promotingspaceefficiency

UK Higher Education Space Management Project

Promoting space efficiencyin building design

March 2006

2006/09

Promoting space efficiency in building design

Contents

Page

Foreword 2

1 Executive summary 3

2 Introduction 4

3 Study method 7

4 Results 8

5 Costs and benefits 11

6 Good practice guidance Tools for achieving space efficiency 13

7 Case study comparisons 17

8 Case studies 1-15 23

Appendix: Area definitions 103

List of abbreviations Inside back cover

Promoting space efficiency in building design 2006/09 1

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the many people who helped us during this project, inparticular the Space Management Group and all those who suggestedpotential case studies, estates teams, staff and student users in the case studyuniversities. We have relied heavily on information provided by estatesdepartments. We have been well supported by a team from Davis LangdonManagement Consulting who helped gather and analyse cost information onthe detailed case studies. Particular thanks are due to Bernard Dromgoole ofHEFCE and Sian Kilner of Kilner Planning, who have helped activelythroughout the project.

Foreword

This report, commissioned by the SpaceManagement Group, provides the link betweenteaching and learning practice and the impact ofdesign on performance (the wow factor). It is avaluable complement to the SMG report on theimpact on space of future changes in HE (ref2006/10), and to a study published in March2005 by CABE and sponsored by HEFCEentitled Design with distinction the value ofgood building design in higher education.Together these reports can provide a stimulus tofurther research, and to more efficient andeffective use of space.

Professor David ChiddickChairman of SMG Vice-Chancellor, University of Lincoln

2 Promoting space efficiency in building design 2006/09

1 Executive summaryThis publication is the outcome of a researchproject conducted by consultants AMA AlexiMarmot Associates for the UK Higher EducationSpace Management Group.

The aims were to identify which aspects ofbuilding design contribute most to optimumspace efficiency, and to produce good practicefor establishing space efficiency within highereducation institutions when embarking onbuilding projects.

The bulk of the publication comprises 15 casestudies of recent refurbishment, expansion,upgrading or new builds in higher educationinstitutions.

Below is a summary of what we have concludedto be 10 key points when seeking optimum spaceefficiency through building design. Below thatare 10 points of good practice.

Keys to space efficiency through buildingdesign (these are expanded on in section4.3.2)

Maximise the built space on the footprint ofnew buildings and by modest additions andextensions in existing buildings.

Match new uses to the existing built form inrefurbishment projects.

Provide a high ratio of usable area to grossbuilt area.

Capture balance areas for active use.

Provide versatile space, furniture andfittings that can be used for differentactivities.

Specify design features that allow differentactivities at different times.

Optimise space standards for effective work.

Create versatile office and research space,with appropriate open plan areas,supplemented by meeting and quiet spaces.

Optimise furniture sizes for effective work.

Provide for wireless data access to enablemaximum effective use of common space.

10 points of good practice for introducingspace efficiency (these are expanded on insection 6)

Appoint a champion for spacemanagement and cost in use.

Systematically collect and update space andcost information.

Agree targets and monitor their attainment.

Collect standardised utilisation data,including office space utilisation.

Collect and apply detailed cost information.

Incorporate space efficiency concepts intothe estate strategy.

Incorporate requirements for spaceefficiency into project briefs, feasibilitystudies, option appraisals and designreviews.

Develop and maintain a clear decision andcommunication structure for buildingprojects, including user groups.

Promote the benefits of versatile spaces andthe right furniture.

Include space efficiency information in post-occupancy evaluations.


2 Introduction

2.1 Remit and objectives

The four UK higher education funding bodieshave commissioned research into a wide range ofissues relating to space management in order tohelp higher education institutions (HEIs) managetheir space in an efficient and sustainable waythat meets their pedagogic, research and supportneeds.

This report describes the outcome of researchinto the role of building design in spaceefficiency, reporting to the UK Higher EducationSpace Management Group (SMG) as part of thebroader Space Management Project (SMP). Thestudy remit was to determine how design canmaximise efficient and effective space use for thefull range of higher education functions. Theassumption behind the study is that moreefficient space is essential in the contemporaryclimate in the higher education (HE) sector.(Various definitions of space efficiency areexamined in section 2.4 and the appendix.)

Further elaboration on our 10 good practice keypoints to improve space efficiency throughbuilding projects are detailed in section 6. Theycover processes for HE management and estatedepartments to execute at the estate and buildinglevel. They are based on desk research,experience of space efficient practice in othersectors and on the findings from our 15 casestudies. All the case studies are in section 8.

There is ongoing review and debate about theextent to which buildings and their design mayhave an impact on the reputation and success ofan HEI, through the recruitment and retention ofstudents or staff. While recognising that designquality may be important in this respect, this

report does not explore this potential effect ofthe quality of building design, which is coveredin more detail in a recent report from theCommission for Architecture and the BuiltEnvironment (CABE)1.

2.2 Setting the scene Student trends andacademic change

The context includes the following changeswithin higher education:

participation in higher education has beenincreasing overall, with a greater increase inpart-time undergraduates than full-time2

further increase in student numbers isexpected. The government target of 50% of18-30 year-olds attending HEIs could mean300,000 extra students by 20103

there is greater breadth in the types ofstudents, and new subject areas are rising inimportance (such as non-medical healthprofessions, media and creative arts),combined with new approaches to teachingand learning, and to the use of IT and e-learning4.

2.3 Setting the scene Impact on thedesign of space

Changes in higher education are beingaccompanied by, and in some cases causing,considerable modifications in buildings in theHEI estate. Space efficiency is improving acrossthe sector, with less space on average perstudent, institutions offering longer teachinghours, and more pooled space:

there was a small drop in non-residentialnet internal area (NIA) per student full-timeequivalent (FTE) between 1999-2000 and2001-025


1 The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), April 2005, Design with Distinction: the value of goodbuilding design in higher education. Written for CABE and the UK Higher Education Funding Councils by PriceWaterhouseCooperswith research by the University of the West of England.

2 Universities UK, 2004, Higher education in facts and figures, Summer 2004, Universities UK, viewed 11 January 2004,www.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk

3 Davis Langdon Everest, 2002, Cost model November 2002, available at www.davislangdon-uk/europe_middleeast/costdata.htmlunder Building Magazine 21st Century University Building.

4 JM Consulting, Teaching and learning infrastructure in higher education a report to HEFCE, Ref HEFCE 2002/31.

5 Estate Management Statistics (EMS), Annual report 2002, available at www.opdems.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pubfiles.pl

in 2004, 50% of HEIs were operating withless than 8.4 m2 NIA per FTE now,compared to 42% in 20006

HEI estates departments are carrying outmany projects specifically to achieve siteand building consolidation.

Space efficiency must be balanced against itseffectiveness. New modes of teaching andlearning, for example, often require a largerspace per student within teaching rooms plus theprovision of new student-centred learningenvironments across the estate. Offsetting theseincreased demands means that even greater spaceefficiencies may need to be sought in otherfacilities such as offices.

The management of space and its co-ordinationwith the wider aims of each HEI is particularlyimportant and has been considered in otherpapers of the SMP. The impact on space oftrends in HE has been examined as part of theSMP study7. The report covers future changes inhigher education and confirms the likelihoodthat HEIs will have a prominent and stablephysical presence in the long term and act asmagnets for other uses, rather than dispersingphysically. The report suggests that future spacerequirements will be affected by student numbersand preferences largely outside the control ofHEIs. Institutions can, however, exert influenceover the impact on space demand that arisesfrom changes in academic disciplines orpedagogic approaches, and from managementfactors.

Changes in the external and internalenvironment will cause all types of HEI be theyteaching-led, liberal arts, or research-led toremodel and redevelop their estates to meet newneeds, often to provide more space forunstructured/ad hoc self-directed learning andpeer teaching among students. Seminars willoften be accommodated by creating more small

teaching rooms. Administrative functions areexpanding, which may offset the spaceefficiencies achieved by introducing more openplan office areas.

2.4 Definitions

2.4.1 Measurement

Advice on improving space efficiency must beaccompanied by clarity in measuring thatefficiency. Measurement is necessary so thattargets can be set and space efficiency attained.Space efficiency measurements depend on floorarea, which must be measured using agreeddefinitions. There are several valid ways tomeasure space and analyse the total area withina building. They are based on the principle ofdistinguishing the areas used for differentfunctions, including the structure of a building.

The concept of usable space and its relationshipto balance areas (ie, areas that enable abuilding to function, such as lifts and toilets)and/or net internal area, is critical when seekingspace efficiency. There are differences in the wayspace is described in commercial buildings andHEIs. Gross and net areas are distinguished inboth sectors but usable space may be differentlydescribed. The appendix sets down definitionsused by the Royal Institute of CharteredSurveyors (RICS)8 and in Estate ManagementStatistics (EMS)9. The compilers of EMSdefinitions suggest that in time a shift to matchthe RICS definitions could and should beachieved. This would reduce the potential forconfusion between different measurementmethods.

2.4.2 Space efficiency Buildings

The space efficiency of any building relates tothree factors:

the quantity of space, generally calculated interms of floor area though occasionallyvolume may also be relevant


6 EMS, Annual report 2003, available at www.opdems.ac.uk/cgi-bin/pubfiles.pl

7 Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Paul Temple, Institute of Education, 2006, Impact on space of future changes inhigher education. UK Space Management Project. Ref HEFCE 2006/10.

8 RICS, 2001, Code of Measuring Practice A Guide for Surveyors and Valuers 5th edition, RICS Books, London.

9 IPD Occupiers Property Database in association with GVA Grimley, EMS data definitions, at www.opdems.ac.ukpublished November 2004.

the number of users, potential and actual

the amount of time the space is used.

A building can be said to be designed for spaceefficiency when it provides:

a. The minimum necessary space for thedesired functions to be properlyaccommodated, with minimum wastebetween net internal area and gross internalarea (NIA:GIA, commonly expressed as theratio net:gross) or between net usable areaand net internal area (NUA:NIA). Thesemeasures are normally expressed aspercentages.

b. The minimum space necessary for effectivelearning and research per FTE student(space per student FTE) or staff (space perstaff member, or laboratory worker, FTE).

c. A high level of space utilisation because thespace is used for the maximum possibleamount of time10. This concept is generallyapplied to utilisation of teaching space,though it can also be applied to office spaceutilisation11. It is usually expressed as thepercentage of hours of use compared to abenchmark (typically 50 hours per weekduring term time), multiplied by thepercentage of occupied seats.

2.4.3 Space efficiency Site and estate

Considering briefly the site on which thebuilding stands, a space efficient building is onethat makes most use of the site, and thereforehas a maximum gross external area in relation tothe site area (GEA:site area).

This concept can be extended to an entirecampus. An estate can be considered efficient ifit uses all the land it has for buildings, landscapeand access well, while taking into account theneed for future expansion, and the density that issuited to the surrounding development.

Many of the case study buildings are part of anestate rationalisation process, seeking to reducethe number of buildings and concentrate onsmaller or fewer campuses. Inevitably estateefficiencies have been sought and generallyprovide ample justification for specific buildingprojects. This applies to buildings that arerefurbished, modified or built to accommodatethe organisational changes that often accompany,and may be the incentive for seeking, estaterationalisation.

2.4.4 Resource and cost efficiencies

Other efficiency measures incorporate conceptsof lifetime cost and use patterns over time. Wehave not explored these ideas in detail thoughthey are relevant in building projects that seek tomaximise efficiency benefits overall. Efficientspace in these terms is:

space that can be modified cost-effectivelywhen functional requirements change, thuspermitting reuse of buildings in the long-term

space that has been specified and detailed togive reasonable cost in use

space that is built to last and will have along life.


10 Education and Learning Wales, January 2002, Space Management - a Good Practice Guide, Higher Education FundingCouncil for Wales (HEFCW). These data are requested in the EMS returns.

11 Expressed as the percentage of hours that workspaces are used over a standard day, usually 10 hours from 8am to 6pm.

3 Study methodThe study method involved:

a literature review of available materialabout space measurement, utilisation andefficiency in university buildings

comparison with the body of knowledgeabout the provision of efficient space inother building types, especially offices

15 case studies of buildings that appeared toincorporate design ideas to enhance spaceefficiency.

The literature review examined space measuresand concepts of space efficiency currently used inthe UK and internationally. We looked at spacestandards that have been applied to differentdisciplines in HE at different times, thedevelopment of room utilisation measures, andthe increase in centrally timetabled, pooledrooms.

The 15 case studies cover recently completedbuilding projects ranging from very small tolarge, general teaching to highly technicallyspecialised space, new build and iconic tointernal rearrangement and refurbishment. Wevisited the sites, conducted interviews, examineddrawings and other documents, and thenanalysed the data. The selection, shown insection 8, covers: urban and campus contexts;institutions ranging from research focused toformer polytechnics mainly concerned withteaching; a wide range of disciplines; and a widegeographical spread12. All the case studies werechecked by the individual estates departmentsthat had provided the information. Our analysisof what they revealed is presented in section 7with the case study descriptions following.

In terms of resource efficiency, refurbishmentprojects are more efficient overall, even if thespace efficiency measures, as defined in 2.4, arethemselves not significantly improved. ManyHEIs have major programmes of refurbishment,

a trend that Barnett and Temples13 reporthighlights, and that can be expected to increasein future. Existing funding direction at theHigher Education Funding Council for England(HEFCE) encourages the refurbishment of spacerather than a more costly new building. Forthese reasons many refurbishment projects wereselected for the case studies.

Four cases, which appeared, from the first visits,to provide good information about spaceefficient design measures, were further analysedand additional material was gathered, includingcost information.

Research for each case study collected, analysedand collated the following information whereavailable:

use of the building

student FTEs using the building

type of campus, site and location

new or refurbishment project

date of completion

main client, design team, contractors

briefing information

cost overall (and GIA per m2)

building area (GIA, NIA and NUA)

photographic record

furniture measurements for research andlearning resource buildings.


12 A list of over 300 possible cases was initially drawn up, suggested by SMG, Kilner Planning, Davis Langdon from its wide clientlist, from a review of the technical literature and through our own contacts. This list was reduced to 60 and then further to 15.

13 Professor Ronald Barnett and Dr Paul Temple, Institute of Education, 2006, Impact on space of future changes in highereducation. UK Space Management Project. Ref HEFCE 2006/10.

4 Results

4.1 Key findings from desk research

The desk research suggests a number of pointsabout space efficiency and building design:

information about specific buildings, theirdesign and use is sketchy. Only a fewinstitutions appear to collect thisinformation systematically for all buildings

the contribution of any particular buildingto space efficiency or effectiveness is notusually identified in institutionalinformation

EMS data are compiled from individualbuilding information held by HEIs butcollated in an aggregated format by eachinstitution

space standards are commonly used as aguide for design, measured by discipline orfunction, and for office space, by seniorityand role. This was the case for theUniversity Grants Committee (UGC)standards in the past

in the UK the average space per studentFTE is lower than in many other countries particularly the US and Australia

utilisation data are collected by many HEIsfor teaching rooms, but are under-exploitedas a tool to manage space efficiency.Utilisation data for other spaces do notappear to be gathered.

4.2 Office space

Efficient use of space is well articulated in othersectors, especially for office buildings.Developers of speculative office space haveincreasingly sought to provide space-efficientbuildings, to improve product value. Owner-occupiers also seek space efficiency, in order tocontrol one of their major overheads. Typicallyoffice workspace in the UK averages 14-16 m2

NIA in large private organisations. Manyorganisations have embarked on projects toincrease space efficiency through strategies ofreducing the average size of enclosed offices anddesks in open plan areas, eliminating all solooffices and introducing office hotelling formobile staff. Much importance is also placed onreducing the space taken up by filing anddocument storage through the use of highdensity storage, efficient filing furniture,electronic filing and knowledge management.Some of these solutions are applicable to the HEIsector though not widely used as yet.

In the office sector, there are well-established keyperformance indicators for space efficiency. AnNIA:GIA ratio of 85% represents a good ratio oftenant area to landlord area from a landlordspoint of view, and an NUA:NIA14 ratio of 80%represents an efficiently designed office buildingfrom a tenants point of view, where primarycirculation does not reduce the usable areaunreasonably.15

4.3 Key findings from case studies

4.3.1 Data

The HEIs in the case studies have not generallycaptured or used data to promote spaceefficiency. There are some exceptions, but on thebasis of our sample, this is not common in thesector:

a. Space efficiency has not generally beenpresent or high on the agenda in mostbuilding projects. For space efficiency to bedelivered it must be emphasised more,especially during the briefing and earlydesign stages.

b. Measurements of space efficiency, such asnet:gross floor area, are rarely captured orused. Those provided for the EMS, such asspace per student FTE, are not related toindividual buildings. The measurements thatare available do not appear to be


14 NUA (net usable area) = NIA minus primary circulation routes for fire exits.

15 Eley, J & Marmot, AF 1995, Understanding Offices what every manager needs to know about officebuildings, Penguin Books, London; and Marmot, AF & Eley, J 2000, Office Space Planning Designing forTomorrows Workforce, McGraw-Hill, New York.

incorporated into the thinking behindproject briefs.

c. Feedback data are not regularly collected byHEIs. There is little feedback informationabout floor areas, furniture sizes or spaceefficiency, so projects cannot benefit bylearning from previous examples.

d. Utilisation data are usually only collectedfor teaching spaces, sometimes only forpooled teaching spaces. There is scope touse such data far more powerfully, ensuringcompatibility in measurement across HEIsand collection of data for more space types,especially offices.

e. While data on capital spending on projectsis generally available, the quality of cost-in-use data captured by the case studyinstitutions varied significantly, with anumber simply capturing data on a campus-wide (rather than a building-specific) basis.

4.3.2 Space efficiency through building design

We have identified several design measures, somein common use, adopted to maximise spaceefficiency16:

a. Maximising the built space on the sitefootprint of new buildings and modestadditions and extensions to existingbuildings can have a significant impact.Design strategies include:

adding a new outer skin or extra areaor building on the roof (seen in casestudies 9 and 14)

filling in atria and voids in the floorplan, making buildings deeper fromwindow to window and providingincreased floor area on essentially thesame footprint (seen in case studies 4and 9)

small extensions, sometimesincorporating specialised uses, allowbuildings to fulfil new functionswithout much increase in area or loss

of site amenity (seen in case studies 8and 10).

b. Matching new uses to the existing buildingtype in refurbishment projects (case studies3 and 4).

c. Capturing balance areas for active usewhere possible (case study 12).

d. Providing versatile space, furniture andfittings that can be used for differentactivities (case studies 1, 3 and 4).

e. Specifying design features that allowdifferent activities at different times (casestudies 3 and 4).

f. Optimising space standards for effectivework (case studies 1 and 14).

g. Creating more versatile office and researchspace, open plan areas as appropriate,supplemented by additional meeting andquiet spaces (case studies 2, 5, 7 and 13).

h. Optimising furniture sizes for effective work(case studies 1 and 14).

i. Providing for wireless data access to enableoccasional use of common space.

In addition to design measures the case studiesalso show that management of space plays asignificant role. Many of the case studies useopen plan areas, especially for administrativestaff, recognising that these are space efficientand reduce the cost of churn. Group rooms foracademic offices are being adopted in somecases, to help integrate related disciplines, withan added advantage of opportunities for spacesaving. Reduction in solo offices does not alwaysreceive support from senior management, and israrely popular with academics. It is moresuccessful when carefully managed, as forexample at Sheffield Hallam University, whereusers perceived difficulties were addressed andthe advantages exploited.

Management can also play a role in controllingthe overall size of the workplace footprint by


16 The case study numbering reflects the list in Figure 1, section 7. Not all ideas listed were found in thecase studies.

encouraging efficient storage habits, andinvesting in electronic filing and knowledgemanagement.

Space efficiency is being increased in some HEIsby making as much teaching space as possiblepooled and centrally bookable. This is notnecessarily affected by building design, thoughthe detailed design of equipment and finishesmay be used to encourage more opportunities forgeneral use of teaching spaces. Location alsomatters. Teaching rooms used by a diversepopulation should be located where they can beeasily found even by people unfamiliar with aparticular building, and be easily controlled forsecurity. Locations at ground level and nearstairs and lifts are desirable.

Standards are an important management tooland can play an important role in introducingefficiencies. Space standards or norms aregenerally desired, and still in common use,especially to gauge building requirements asprojects start. They are often based on the oldUGC or Polytechnics and Colleges FundingCouncil (PCFC) standards, usually reduced by afactor determined by each HEI as suitable for itsindividual purposes.


5 Costs and benefitsEvidence suggests that when the HE sector getsthe development process right it can deliverbuildings and facilities that are comparable incost with any other sector. Indeed, many HEIs,particularly those with a significant internationalstatus, now benchmark themselves against theseother sectors rather than against each other andare moving away from best in university classbuildings. For instance, when delivering ascientific research building a university maybenchmark itself against a leading private sectorlaboratory, and when delivering a facultybuilding it may look to review what it isproviding against British Council for Offices fit-out guidelines.

Having said that, the HE sector delivers a rangeof facilities and building types that is far broaderthan almost any other sector and, therefore,every building can be considered prototypical.This range, with some of the other uniquecharacteristics of the HE sector, means that thereare a number of challenges in delivering a newfacility.

5.1 Issues affecting costs

Some of the issues that affect costs and thereforeuseful cost-benchmarking are as follows:

the need to include significant amounts ofancillary space (such as retail space, or cafareas) rather than primary functional spacewithin a new building

restrictions imposed by funding and phasingmay mean the optimum facility cannot beprovided

the pressure on finite funds to address asignificant backlog of maintenance workpromotes a make-do and mend approachrather than a longer term redevelopmentstrategy

lack of funds to maintain new facilities

the need for flexibility and adaptability toaccommodate any future changes inteaching strategy and the universitys long-term aspirations

for inner city universities, a lack of spacedrives institutions toward the (small scale)refurbishment of existing space and leavesthem unable to solve some space standardissues that a new building would overcome

space use norms on an existing campus canmean that the overall space per student FTEcontinues to be higher than could beachieved on a greenfield site

the inability of small- to medium-sizedrefurbishment projects to make effectiveamounts of surplus space available

the need to spend significant amounts oninfrastructure upgrades before usable spacecan be refurbished

the type of institution research, teaching,science based, arts based etc

the briefing process and the need for strongacademic leadership throughout the project:aspirations must be clearly identified, notover-specified, and unnecessary (or late)changes should not be introduced

funding streams and sources that placegreater emphasis on capital cost limits (and,in particular, cost per m2 limits) rather thanspace efficiency or whole life costconsiderations

anomalies in the capture of historical data.

The way many HEIs capture and analyse costdata means that information that is publiclyavailable is often of little use when trying tocompare in detail how efficient one specificbuilding is against another. Historically, thetraditional way to record cost data has been on acost per m2 of GIA basis and this will beinfluenced by many different factors.Consequently, there may be very little correlationbetween the cost per m2 GIA, user satisfactionand space use within the building. Analysingdata on a simple cost per m2 GIA basis withoutfurther data sources is therefore of limited use.


5.2 Conclusions

Space efficient building design can be helped by:

ensuring that space efficiency is a conscioustarget for each project

collection and use of data on space, cost,and use, for strategic decision-making andthroughout projects

incorporating appropriate specific designideas found in the case studies

careful specification and planning offurniture

following good process in all decisions.

Space efficiency as a specific goal did not seem tohave been overtly expressed in most of the casestudies. The exceptions are buildings which weredesigned as part of an estate consolidationstrategy, rather than as space-efficient buildingsin their own right.

Generally, the data about space that is availableto HEIs is not as well-used as it could be, andmore data is required. Great variety isencountered when looking at the buildings ofdifferent HEIs. This supports the need for HEIsto collect their own space efficiency measuresover time, as well as relating their measures tothose of other HEIs, through the EMS process.

The design ideas that are most helpful, such ascreating versatile, multifunctional spaces or openplan and shared office areas, are closely affectedby assumptions about the management of spaceand its ownership and therefore to theorganisational structure and culture. Support atthe highest level is needed for the introduction ofmany of these concepts, both to clarify them inthe briefing process and to get buy-in from theusers.

Furniture needs to be considered early in aproject. Where case study HEIs commissionedfurniture specifically for a particular use, spaceefficiency was not found to be a clearlyarticulated requirement, although small sizeswere in fact bought. New design ideas forfurniture that would help multi-use or be morespace efficient for a particular building may beneeded from traditional, or from new, suppliers.

Furniture innovation that leads to efficient,functional and attractive spaces should be soughtfor student seating, staff desks and all storage.


6 Good practice guidance tools for achieving spaceefficiencyHEIs can take a number of steps to implementgreater space efficiency, which are listed in theexecutive summary. Here we expand on those 10keys to success.

6.1 Appoint a champion for space andcost-in-use

A champion (or champions) is needed for spaceand for cost-in-use. The champion should havethe time, resources and authority to contribute topolicy decisions as well as to influence individualprojects. It could be the same person or twoseparate individuals. This champion needs toprovide a report on space efficiency to the board,senior management, and to each faculty at leastannually. Champions should be involved insetting space efficiency and cost-in-use targets,checking project designs to see that these targetsare taken into account, and ensuring that follow-up is achieved through appropriate post-occupancy evaluations (POEs).

6.2 Systematically collect and update spaceinformation

A database of information about buildings,internal spaces and faculty or departmental usersmakes space efficiency policies easier toimplement. The database should provide goodtrend information about space requirements onwhich future briefs can be built. The databaseshould include area measurements distinguishinggross, net and balance or net usable categories.The areas should be checked against as-builtdrawings to ensure they match and be updated ifbuilding changes are made. A standardnomenclature should be part of the database, toallow each room type to be categorised. Thedatabase should link to, or incorporate, detailsof post-occupancy surveys, including details ofthe space standards achieved and in use and theusers reactions to these standards.

6.3 Agree space targets, monitor theirattainment and report to senior management

Space targets should be developed for the HEsector for the following categories:

GEA:site area

net:gross area

NIA/student FTE

office NUA/office user FTE

teaching space utilisation

utilisation of other spaces such as officesand learning spaces.

The case studies indicate that net usable:grossfloor area ratios in learning resource centres arelikely to be higher than in general teachingbuildings; while specialist buildings, such asscience research and performing arts, will havelower ratios.

EMS data should incorporate area efficiencymeasures of net usable:gross area, for entireestates, and for specific buildings. This wouldallow benchmark information to be built upacross the sector. Space ratios for specificacademic disciplines should be developed.

Individual HEIs should collect and monitor theirown detailed information for each building tocompare with sector-wide targets.

6.4 Collect standardised utilisation data,including office space utilisation

Utilisation data are key to understanding howwell a building meets its objectives. A targetutilisation rate for HEIs suggested by Educationand Learning Wales (ELWa)17 is 30% utilisationacross a full teaching week. HEIs should carryout utilisation studies using standard proceduresfor the purpose of benchmarking.

All teaching rooms, whether centrally timetabledand allocated, or used by one faculty ordepartment alone, should be monitored.Utilisation information should be linked to the


17 ELWa, January 2002, Space Management: a Good Practice Guide.

scheduling of teaching rooms. It is required byEMS and should be collected in the same way byall HEIs.

The case studies demonstrate that these data arenot gathered consistently, for example they varyin:

length of observed day

percentage of rooms observed

whether only centrally bookable rooms arereviewed

how room capacity is defined

how actual capacity is recorded.

Non-teaching spaces such as office areas orlearning resource centres should be includedwherever practical in order to allow appropriatespace management policies to be developedaround known use patterns.

6.5 Collect and apply detailed costinformation

Space champions should ensure proper captureof as-built cost data so that real data can be usedto establish parameters for future projects, whichwill help complete the feedback loop. To enableproper comparison between buildings, wesuggest that the following data should becollected:

a proper elemental as-built cost analysistogether with brief specification notes

a schedule of abnormal costs and key costdrivers

details of how the contingency was spent(eg unforeseen construction problems oruser/client change)

key details for briefing including theexisting space standards and those to beachieved within the new facility

running and maintenance costs on abuilding-by-building basis rather than thesimple campus-wide analysis that iscurrently common

a more appropriate unit cost than cost perm2 that recognises the diversity within the

HE sector. Consideration could be given tothe construction cost per pound of incomeper m2 as one alternative.

Each HEI should establish an appropriate budgetto fit out space to be refurbished in manyinstances an insufficient allowance is set whichunnecessarily restricts flexibility. Over time, thismeans that more significant work needs to beundertaken. HEIs should focus on producingflexible space that can be easily changed.

Institutions should consider spending moreinitially to achieve long-term cost savingsthrough appropriate flexibility, and spendingmore per unit area while reducing the area to befitted out. The aim is to make high quality,flexible space work harder without increasingoverall project costs.

The benefits of greater flexibility can beillustrated when the HEI undertakes robustbenchmarking to establish the cost impact andthe usage benefits. Universities should considerestablishing examples of best practice solutionswithin the campus against which individualschemes can be compared and against which theimpact of more or less flexibility can bemeasured, for instance the cost impact ofintroducing retractable seating to lecture theatresrather than fixed seating.

6.6 Incorporate space efficiency conceptsinto the estate strategy

All projects should be set in the context of theoverall estate strategy of the university so thattheir contribution can be maximised. Spaceshould serve the main purpose of the universityin delivering education and research. The estatestrategy, and its efficiency targets, should be co-ordinated with other important universitypolicies such as the strategic development plan,infrastructure plan, and teaching and learningstrategy.

Data about buildings being vacated should bereviewed to ensure that spatial and functionalimprovements are genuinely created in newbuildings. Adding floors, or infilling a part of thefootprint that was originally open, or both,makes intrinsically more efficient use of the


immediate site. The potential contribution ofdifferent buildings and sites in this respect shouldbe understood and incorporated as part of theestate strategy.

6.7 Incorporate requirements for spaceefficiency into project briefs, feasibilitystudies, option appraisals and design review

HEIs should include space efficiency within therequirements for the choice of design team ordesign/build team in invitations to tender (ITTs),Office of the Journal of the European Union(OJEU) notices and in interviews. Hard datafrom shortlisted teams on the space efficiency oftheir own recent work should be reviewed.During feasibility studies and option appraisals,space champions should incorporate concepts ofspace efficiency in assessing alternative strategies.

Institutions should make sure that all projectbriefs are properly formulated with the rightconsultation and feedback to users. This includesmanaging stakeholders expectations, explainingreasons for any space efficiency issues, andresolving any difficulties this may cause. Iforganisational or space policy changes are takingplace as part of the building project (a verycommon situation), consultation, follow-up, andsupport should take place during the period ofchange, especially for people moving fromenclosed offices to open plan work areas. Timeshould be built into the project to allow this tohappen.

In early stages of the design process, HEIs shouldrequest area measurements from the design teamto compare against norms and against the brief.

6.8 Develop and maintain a clear decisionand communication structure for buildingprojects, including user groups

Every project needs a clear structure fordecisions on scope, targets and details. Thebriefing process is exceptionally important andrequires careful management throughout theproject. Communication about reasons fordesign decisions is needed. Creating a user teamthat is kept in close contact with the project as itdevelops is a helpful approach at all times, andparticularly when there are significant changes,for example to policies about space entitlement.

The user team at the design stage may laterremain as the team involved in longer termmanagement of the building. This is generally ahighly effective way to ensure that a buildingcontinues to work efficiently for the users. Ifgroups from several different disciplines sharethe building, the user team is a usefulcommunication forum.

6.9 Promote the benefits of versatilespaces, with the right furniture

Reduction in ownership of space is one of thekeys to more flexible planning and the spaceefficiencies that brings. While acknowledging thestrong sense of territory in academicdepartments, users need to be encouraged toappreciate that the move towardsmultidisciplinary courses, the increase in centralbooking of teaching space and the pervasivenessof information technology, will make it easier forrooms to be used for many different types ofteaching and learning by several faculties.

Generically designed rooms can easily bereassigned to different departments. Localamenity space for both staff and students, suchas coffee shops, breakout areas and wireless-enabled computer zones, are examples ofversatile spaces. Versatility may involve highercapital cost for more equipment or finishes,which must be justified by improved utilisation.

Estates departments along with userrepresentatives should define the flexibility theywish to achieve before a design team isappointed. They need to consider the effectivelifespan of the proposed space use. Uses that areunlikely to change significantly over the mediumterm (10-15 years) require only limited amountsof flexibility.

The way in which furniture fits into a space hasan important influence on its use and efficiency.Measurements should be taken of existingsituations, especially if long-term furniturecontracts are being placed. Workplace furnitureincludes desks and storage, both of which arevitally important. Appropriate teaching roomand learning area furniture should be exploitedto the maximum.


6.10 Include space efficiency information inpost-occupancy evaluations

A post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is a keyelement in the feedback loop that allows:

minor problems to be corrected

successes to be replicated

repetition of mistakes to be avoided.

Post-occupancy surveys should include details ofthe space standards targeted and in use and theusers reactions to these standards, anddocument building space efficiency. Informationshould be collected through questionnaires,interviews, and recruitment and leavinginformation from the human resourcesdepartment, to verify whether or not usersperceive space efficient buildings as better orworse than others.

HEFCE and the Association of UniversityDirectors of Estates (AUDE) are currentlylooking at methodologies for post-occupancyevaluation and their suitability for HEIs. AGuide to post-occupancy evaluations will bepublished by AUDE in spring 2006. The HigherEducation Design Quality Forum (HEDQF) haspreviously suggested the De Montfort methodwhich has been in use for some time.

The name post occupancy can be misleading asevaluation should take place at the start of aproject, to allow the setting of targets and goalsto be made against real information, as well asafter occupation has been established for somemonths to assess how well these targets havebeen met. The post-project evaluations that arecurrently often carried out as POEs focus less onunderstanding the efficiency of the space inrelation to its uses, and more on understandingthe quality of the process and its outcome as afinished project. This must change if POE is tohelp space efficiency to be achieved.


7 Case study comparisonsWe carried out several comparisons of the case study material on different measures as summarised in thefollowing tables and charts.

Figure 1 Area analysis of the 15 case studies showing a range of area efficiency measures

NIA/ Area m2 Area m2 Area m2 NIA: NUA: student

Ref Building type Name and HEI User GIA NIA NUA GIA % GIA % FTE m2

1 Science/ Biomedical Sir Alexander Biomedical 25,517 19,998 13,308 78.4% 52.2% 13.3Fleming Building, SciencesImperial College

2 Science/Health Health and Well Health 8,142 6,770 5,225 83.1% 64.2% N/AStudies Being Building,

Sheffield Hallam University

3 Education St. Andrews Faculty of 12,275 10,676 8,101 87.0% 66.0% 6.36Building, University Educationof Glasgow

4 Performing Arts Foyle Arts Building, Performing Arts 2,714 2,167 1,773 79.8% 65.3% 3.65University of Ulster

5 Science/ NanoscienceNanoscience Research Centre, Nanoscience 1,720 1,569 1,134 91.2% 65.9% N/A

Cambridge University

6 Science/ Chemistry Chemistry Research Chemistry 14,174 11,718 8,987 82.7% 63.4% N/ALaboratory, Oxford University

7 General/ Owen Building, Multidisciplinary 10,323 88,491 7,621 82.3% 73.8% N/AMultidisciplinary Sheffield Hallamteaching University

8 General/ J Block, General 8,238 5,882 5,605 71.4% 68.0% N/AMultidisciplinary University of teaching/Adminteaching Glamorgan

9 General/ Malet Street Building, Multidisciplinary 7,715 N/A 6,042 N/A 78.3% N/AMultidisciplinary Birkbeck Collegeteaching

10 General/ Canal Side East, Multidisciplinary 4,187 3,333 2,916 79.6% 69.6% N/AMultidisciplinary University ofteaching Huddersfield

11 General/ Clarendon Building, General teaching/ 11,088 6,599 5,470 59.5% 49.3% N/AMultidisciplinary University of Student Servicesteaching/ Student TeessideServices

12 General/ Holgate Building, Student Services 4,745 4,123 3,229 86.9% 68.1% N/AMultidisciplinary York St. John teaching/ Student University CollegeServices

13 Business Michael A. Ashcroft Business 3,675 3,130 2,383 85.2% 64.8% N/ABusiness School, Anglia Ruskin University

14 LRC Harrison Learning Learning Resource 10,980 10,025 8,851 91.3% 80.6% N/ACentre, University Centreof Wolverhampton

15 LRC Great Central Learning Resource 5,063 4,323 3,665 85.4% 72.4% N/AWarehouse, CentreUniversity of Lincoln

Source: Calculations by AMA from drawings supplied by estates departments.


Figure 2 Area per student FTE at building and university level (m2 NIA)*

*Data from three detailed case studies compared to EMS 2003-04 Source: EMS data from estates departments; building areas calculated by AMA.

Figure 3 Area per researcher (m2/workspace)*

* Desk surface, footprint, typical room average NUA from six case studies and University of Sussex.N.B. Desk surface = horizontal working area; footprint area = space taken by a desk, chair and localstorage; room average = total room area NUA divided by number of desks.

Source: Areas calculated by AMA from drawings provided by estates departments and site measurements of desks.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Imperial College

Campus

University of Glasgow University of Ulster

Building

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SAF p

hD

Malet

Stre

et

SAF P

ost d

oc

resea

rch

Unive

rsity

of

Suss

ex

Oxfor

d Ch

emist

ry

Malet

Stre

et

Nanosc

ience

Desk surface area

Footprint area

Room average

Sir Alexander Health andSpace type Fleming Foyle Arts St. Andrew's Well Being

Teaching and learning 13.3% 51.9% 23.8% 30.2%

Research 23.9% N/A 4.4% N/A

Teaching/research support 5.3% N/A 2.1% 2.8%

Staff office space 8.9% 10.4% 21.1% 23.9%

Student amenity 1.5% N/A 4.7% 4.5%

Circulation 15.5% 18.7% 33.1% 18.1%

Core 17.2% 13.9% 6.7% 16.2%

Other 14.4% 5.1% 4.1% 4.2%

Source: Calculations by AMA, from drawings provided by estates departments.


Figure 4 Area per workspace in libraries or learning resource centres (m2/desk space)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Unive

rsity

of

Wolv

erham

pton

Birkb

eck

Colle

ge

Unive

rsity

of Lin

coln

Midd

lesex

Unive

rsity

York St

. Joh

n

Univ

ersity

Coll

ege

Unive

rsity

of Ulste

rLSE

Desk surface area

Footprint

Source: Calculations by AMA, from drawings provided by estates departments and site measurement of desks, fromfive case studies plus LSE and Middlesex University.

Figure 5 Analysis of area allocation to different functions from our four detailed casestudies (% GIA)

Figure 7 Space per desk in 12 case study buildings (m2 NUA)

Building NUA per:

TypicalDesk Typical 1 Typical 2 3-10

Work foot- person person person Typical surface print office office office 11+ office

Nanoscience Research Centre 2.2 4.0 9.0 5.3

Michael A. Ashcroft Business School 1.4 3.6 11.6

St. Andrew's 12.9 7.0 8.6

Canal Side East 1.7 2.9 11.9 6.0

Malet Street 1.1 2.2 10.2

Sir Alexander Fleming Building 0.9 16.2 8.3

Foyle Arts Building (desk 1) 1.7 2.9 11.5

Foyle Arts Building (desk 2) 1.6 4.2 7.3

Clarendon Building (desk 1) 2.3 4.3 11.0 7.0 8.4

Clarendon Building (desk 2) 1.7 2.9 11.0

Clarendon Building (desk 3) 1.7 2.9 12.2

Chemistry Research Laboratory 2.6 4.8 14.0

Health and Wellbeing 1.8 3.2 10.2 7.4 6.0

J Block 1.5 2.6 15.2 8.6

Holgate Building 1.5 2.6 9.7 7.5 4.8

Source: Calculations by AMA from drawings with furniture layouts provided by estates departments.


Figure 6 Teaching room utilisation for three case studies (% utilised)

Source: Data from the estates departments and ELWA: Space management: A good practice guide, 2002.

N.B. Utilisation = frequency x occupancy %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

University of Ulster

University of Glasgow

Actual case study building

Actual for campusTarget campus

ELWA 2002 30%

Sector Median EMS 2003-0425%

Sheffield Hallam University


Figure 8 Furniture footprints from selected case studies

Source: AMA measurements from layout plans provided by estates departments and site measurements.

Figure 9 The main cost data: four detailed case studies

/m2

Size /m2 /m2 Running and

Building (m2 GIA) Function GIA NUA / FTE maintenance

Sir Alexander 25,517 Science 3,100 5,940 not available 106

Fleming Building Building

Health & Wellbeing 8,142 Faculty 1,216 1,895 not available 32 (2)

Building

St. Andrews Building 9,632 Faculty 519 (1) 617 2,490 130

Foyle Arts Building 2,714 Arts 610 935 2,573 21 (3)

Source: Davis Langdon from figures provided by estates departments.

Notes

(1) = Excludes subsequent costs to complete the building

(2) = Running costs only

(3) = Maintenance costs only


Figure 10 Typical cost ranges for university buildings compared to case studies (/m2 GIA)

Source: Davis Langdon

Arts buildings part refurb

/m2 GIA

Faculty buildings part refurb

Faculty buildings new build

Biomedical research buildings

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Foyle Arts Building (610/m2)

St Andrew s Building (519/m2)

Health & Wellbeing Building (1,216/m2)

Sir Alexander Fleming Building (3,100/m2)

8 Case studies

Case studies of the following 15 buildings are described in this section. Case studies 1-4 are covered inmore depth.

Ref Building and institution name User Date Type of build Area m2 GIA

1 Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Biomedical Sciences 1998 New 25,517Imperial College

2 Health and Wellbeing Building, Health 2004 Refurbishment + extension 8,142Sheffield Hallam University

3 St. Andrew's Building, Faculty of Education 2003 Refurbishment 12,275University of Glasgow

4 Foyle Arts Building, Performing Arts 2003 Refurbishment + extension 2,714University of Ulster

5 Nanoscience Research Centre, Nanoscience 2003 New 1,720Cambridge University

6 Chemistry Research Chemistry 2003 New 14,174Laboratory, Oxford University

7 Owen Building, Multidisciplinary 1996-2004 Refurbishment 10,323Sheffield Hallam University

8 J Block, General teaching/ 1997, 1999, Refurbishment 8,238University of Glamorgan admin 2002

9 Malet Street Building, Multidisciplinary 2003 Refurbishment + extension 7,715Birkbeck College

10 Canal Side East, Multidisciplinary 1998 Refurbishment + extension 4,187University of Huddersfield

11 Clarendon Building, General teaching/ 1999 Refurbishment 11,088University of Teesside student services

12 Holgate Building, Student services 2005 Refurbishment + extension 4,745York St. John University College

13 Michael A Ashcroft Business 2003 New 3,675Business School, Anglia Ruskin University

14 Harrison Learning Centre, Learning resource 2002 Refurbishment + extension 10,980University of Wolverhampton centre

15 Great Central Warehouse, Learning resource 2004 Refurbishment + extension 5,063University of Lincoln centre


Case study 1


Sir AlexanderFleming Building Imperial College, London

The Sir Alexander Fleming (SAF) buildinguses space saving methods such asmultidisciplinary research labs andexpandable seminar/teaching spaces toeconomise on space. The research forum(pictured right) has a dual function: it is theprimary circulation space throughout theSAF and it doubles as an open planresearch write-up and study space forpostgraduate students.

OverviewThe building is centrally located within theSouth Kensington campus of Imperial Collegeand consolidates three previous research andteaching facilities into one modern researchdepartment.

It is located on the footprint of the old RCSIIbuilding as well as an adjacent vacant plot, andholds the Department of Biomedical Sciences,the Undergraduate Medicine offices and LifeSciences departments. It provides facilities forundergraduate medical and research studentsand houses 400 members of staff. The buildingincludes ample research space, specialised as wellas multidisciplinary laboratories, lecturetheatres, seminar rooms and office space spreadover seven storeys. In addition to the academicfacilities, a caf, catering and break-out spacesare available.

The central atrium or research forum spansvertically from the second to the sixth floor, andis designed to act as a unifier between the levels,encouraging social interaction between theoccupants, primarily postgraduate researchstudents.

Briefing, design and constructionprocess

Objectives

The existing distribution of teaching facilities formedical undergraduates was not attractive topotential students. The need to consolidate ontoa single site, as well as the necessary replacementof dilapidated buildings were the primary driversbehind this project.

Reports into NHS activities and hospitalprovision raised questions about the approach toteaching undergraduate medicine, whichreinforced the desire to bring the Biologydepartment onto the main site. By incorporatingthis function into the SAF building, space couldbe released for conversion to student residences.Funding was available from the NHS for thisproject as well as from HEFCE.

Interaction between different teams andindividuals was desired by the academicdisciplines involved.

Photo: AMA

Briefing

A paper was prepared to establish the actualspace that would be required, to create abusiness case. There was no head of the facultyat the time to provide specific detailedinformation, and space norms were used, basedon the UGC norms reduced by 10%.

The then estates director and project manager(employed specifically for this building) were themain drivers behind the project.

The early part of the design process includedconsulting user groups as far as possible. Theeventual occupants of the building were not yetknown, but potential users provided informationabout requirements. The lack of specificoccupants at the start of the briefing processpromoted the development of a very genericdesign. In addition, the university had madevisits to other similar buildings in the sector,both in the UK and abroad.

The restricted size of the site meant that spaceeconomies were important and the design teamencouraged consideration of open plan

laboratories. This allowed for changes in sizes ofresearch teams to take place while using thespace most efficiently, and was accepted as asuitable design concept. This approach wasadopted in the final design.

However, the implication of open plan flexiblelaboratories is that they have to be providedwith services suitable for a wide range ofdisciplines.

Placing these laboratories on the outside of thebuilding with the open plan research write-uparea in an internal location allowed the use of anopen atrium to provide interaction space,circulation and an economical layout for desks.Had the labs been internal, the atrium could nothave been open and the interactive feel wouldnot have been created.

As the design progressed and real users wereidentified, the open plan concept was somewhatreduced in scope so that a few more enclosedoffices were provided.


Fourth floor plan

Sketch: AMA

The multidisciplinary labs have been designed ina generic manner where laboratory worktablesare outfitted with the basics such as power, gasand microscope. Specific equipment and toolsare stored in an adjacent room, and used asnecessary.

Procurement

Planning restrictions on the mass of the buildingled to the design of the usable, open plan atriumspace. Westminster planners objected to theoverdevelopment of the site initially in terms ofdensity and mass. To overcome this obstacle inscale, Foster and Partners included an atrium.

Imperial College chose to use constructionmanagement (CM) as the route for procurement,which was new to the college at the time.However, the SAF building was one of the firstlarge scale new build projects that the collegehad undertaken. The project had a number ofcritical procurement drivers, not least the mergerof Imperial College with both St Marys MedicalSchool and Charing Cross, which necessitatedthe requirement for a single biomedical facultybuilding. Had a more traditional approach toprocurement been adopted, the building wouldnot have been completed in time for the openingof the new faculty.

Due to the creation at the outset of the project ofa new, enlarged faculty, there was no detailedbrief so the construction management approachenabled this brief to be developed in tandemwith undertaking the basement and frameconstruction.

In short, a packaged approach to theprocurement was the only way to deliver thiscomplex project within the desired timeframe.

Costs

This project comprises a new build biomedicalresearch building, with an emphasis on creatinga space that is both functional and inspiring. Theoverall construction cost of 3,100/m2 (based at2005 price levels) should be benchmarkedagainst a range of 2,400/m2 to 3,200/m2 for anew build development. This puts the projecttowards the high end of the range, but that is tobe expected given the location and restraints ofthe site.

Imperial College has, over the last six years,undertaken minimal upgrades to part of thefacility. In particular, there has been an emphasison increasing the flexibility of some of theteaching laboratories and the introduction ofcampus-wide audiovisual teaching facilities.


SAF building: Space breakdown by type GIA

Teaching 13%

Research 25%

Teaching/research support 5%

Staff office space 9%Student amenity 1%

Circulation 15%

Core 18%

Other 14%

Source: Area calculations by AMA

In 2004, Imperial College spent in the region of500,000 on upgrading the fifth floor teachinglaboratory.

The construction cost excludes free-standingfurniture, equipment, and the fitting out of thecatering and basement areas. These budgets weremanaged directly by Imperial College and thereis no cost information available to assess them.However, we consider it the norm that these areexcluded from the construction costs.

It is not known if the existing buildings weresold to provide funds for the new building.

With respect to running costs and maintenancecosts, we have been able to analyse the EMSdata for Imperial Colleges South Kensingtoncampus, which it has used to provide anindication of the running and maintenance costsof the building. This information is not specificto the building itself and has been calculated ona pro rata basis by area.

We do, however, understand that the SAFbuilding accounts for a high proportion ofImperial Colleges energy use on the SouthKensington campus which is not proportional tothe buildings area. The data that has beenprovided can only be analysed on a pro ratabasis and so must be considered purelyindicative.

There is no information available in order tobenchmark running costs or maintenance costsback to the original facilities in order to get agenuine comparison of like-for-like facilities.However, notwithstanding that the new buildingis more complex and includes a greater degree ofmechanical and electrical installation, along withequipment, we would expect the running costsand certainly the maintenance costs to be moreefficient.

In order to complete a comprehensive review ofthe running and maintenance costs a copy of theEMS data specifically recording data for the SAFbuilding will be required. From discussions withImperial College, this data may not be availablein the format that will enable this to be doneaccurately.

Post project

Use

The organisation of the building concentratesundergraduate teaching in the narrow East-Westwing and research in the main part of thebuilding. Everyone uses the ground floorentrance area. There is a cafeteria on thisentrance floor, which is extensively used bypeople working in other buildings as there islittle other provision on this part of the site. Theground floor is separated from the atrium by aglazed area, which allows light through but cutsdown sound transmission. This was a lateraddition to the project that had not originallybeen envisaged as necessary.

In the research area the post-doctoral researchershave desk space outside the labs and the PhDstudents are on the wider landings across theatrium.

The building is well-used, both forundergraduate and research purposes. Therehave been some changes to accommodateadditional people:

in the undergraduate teaching laboratorywing, two laboratories on the fifth floor havebeen knocked into one to allow a largergroup to be taught at one time. There are


The main entrance to the SAF building

Sketch: AMA

LCD screens that enable the lecturer, ormaterial being discussed or written, to beseen from all over the larger laboratory andthese have been extended to other rooms foroccasions when this large space is inadequate

the access routes at the end of the atrium inthe research area were originally equippedwith bookshelves. These have now beenreplaced by additional researcher study carrels

some of the offices that had been availablefor solo occupation are now being used bytwo people.

The ideas behind those aspects of the designaimed at increased interaction can be seen to beworking. The social spaces in the research areaon the third and fourth floors are good examplesof this. One tangible outcome of the recognitionof increased interdisciplinary interaction is thatthere are now 24 students funded by theWellcome Trust to work across shareddisciplines.

One undergraduate medical laboratory wasmodified soon after occupation. It had beenassumed that the large groups to be taughtwould need large laboratories. Because there is aneed for smaller groups for practicals, as well asfor more seminar space, a series of foldingconcertina partitions have been installed, and aportion of the lab has been subdivided toprovide seminar/practical space (as picturedabove).

The flexibility for the research laboratories hasproved successful. When group sizes change theteams simply shift up and down the benches to

accommodate the new numbers. This is a cheapand effective way to change teams and meansthat it can take place whenever it is needed.

For highly specialised facilities there was anexisting user representative who was able tosuggest suitable technical solutions, and, in thecase of a radical approach to air handling, wasable to convince the College that this would bemore effective than more traditional solutions.

The first level flexi seminar space can be usedas a large single room or be reconfigured intotwo, three or four smaller rooms, able toaccommodate 50 to 240 people. In practice,although reconfiguration of rooms is relativelysimple, these dividers are used primarily forspecial events to configure the space to theappropriate size, rather than being usedconsistently for class size adjustment. In additionto this innovation, the seminar spaces provideexternal income from hiring out space.

Utilisation

Formal utilisation studies have not been carriedout on spaces used for research activities. Arecent study on undergraduate spaces has not yetprovided results.

Post-occupancy studies are only carried outwhen specific problems arise and a solution isbeing planned. However, there is a formalchange process that has been instituted, in partbecause of the SAF building, which makesrigorous assessments of the need for and cost ofproposed changes.

User viewsAnecdotally people believe that undergraduates,researchers and staff are influenced by thequality of the building when deciding whether tocome to Imperial College. In addition, those whowork in it do not wish to move to work in otherbuildings, despite the fact that space in the SAFbuilding attracts higher space use charges.

Some aspects of the building causedunfavourable comment when the perimeterconstruction period barriers were removed. Theperimeter treatment was felt to be unattractiveand trees were requested to be planted outsidethe building.


Medical lab partitioning

Photo: AMA

Staff

Initially there was unease that there was so muchopen plan space for desk work, as well as abouthow the open laboratories would work. Someacademic staff were against the openness. Theywere concerned about confidentiality, and maderepresentations to the rector, which did result inan increase in enclosed offices and theconsequent problems with air handling.However, since the building has opened therehave been few problems with this.

The noise in the atrium was expected to presenta problem, and the introduction of white noisewas discussed. However, the general hum ofactivity provides its own white noise and whilethere are occasional local problems it is notgenerally an issue.

As space is tight everywhere in the college, therehave been comments that the area around thelifts, which joins the research wing to theundergraduate wing, is very wasteful, large andhard to find a use for. This tends to lend force tocomments such as the atrium is a bit excessive.

Teaching spaces and lecture theatres are felt tobe good with good audiovisual facilities, andgenerally the finishes are attractive, easy to keepclean and have lasted well, except door handles.Some of these are beginning to fail so that theydo not latch the door shut effectively.

Students

The completely open research forum requiredsome time to get used to. While some studentsliked the open plan and improved socialinteraction, some students initially felt a littleexposed in the space.

The research students appear well satisfied eventhough their spaces are very small, and they arenot usually all together in any particular bay asmuch of their time is spent in the laboratories.

There are some researcher desks that are locatedunderneath the open stairs connecting thedifferent levels in the atrium. These are not likedbecause the stairs have open treads and dirt frompeoples feet showers down on the people sittingunderneath. It appears to be impossible to getpermission to change this.

Building managementA number of aspects of improved buildingmanagement have been introduced to ImperialCollege through the SAF building:

a. It is a complex building, with, for example,41 air handlers, (whereas Imperial Colleges


Expandable seminar space

Photo: AMA

The atrium

Photo: AMA

comparable Flowers Research Building hasonly four). It is also a building planned forflexible use. It has therefore been seen to beworth providing the building with its ownresident building manager to help controlhow this flexibility develops.

b. Management teamwork, bringing togethertechnical staff, the services specialists andfacilities management knowledge, has beenstrengthened.

c. It has been recognised that buildingmanagers may need additional training inthe skills and knowledge needed to managebuildings effectively and professionally. Theimportance of user interaction groups hasbeen recognised.

d. The complexity, as well as the shared natureof the occupation, has meant that amanagement committee was set up with abuilding user group, led by the Estatesdepartment. This is now part of standardImperial College practice and is seen to bevery helpful in maintaining the mosteffective and trouble free use of thebuilding.

e. Because of construction cost overruns onthe SAF project the college has put muchstronger procedures in place to prevent thishappening in future.

f. The use of space charging was brought inpartly in relation to the SAF building, partlyin response to the general shortage of space.

Lessons learnedThe development of this building and theconsequent consolidation of three previousresearch buildings centralises the department andeconomises space. The staff in the SAF buildingcame from three different sites: Charing Cross, StMarys and the Hammersmith campus. Thevacated space was re-used for academic purposesas the college won additional research awardsand some large teams moved in from otherinstitutions.

The generic approach and the open plan spaceshave worked as intended, to allow flexible use tosupport growth and change:

a. A generic approach to design, creatingmultidisciplinary teaching and modularresearch labs, has helped to maximise usage,allow growth of different cohorts andteams, and adaptation for innovations intechnology.

b. Expandable seminar and lecture spaces havebeen created by using appropriate roomdividers that provide good soundattenuation.

c. The research forum has been used asadditional research and study space ratherthan as mere circulation space. Sincecompletion, the number of research andstudy spaces has increased and they nowcover virtually all free space surroundingthe atrium while there is still a comfortablecirculation area.

The openness of the laboratories and the factthat different disciplines can use contiguouslaboratory spaces and shared social areas havehelped create greater social interaction betweenthe various disciplines within the SAF.

When visitors are introduced to the building bytaking them first to the sixth floor in the atrium,a striking first impression is made. This visuallydemonstrates the spirit of openness andinteraction. It appears to be instrumental inbringing high quality staff and students to workat Imperial College.


Photo: AMA

A large, generic lab

Project summary


Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College, London

Building use: Medicine and Biology

Student FTE: 10,336 (campus)

Location and type of site: Central London

Campus type: Urban, Multiple Campus

Type of build: New Build

Completion date: 1998

Team responsible: Architect: Foster and Partners

Research facilities design: Sandy Brown Associates

Construction: Schal Construction

Brief Brief established by: Estates Director and Project Manager

Space standards specified: UGC norms reduced by 10%

Procurement route: Construction management

Area breakdown Area GIA: 25,517 m2

Area NIA: 19,898 m2

Area NUA: 13,308 m2

Efficiency

Area/student FTE m2 NIA building: 14.8 m2

Area/student FTE m2 NIA Campus (EMS): 28.6 m2

Area/Faculty FTE m2 NIA: 15.6 18.0 m2 (single office)7.8 9.0 m2 (2 person office)

Utilisation target: none

Utilisation actual: unknown

Cost Cost/m2 GIA construction: 3,100/m2 (based on current price levels)Cost/m2 GIA running: 79.16/m2 GIA

Cost/m2 GIA maintenance: 26.85/m2 GIA

Case study 2


Health andWellbeing BuildingSheffield Hallam UniversityA new extension and the refurbishment ofthe original building are helping theuniversity further its plan to accommodatealmost twice the number of students with aspace increase of less than 10%.

Overview Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) has two maincampuses, the City campus on a site close toSheffields main railway station, and Collegiatecampus a few miles away in a more residentialpart of the city, as well as three smaller sites.

The estates department has been very active inproviding, monitoring and managing space forthe university. In 1992 there were five sites andvarious options for change were reviewed,including the possibility of a greenfield campus.It was decided, despite the poor state of many ofthe existing buildings, to concentrate on the twomain sites and upgrade, improve and match thespace provided to student and faculty needs.

We have profiled two separate buildings at theuniversity in our case studies, the Owen buildingand the Health and Wellbeing building whichhave together helped the university plan toaccommodate almost twice the number ofstudents with a space increase of less than 10%.

The Health and Wellbeing building on theCollegiate campus was an existing building ontowhich a substantial amount of new space hasbeen added. Many of the design ideas, forexample clusters of shared staff offices andmulti-use teaching spaces, were developed andtested in other buildings including the Owenbuilding (see case study 7).

Briefing, design and constructionprocess

Objectives

The purpose of the work was to provide newaccommodation for the Faculty of Health andWellbeing. Teaching rooms were needed toreplace outdated provision for a discipline thatcould be relied on as a steady or growingmarket.

The university wanted to integrate the teachingto meet varying professional needs in the healthand social care fields, by bringing people intoone building and creating shared office areas fora mix of disciplines. The NHS is seeking a morejoined-up approach, so a hybrid approach toteaching is required, breaking down some of theexisting professional barriers.

The development aimed to provide high qualityspecialist teaching areas to enable the students tohave an appropriate grounding before theirclinical placements.

The brief and design for this project was decidedupon before the university embarked on itsrestructuring, which created the new Health andWellbeing Faculty, incorporating part of whathad been a School of Health and Social Care.This change meant that in the end a slightlydifferent group of people were moved into thebuilding than had originally been envisaged.There are more administrative and fewerresearch staff than had been planned at the start.The brief was delivered with only two smallchanges during construction.

BriefingThe head of the school, who then became deanof the Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, set theobjectives for the building. The detailed work ofcollecting the briefs for particular spaces,establishing sizes of student cohorts,understanding the equipment needed in differentspecialist rooms, was co-ordinated by SueHolmes, Head of Facilities Planning. A technicalmanager from another faculty also helped at thebriefing stage.

The university established a project board tooversee the process. It consisted of the pro vice-

chancellor concerned with planning andresources, the director of finance, the director ofestates, an academic champion and two membersof the estates department to co-ordinate supply(projects) and demand (facilities planning). Theproject board also had three members of theSchool of Health and Social Care, (later theFaculty of Health and Wellbeing) on it, the dean,assistant dean responsible for academicdevelopment and the facultys head of businessservices, as well as the academic champion in theschool responsible for co-ordinating needs andcommunication.

Staff were asked to fill in comprehensivequestionnaires to record the detailedrequirements for all their areas, and these wereeventually translated into comprehensive roomdata sheets that they had to sign off. Thequestionnaires led to discussion about the briefsdevelopment. Once agreed, the data sheetprocess took place.

Some work practices (such as technicianslaundering lab coats) were discovered and werenot accommodated in the new premises.

Staff made requests for the amount of space thatthey thought they needed. These were comparedto the space actually used, realistic predictionsfor new student numbers, and changing teachingand learning practices.


Health and Wellbeing building: space breakdown by type

Source: Area calculations made by AMA

Teaching and learning 30%

Teaching/research support 3%

Staff office space 24%

Student amenity 5%

Circulation 18%

Core 16%

Other 4%

In SHU space charging is used and wellunderstood, and has been systematicallydeveloped to take account both of amount andtype of space, so departments are ready tobalance their space wishes with a realisticassessment of likely demand. Since the briefingprocess is not exactly a science, the board triedto ensure some flexible space created around thebrief to meet changing demands, as well ascreating flexible spaces within the brief.

Well aware of current good practice in officespace, the estates department sought to creategeneric, adaptable office areas, able toaccommodate a range of departments with theroom for growth and change. This led to thecluster offices that generally accommodatebetween three and five members of staff. Thesewere particularly suitable for the Health andWellbeing building to meet the desire to bringtogether different disciplines in the staff offices.

Procurement

Once a sufficiently detailed brief was assembled,a team of consultants architect, mechanical and

electrical engineers, planning supervisor, quantitysurveyor, and contract manager were selectedon a fixed price fee after tendering.

This team developed a detailed design,incorporating a portion of the existing buildingon the site and adding a new wing. The originalintention had been to mothball more of the oldbuilding, but student numbers increased as aresult of winning more NHS teaching contractsso a larger building was required. The new wingwas in fact bent in order to:

provide sufficient accommodation

meet planning restrictions/conditions

fit onto the site.

The design was then included as a part of thefinal tender information for a design and buildproject with a guaranteed maximum price on aJoint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) contract.

The contractors continued to use the architects,although they were not obliged to, and usedtheir own mechanical and electrical (M&E)designers. The planning supervisor and quantity


Five-person office module with alternative furniture arrangements

Administrative staff areaccommodated in more openplan areas, as has becomecommon in the university.

Source: SHU

surveyor remained employed by the clientthroughout. This type of process has regularlydelivered projects to time and budget for theuniversity and is the preferred approach.

The new boiler plant for the adjacent seven-storey residential block was used to provideheating for the new building and this was part ofa separate but parallel contract, which finishedbefore the main contract.

Costs

This project comprises part new build and partrefurbishment, however there is insufficientdetailed data to understand the split in thecapital cost between the two areas. The overallconstruction cost of 1,216 per m2 should bebenchmarked against a range of 1,000 /m2 to1,350/m2 for a new build development and600/m2 to 850/m2 for a refurbishment. Atface value this would suggest that this projectwas priced at the high end of the market.

Looking more closely however, inclusions suchas the upgrade of the existing boiler house whichalso serves the adjacent residential block, newescape stairs and plant access to the existingbuilding, a full external works scheme and theextensive nature of the refurbishment, increasedthe outturn construction cost.

The construction cost excludes the specialisthealth equipment fit-out and the furniture,computers and audiovisual provision, whichwere all provided as new. These might notnecessarily have been immediate capitalexpenditure had the faculty not relocated to thenew facility, however they would ultimately havebeen required to upgrade old facilities to asimilar standard.

There is no information available in relation tothe purchase price of the original building andland. This would require consideration for a truecomparison of the capital and running costdifferential between the old and new facilities.

The other old buildings are currently beingrefurbished to provide new teaching space forthe university. Although this has not beenundertaken to recoup some of the expenditure, itdoes enable more teaching to take place at theuniversity and subsequently bring in morerevenue if used to increase enrolments.

We have received some information with respectto the energy and water costs.

The energy consumption for the Health andWellbeing building is currently calculated at 155 to 200 kWh/m2/yr. This can be compared tothe average energy cost for the university of 202 kWh/m2/yr. Therefore, even if the final


Level four of the building: shading shows the new extension

Source: AMA

consumption were at the higher end of the range,the new building would be more efficient thanthe average.

The estimated water consumption based oninformation to date for the new building is 0.30 m3/m2/yr, compared to the universityaverage recorded at 0.49 m3/m2/yr.

There is no information available in order tobenchmark this specifically back to the originalfacilities in order to get a genuine comparison oflike-for-like facilities.

To complete a comprehensive review of therunning and maintenance cost, a copy of theEMS data would be required as this contains keyinformation such as property, maintenance,cleaning and property management costs.

Post project

Use

The Faculty of Health and Wellbeing buildingcontains several specialist teaching rooms, withspecialist equipment or laid out to replicatemedical and household spaces, as well as generalteaching spaces, staff and administrative offices.

A POE is planned, but it will not be an HEDQF-style POE. The SHU estates department is keento find out the contractors views. An externalconsultant will examine the design andprocurement process by interviewing relevantpeople. One objective will be to find out how toimprove the transmission of information. Forexample, it may look at issues such as whetherthe room data should be on a drawing insteadof, or as well as, on room data sheets.

Utilisation

Utilisation of teaching rooms, both general andspecial, is monitored regularly, but staff officesare not. The data is used when assessing newspace requirements. These studies collectinformation on the frequency and percentage ofcapacity used of all bookable rooms. SHU hasset a target of 50% utilisation.

In semester 1 of 2004-05 utilisation was 42%due to changes in teaching and learning resultingfrom the planned revalidation of courses. Thepotential to co-teach more groups in better-sizedfacilities meant space was more efficiently used,and there is capacity for further planned growth.


Photo: AMA

New double-height reception area

Since the building was completed, the faculty hassubmitted further tenders for additionalcontracts.

User viewsThe university does not routinely collect userviews on the suitability or attractiveness of theaccommodation. However, there is ample scopefor views to be expressed and passed on so thatany problems can be resolved. Informalcomments are noted and acted on. For example,positive feelings about wide corridors in aparticular conversion, and dislike of narrow onesin a relatively new building, led to a policy toensure generous spaces for student movementbetween classes where possible.

Staff

We contacted staff to find out how they feltabout the available accommodation in the newbuilding. They expressed generally very positiveviews. There is better information technology,the spaces are light and well-designed and thebuilding is well liked: I feel so strongly about it,it is just so good.

People now feel far more integrated. They usedto feel isolated and the new facility has enabled abroader view of their

promotingspaceefficiency

Documents