Why...
In 1990, our architectural practice won a masterplan competition to expand Sheffield City Polytechnic. We proposed two new buildings, which, together with existing structures, would surround a glass-roofed 'heartspace'. The 'heartspace' idea was unusual back then but appealed to the University. We won the competition!
The win meant a commission to develop a campus-wide brief. I spent many hours with teaching and support staff. The range of the scientific and engineering courses left me spellbound. This project would provide opportunities for thousands of young people. This realisation resulted in my long-standing preoccupation with education and skills training.
Building Design Partnership developed the detailed design. Today, Sheffield Hallam University is a real success story, and the City Campus (below) is part of that success.
In 1993, I visited my first Further Education College (in Leeds). The client wanted to extend their building, as the teaching staff reported a need for more space.
​
The range of classes within one building was terrific. The curriculum included engineering, performing arts, fine arts, graphic design, childcare, hair & beauty and hospitality (they ran an excellent restaurant).
​
The Sheffield experience taught me the value of a proper brief. So, I was as interested in developing the brief as I was in the design (a long list of spaces emerged). Meanwhile, the college applied to the Government's Funding Council for financial support for its project.
Unfortunately, the Council rejected the application. The Council had called in a space utilisation specialist. Her report revealed that the college had enough space. The college abandoned the project.
Applying lessons learnt
After the disappointment at Leeds, I read the space utilisation specialist's report. Then I read the specialist's book.
We kept working with colleges but now provided space utilisation analysis. We found that most could operate in less space.
Many buildings were in poor condition. But our approach meant replacement projects could be smaller and therefore more affordable. Furthermore, clients sold under-utilised sites, investing the receipts into their projects.
Bradford College: courtesy of ©Bond Bryan
Levels of maturity
The working relationship between client and consultants is vital.
As we developed our practice, we engaged with Further and Higher Education clients with increasing levels of maturity. What follows are my definitions based on my experience.
​
Level 1. Collaboration Between End-Users and Designers
Senior leaders need help with a part of their estate and commission a project team to develop a project. The leadership has loosely defined the scope of this project. From this point onwards, consultants and designers work with 'end-users' (academics and instructors). There is only limited intervention from senior leaders (they are extremely busy).
​
Consultants develop loyalty to end-users and their goals. Within this bubble, the emphasis is on more floor space and higher specification. Later, cost consultants, senior leaders, or funders often burst the bubble. When this happens, elements of the proposal must be deleted, or the project is abandoned.
​
Level 2. Acknowledging the Need for Efficiency
As before, the project's scope is largely predetermined. However, the client selects the consultant team based on their extensive prior experience. The team has good knowledge of space efficiency, specification and cost standards within the education sector. This expertise moderates the engagement with end-users. Proposals are much more likely to be viable.
​
Level 3. Seeing the Whole Picture
Senior leaders engage with the consultant team to review the whole campus. This client/consultant group confirms all future curriculum plans and resulting space requirements.
The same group then examines strategic alternatives for future campus development. Each option is tested against agreed criteria. Criteria will include curriculum delivery, student experience, space efficiency, and environmental and financial performance.
​
For example, new, well-designed replacement buildings benefit the student experience. Additionally, maintenance and energy costs of new buildings may be lower than for older structures. However, replacement projects have much higher capital costs than retention/refurbishment projects. New buildings may also have significant embodied carbon.
Considering all these matters, the group selects a preferred strategic path. In doing so, we confirm each future project's likely purpose, scope and cost. We also identify which project should have priority. This is a property strategy.
So this is why...
Like many in design and construction, I'm motivated by the thought that an education project makes a real difference. Yet, the project may not make that difference if there has been no prior strategic review.
Quality education environments are essential for good outcomes. Yet, colleges and universities must pay their staff and suppliers; this is also essential. The estate must have its fair share, but no more. The good news is that we can work towards beautiful, functional and sustainable learning environments over time. We start by identifying the best long-term solutions.
This is seeing the whole picture: a property strategy.
​
Thank you for reading!
​
Jonathan Herbert
National College: Advanced Transport & Infrastructure: courtesy of ©Bond Bryan