user seminar, the people responsible for selecting accommodation for their various companies were asked to study 18 descriptions of hypothetical buildings located just north of London and choose six from the list.
It was interesting that each of the original 18 appeared on one or more shortlist. Yet selections were not haphazard: each building was shortlisted for carefully thought-out reasons.
A tangle of interests
This does not represent a conspiracy on behalf of developers and estate agents; it is instead symptomatic of the way in which the industry is currently organised.
The traditional approach to commercial buildings involves a client in the conflicting and competing interests of a host of specialists, generating inevitable compromises on either design, usability or financial viability.
Conventional developments bring together four parties, each with their own priorities and time-scales. The developer will be concerned with site/location, and look for large profits medium-term. The funder is cost-orientated and calculates long-term investment value. Architects then become involved, and are often exclusively concerned with the building itself. An estate agent finally markets the project and he is looking for immediate short-term profit.
There are two crucial implications from this pattern. First, nowhere in the decision-making process is the end-user’s voice heard. We found that only very rarely is a written design brief prepared: instead, informal discussions take place between the professionals — who often have far more contact with each other than with users. In the words of one development professional: “Buildings are designed by committee. We spend the first three months redrawing the plans.”
The second implication is that the market is based on a vague consensus of professionals on what constitutes a “good-quality” building. Moreover, this consensus is self-perpetuating: buildings change with fashion rather than in response to actual changes in requirements. It would be far better to have an agenda for judging standards, incorporating issues such as adaptability, life-cycle costings, the impact of information technology and location in relation to customers/services/residential areas.
Research such as this allows us to construct a profile of user needs and how they can be met in the long term. For instance, the feature rated “essential” by the majority of users was “one car space per employee”. This, in itself, states in stronger terms what many development professionals already know. Previously, however, a straight trade-off has been proposed between more parking space and less attention to landscaping; the office space itself has continually been regarded as sacrosanct. In five or 10 years’ time — with changing commuter patterns and ubiquitous car ownership and a new emphasis on the working environment — this trade-off may well become untenable. Short-term solutions to problems suffice in boom times; in a market-led context, with more specific and insistent demands, they will not be adequate.
A new approach
The B1 “business use” designation has provoked a welter of planning applications. In a rising market and with large development profits seemingly guaranteed, end-users have been supplied with speculative buildings which are frequently mediocre in terms of both appearance and accommodation.
Without wishing to be bearish, the office market is now entering a period when profits and demand will reach a more realistic level. One aspect of this may see pension funds purchasing freeholds for their long-term investment value, rather than forward financing.
Against this background quality rather than quantity will assert itself as the dominant factor. Tartan’s own speculative developments include Vision Park, a 200,000-sq ft office park in Cambridge developed in conjunction with Merivale Moore, and a 72,000-sq ft light industrial development in Colchester, funded by Abbey Life.
The appearance, size and use of these two projects differ widely, but what unites them is a concern for long-term “usability”. This can mean attention to even minor details such as well-cut tiling in toilets (not an obvious issue — except for the individuals who spend each working day in the building).
Usability also means the most efficient and flexible use of space: work areas which are open enough to replan sections and machinery regularly, decent raised access flooring to allow cable runs underneath or careful planning of service systems.
Similarly, energy efficiency is creeping up the agenda, and sealed double glazing, high insulation and efficient heating systems will soon become the norms of a shopping list.
In the past, there have been two broad options for the end-user: the circuitous route discussed in the research or design-and-build. The latter more often than not results in nondescript buildings. Indeed, design-and-build project management can mean nothing more than administrative overseeing and a general willingness to fudge. My own background as a trained architect makes me believe that project management should serve the interests of a well-conceived design, rather than vice versa.
To achieve this, the various professions involved in commercial property have to concern themselves with reflecting client needs in the original design and at every stage thereafter, with architects, surveyors, development and construction specialists combining to integrate the addressing of individual projects.
In management terms, a single chain of command is thus established both to preserve the character of the original design and ensure integrity of execution. Moreover, this way of working begins to change the attitudes and working practices of individuals — the surest way to effect long-term change.
In terms of the efficiency of staff, technology and overheads, as well as corporate image, buildings make a real contribution to the success of an organisation. In addition, those buildings which combine exciting design with high standards of accommodation constitute a better commercial proposition: rents will be justifiably higher and the investment will continue to yield over a greater number of years.
The present research is the first stage of a programme designed to obtain precise and relevant information about the commercial property market. This will include, for example, work on new building materials and technologies.
The message of this research, like any other, is simple — only when you know what people actually want can you begin to provide it.
