好色先生TV

If you want to build anything bigger than a house, you need an architect. You might think it is a good idea to take on a big-name architect or at least an aspiring

big-name architect. And, unless you鈥檙e a millionaire or mad, you will watch your pennies. You might want the building to make you money, you might want to spend your savings on a pet project 鈥� if you鈥檙e the government, you鈥檒l be spending money you鈥檝e taken off everyone else. Now, put these things together 鈥� your precious cash and an architect who thinks he should be famous 鈥� and you鈥檝e got a problem. Pretty soon your funds might fall foul of an architect鈥檚 devil-may-care attitude to costs.

Self-important architects aren鈥檛 really interested in their clients鈥� pockets except to make sure they get their fees paid. For them, buildings aren鈥檛 really for their clients at all; they鈥檙e for them to show off to other architects. And the client is only there to go along with these fantastical exercises in ego inflation and pay up. After all, it鈥檚 art, isn鈥檛 it? And it鈥檚 the building that鈥檚 left for posterity, not the client鈥檚 overdraft. To quote a well-known architect on his overspend: 鈥淧eople should look at the architecture 鈥� that鈥檚 what will be there in a hundred years.鈥�

This is the art-at-any-cost disease. The symptoms are easy to spot: ignoring budgets until the masterpiece is just about to be built; an unhealthy obsession with useless but expensive details and throwing toys out of the pram at the very idea of value-engineering. The disease is caught from the infectious idea that if architecture is art it must be tricksy, off the wall and have lots of fancy bits. For architects, there鈥檚 no credit in a low-cost, simple and practical building. If it doesn鈥檛 shout out, people might not notice it and there鈥檚 no reputation to be made in economy and modesty.

好色先生TVs aren鈥檛 really for their clients at all; they鈥檙e for them to show off to other architects. And the client is only there to go along with these exercises in ego inflation and pay up

 

High-profile projects with big-name architects are notorious for running away with costs. The granddaddy of them all, the Scottish Parliament, amassed a 1,000% over-spend; that symbol of Britishness, Wembley stadium, checked in at 拢35m over budget; and a symbol of British culture and history, Bath Spa, was notorious for costing an extra 拢32m.

Cultural buildings are often supposed to be made more famous by their star architects, but can just become showcases for wasted money. Glasgow鈥檚 transport museum came in at an extra 50% at its last count (it鈥檚 not finished). The Public arts centre in West Bromwich cost 拢12m more than the original figure and the one in Colchester cost so much more than expected that it was nearly abandoned. When the Architecture Foundation, which spends its time promoting prima donna architects, engaged Zaha Hadid, the star architect to beat all stars architects, she designed a structure 100% over budget, and the organisation couldn鈥檛 find a builder who would build it.

This overspend is too common to be just a coincidence. These are all buildings designed by architects who are so famous that their buildings appear in all the magazines, win all the awards and are the heroes of students and wannabe big-names. The profession don鈥檛 give awards to one another for coming within budget or completing a building on time. Many award winners are notorious for wild over-expenditure, so when architects hand out awards to their mates for over-priced projects they鈥檙e saying 鈥渟od you鈥� to clients鈥� budgets.

The fact that the idols of the profession are often the worst overspenders does the profession no good. Getting buildings to the right cost is complicated and hard work but there鈥檚 no automatic link between good design and spending a fortune. The fact that fame in the profession too often goes to profligate show-offs is an insult not just to clients鈥� pockets, but to the thousands of hard-working architects that slog away to get good design in at a low budget.