Best of the best put to the test

Our judging panel goes behind the glitz and glamour of this year’s Stirling Prize shortlist to find out what the six high-profile buildings really represent

Our judging panel

Stefan Eriksson MCIOB

The Davis Langdon senior project manager represented the CIOB’s younger generation as vice chair of Novus in London.

Gemma Sapiano MCIOB

A design and build co-ordinator for Willmott Dixon, Sapiano was a gold medalist in the 2009 Construction Manager of the Year Awards for delivering a new theatre for the City of London school.

Peter Caplehorn

The technical director of architect Scott Brownrigg and member of the RIBA council is also a contributor to several industry magazines and a popular conference speaker.

Bob Heathfield PPCIOB

Heathfield has a wealth of experience in a 40-year career, including roles at Trafalgar House and Ballast Wiltshire. He is currently chair of the South East Centre for Construction and the Built Environment.

To view the material the judges used to come to their decisions, scroll to the bottom and click on the PDF links.

Did you watch the RIBA Stirling Prize awards on BBC 2 the other week? Millions tuned in to watch Zaha Hadid Architects’ MAXXI museum in Rome pick up the award for the building judged to be the “most significant for the evolution of British architecture in the past year”. 

The MAXXI was showcased on national television, received widespread press coverage, and set the chattering classes chattering. Of all the many awards in the built environment, only the Stirling is a fixture in the national cultural calendar.

But what does the Stirling Prize really celebrate? Everyone knows construction is a team sport rather than an individual event, but the coverage of the shortlisted buildings invariably overlooks the contribution of the main contractor, specialists and the professional team.

And what does the phrase “evolution of architecture” actually mean? In today’s cost and carbon-conscious world, it’s reasonable to assume that it encompasses issues of sustainability, energy efficiency and carbon footprinting. That the buildings have been delivered within responsible cost controls. And that the projects represent good practice — or even best practice — across the full range of architectural endeavour.

Not surprisingly, the winner was chosen according to more limited and design-led criteria. The Stirling Jury, led by RIBA president Ruth Reed, was mainly concerned with design quality, functionality for users and the projects’ contribution to their immediate environment. Sustainability is a concern, but evidently not an over-riding one — none of the projects had BREEAM certification, or an overseas equivalent. 

Of course, the RIBA is entitled to run its awards scheme under the criteria it thinks best. But nevertheless, the mismatch between the Stirling’s actual values and how the industry and the general public might perceive architectural excellence prompted us to look at the projects to find out what the public is never told.

So we assembled a panel of experts to judge the CM/CIOB “Alternative Stirling Prize”. We wanted to find out if the shortlisted projects really represented best practice across a broad range of targets, or whether the stunning visuals concealed issues that undermined their claims to be the best of the best. We wanted to celebrate the achievements of the project teams where credit was due, but also draw attention to areas where the buildings the architectural profession is most proud are falling short.

The panel judged the projects on the basis of reports drawn up by CM, which were in turn based on interviews with the various design and construction teams (please see our website for pdf versions). We asked about budget and programme, the form of contract that created the formal relationships, and the unofficial relationships that defined the site. We explored the technical challenges, and whether they pulled the construction team together, or pushed it apart.

Our panel didn’t try to assess design quality: we left that to the expertise of the real Stirling Prize jury. Nor was it looking for the project that demonstrated current best practice on procurement or form of contract. Its task was to discuss the projects from a holistic perspective, and then decide: which one really represents the best we can achieve today? EK

Bateman’s Row

Bateman’s Row

Bateman’s Row, Shoreditch

Client: Theis & Khan Architects

Out-turn cost per m²: £1,800-£2,000 per m²

Consultants: Theis & Khan acted as both architect and project manager; QS Stephen Cuddy; structural engineer, FJ Samuely & Partners

Main Contractor: Silver Interiors Design & Build; groundwork and concrete frame by ECS Groundwork

Programme: The contract ran three months over the original programme.

If the panel was looking for “the project that represents the construction industry at its best”, it soon became clear it was not Bateman’s Row. The project combines a new home and office for husband and wife architects Patrick Theis and Soraya Khan, combined with build-to-let commercial and residential units.

As the panel agreed, Theis & Khan had come up with a very appealing package: sleek, pared-down modernism combined with enough urban grit for its location. But beyond the first impressions, the panel felt the team hadn’t lived up to the high standards set by the visuals.

First, photos of the groundworks phase provoked expressions of pain all round — no hard hats, a dangerous-looking walkway, rebar lying all over the place.

“I’d fail them on at least eight [health and safety] counts!” said Bob Heathfield.

Reviews in the architectural press had highlighted the “pragmatism” of the concrete works. Realising the bespoke timber shuttering and painstaking concrete pours needed for a “National Theatre” finish on the concrete frame would be time-consuming and too costly, the solution was standard steel shuttering, laid out for regular seams.

Sapiano was unconvinced by this solution: “Considering the architect is the project manager, I wouldn’t expect to read ‘we couldn’t have this’. I’d expect ‘we tried this new technology’. They should be pushing things to the boundaries, not cutting things out.”

The project featured underfloor heating and a solar thermal hot water system. But Caplehorn questioned the low levels of solar shading and absence of a green roof, while everyone agreed that dropping a proposed £10,000 rainwater harvesting system due to the cost was short-sighted.  

And then there were those Building Regs-busting stairs — ideal for a film set, less ideal for a family home. When CM spoke to Patrick Theis about the lack of a second handrail, his view was that this was his own home, the stairs were more secure than the photo suggested, and that many older properties have features that would never pass Building Control.

Peter Caplehorn was wholly unconvinced. “It’s highly dangerous.

If architecture isn’t compliant and safe, then it isn’t really good design. In the aircraft industry, if you said ‘we had to leave off some of the equipment because it looked better’, it’s not really a tenable argument, is it? So why is it when we get to the built environment, architects seem to think they can leave stuff off?” he asked. “It’s not hard to come up with a really stunning staircase that’s safe to walk up and down.”

Overall, the panel felt that Theis & Khan had set their sights too low. Why shouldn’t a leading architect aim to promote the pinnacle of sustainable design and construction workmanship on their own shop-window? “Is this the best the industry can do?” Heathfield asked.

Pros: Looks fantastic

Cons: Bar set too low on construction, sustainability and safety

Neues Museum

Neues Museum

Neues Museum, Berlin

Client: Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz represented by Bundesamt für Bauwesen

Gross floor area: 20,500m²

Budget: €233m (£210m at 2009 exchange rate)

Cost per m²: €10,244

Consultants: David Chipperfield Architects; Julian Harrap Architects; project manager, Ernst & Young Real Estate

Newbuild and concrete contractor: Dressler Bau

Restoration contractors: Various

Programme: Six years in design, six in construction, opened in October 2009

The Neues Museum is clearly something special. The panel were in awe of a project that tackled a 150-year-old building that had lain in limbo since the Second World War — the pre-construction photos even show mature trees growing out of bomb craters. And the panel praised the design approach of David Chipperfield Architects of carefully restoring the fabric while preserving the scars of the past, combined with new elements that represent the best of modern design and innovation.

The project was delivered by the Bundesamt für Bauwesen, or Federal Office for Construction, which tendered packages to multiple restoration specialists and Dressler Bau, the contractor that took responsibility for the new build elements and bespoke pre-fabricated concrete panels.

Instead of tackling the restoration sequentially, the client split the museum into different areas and gave them to different refurbishment contractors. The improved co-ordination and avoidance of delays from, say, a ceiling contractor being unable to start its work because of the flooring contractor’s problem, was recognised by the panel.

But the group debated whether the length of the programme — six years in design and six in construction — undermined the overall achievement.

“If you can’t work out the design and get everything just about right in six years, how long do you need?” asked Bob Heathfield.

Gemma Sapiano took a more supportive view: “I imagine they would have had an awful lot of resistance from the [International Council of Monuments and Sites on the] Charter of Venice and their equivalent of English Heritage on what they were actually allowed to do.”

Likewise, the panel was unsure what to make of the budget: was the eye-watering figure of £10,000 per m² a fair reflection of the costs of a first-rate project and the risks inherent in any refurbishment, or was it simply poor cost control?

Stefan Eriksson commented: “Yes, the budget is massive, but it’s probably there for a reason, which is they wanted to do a fantastic project. If you look at that [construction] picture, that’s not a ceiling you could take care of in one day!”

DCA director Alexander Schwarz told CM the cost plan had come out at higher than the submitted tenders — around ¤230m (£197m) versus ¤210m (£180m) — mainly because the design and client team had factored in more risk items than the contractors ultimately priced for.

Again, Sapiano viewed this positively. “On every refurb that I’ve done, the cost plan goes out the window, because you’re dealing with unknown factors!”

But Heathfield was sceptical, arguing that a different contractual approach would have saved German taxpayers’ euros. “I suspect that there was so much provision in the design for the unknown eventualities, that in the end it cost what it cost. We’ve done a number of highly complex projects where to try to work out the price in all the detail upfront is just ridiculous.”

Overall, the panel was impressed by the project’s scale, originality and quality. Eriksson summed it up: “Anyone working in the construction industry would love to work on it.”

Pros: Renovation at its best

Cons: A different contractual approach could have saved money

Ashmolean Museum

Ashmolean Museum

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Client: University of Oxford, Heritage Lottery Fund

Gross floor area: 10,000m²

Budget: Total budget £61m, including construction cost of around £40m

Cost per m²: £6,100 (based on total figure) 

Contract: Traditional fixed-price JCT

Consultants: Rick Mather Architects; Atelier Ten; Dewhurst McFarlane; project manager, Mace

Contractor: BAM

Programme: Two and half years on site, opened December 2009

From Germany’s pre-eminent cultural project, the panel turned to the extension to Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum. This came in at a more palatable £6,100 per m² — a relative bargain for the British lotto players who part-funded it via the Heritage Lottery Fund.

The panel were impressed by the sheer technical challenge BAM had faced in building a six-storey state-of-the-art gallery within a walled-in enclosure, especially when the neighbours on the other side of the 19 party walls were Oxford colleges and academic institutions, and the basement excavation took them dangerously close to the water table.

BAM’s fixed price, traditional contract also involved making breakthroughs and connection to the grade I-listed museum itself, and dealing with the tolerances and differential movements of a three-storey concrete frame, topped by a three-storey steel portal frame, and all wrapped in a brick envelope and steel roof.

In dealing with all these challenges, BAM’s only site access was a footpath 3.8m wide and 10m long. The contractor had to funnel all the equipment and materials it needed through that narrow gap, including the crucial tower crane that sat in the middle of the atrium. Afterwards, in the words of Stuart Cade from Rick Mather Architects, it had to “build its way out”.

The panel didn’t have any photos of the construction phase, but descriptions of the build were enough for Gemma Sapiano to comment: “I imagine this was actually more challenging to construct than the Neues Museum. You could deal with a lot of the problems there because you had an open site. Whereas with this, you’re dealing with such a restricted site.”

Bob Heathfield pointed to the fixed price JCT contract: “They tendered a fixed price, but they also developed aspects of the design with the specialist trade contractors. It was a difficult construction, and they had to work their way out of it. That’s pretty good.”

But the panel also highlighted the lack of BREEAM certification, despite the project’s creditable sustainability strategy. It features as much natural ventilation and daylighting as possible, innovative “adiabatic” air-handling units, and exceeded Part L 2006. “They certainly had good aspirations,” Peter Caplehorn commented. “But these days, it’s an oddity for us [at Scott Brownrigg] not to have a BREEAM project. Five years ago, it was only some clients that wanted certification, but since then it’s shifted — so the projects that aren’t BREEAM assessed are a real rarity.”

Stuart Cade of RMA had been impressed by BAM’s commitment to sustainability and reducing energy use on site. However, the panel wasn’t quite so overwhelmed. “I’d say they should be monitoring it on site anyway, we do it and have done it for five or six years at least,” said Sapiano.

Pros: A major technical achievement, delivered with good attention to the carbon footprint

Cons: Why no BREEAM certificate?

MAAXI Museum

MAAXI Museum

MAAXI Museum of the 21st Century, Rome

Client: Italian Ministry of Culture, working through the Ministry of Infrastructure

Form of contract: Design and build

Contract value: €150m (£133m at 2009 exchange rate)

Project size: 24,000 m²

Out-turn cost per m²: £5,541 per m²

Consultants: Zaha Hadid Architects; Anthony Hunt Associates; Max Fordham

Contractor: JV between Italiana Costruzioni and Societa Appalti Costruzioni.

Programme: Contract let December 2002, completion reached in early 2009

Zaha Hadid Architects certainly knows how to seduce. The panel imagined themselves into the cool, curved gallery spaces, or peering over the balcony into the atrium at the three-dimensional Escher painting. “It’s a class act, isn’t it? And I’m not even a fan of hers,” said Peter Caplehorn.

But what made an equally striking impression was the fact that it took six years to build. A localised credit crunch resulted in work almost grinding to a halt in 2006/07, inflating the out-turn price by 10-20% due to the fixed costs of running the site over the elongated programme.

ZHA project architect Gianluca Racana said this had not had a negative impact on the quality — and the panel was surprised that anyone might think otherwise. Its view was that the same project could have been built in the UK in two years.

But viewing photographs taken mid-construction, Gemma Sapiano felt the Italian JV contractor had demonstrated good practice: “Look at all the formwork — it’s a complicated job, but it’s a tidy site. From the way they dealt with things like having the concrete mixing plant on site [to avoid disruption during the concrete pours], they thought it all through.”

But Sapiano also suggested MAXXI might have been more straightforward to build than it looked. Essentially, it has been built up from repeating elements. “There’s not a lot to it in terms of finish — literally the epoxy floor and concrete walls. It’s very architecturally over-powering, but the materials aren’t.”

Peter Caplehorn begged to differ. “I would say that is complicated to construct  — sometimes, the simpler it looks, the more complicated it is to deliver. And it’s got interesting hints of things going on like CO₂ sensors to [detect the number of visitors and] limit the incoming fresh air.”

But the two did agree on the waste of resources involved in the architect and contractor’s pursuit of concrete perfection. A test wall of 6m by 20m was demolished and rebuilt “at least 10 times”.

“I don’t like it from a sustainability point of view,” said Caplehorn. “I think we should surely be in an industry where we can set things up early to achieve the right answer first time.”

Sapanio agreed that architects needed to know when to draw a line. “It’s not sutainable to give the contractor a spec that’s unachievable,” she said. “They would have known by the second or third pour that they were struggling, so to go to 10 pours is not really sustainable.”

Caplehorn felt the panel had touched on an important issue. “I think in future awards we will want to look at the waste generated by a project, how efficiently it was delivered, and how much resource was used overall.”

From its initial awe at the project photos, the panel concluded that the MAXXI was another example of a project setting its sights lower than it should in terms of innovation and resource efficiency.

Pros: Good construction management and a stunning design.

Cons: Wasted resources.

Clapham Manor Primary School

Clapham Manor Primary School

Clapham Manor Primary School, Lambeth

Client: London Borough of Lambeth

Cost: Approx €2.5m, final account yet to be settled

Gross internal area: 927m²

Cost per m²: Approx €2,696

Form of contract: Traditional, JCT 2005

Consultants: de Rijke Marsh Morgan Architects; structural engineer, Michael Hadi Associates; senior engineer, Fulcrum Consulting; QS, Appleyard & Trew.

Main Contractor: The Construction Partnership (formerly Ashe Construction South).

Programme: Completed in May 2009, later than specified in the contract. 

In five of the six projects, the design and construction teams went out of their way compliment each other’s contribution. But at Clapham Manor, which involved a three-story, seven-classroom extension joined to the existing primary by a new glass link, it was noticeable that the architect and contractor held each other in distinctly muted affection. Although the interviewees were polite and respectful when discussing each other, there were clearly tensions in the background.

The source of the problem wasn’t hard to find. The primary school extension had completed in May 2009, but the final account was still “subject to negotiation”. While a spokesman for the contractor suggested this was “normal” for a traditional contract, the panel gave that idea short shrift. “On most projects, you’d negotiate the final account well in advance of practical completion,” Stefan Eriksson commented. “Or if there’s an issue, usually there’s a deal to be made and you make it.”

The project was competitively tendered under a traditional contract. But the contractor’s view was that Lambeth Council missed an opportunity by not pursuing a partnering route, forfeiting the advantage of getting the contractor on board early and benefiting from its design advice.

As the discussion continued, the panel pieced together a clearer picture of what might have happened. Peter Caplehorn’s attention was drawn to a list of the building’s design features. “It’s a concrete frame job, but it’s also got steel columns,
a bit of a challenge. Perforated plasterboard and plywood on the walls. Underfloor heating and slightly cushioned sports floor for the classroom and poor man’s terrazzo and a floor that incorporates a map... It’s not surprising it ended up in some sort of debate! How many floor finishes can you incorporate in one school?” he asked.

The panel also questioned the architect’s assertion that it had initially pursued a “passive” ventilation and energy solution, but been defeated by the age and size of the original building.

“If you do a passive design, everything needs to be designed around that,” commented Eriksson. “It’s not something you can take half measures on.”

The design does have sustainability credentials, but Caplehorn felt that state schools should go further. “Where’s the hard evidence of what they’ve achieved? Where’s the BREEAM certificate?”

The panel also questioned the maintenance implications of cleaning all that curtain walling, and felt that the design was likely to date quickly. If Clapham Manor represented architectural evolution, it was possible a side-branch circa 2007.

“I don’t think it’s firing on all cylinders,” Caplehorn concluded. “Schools are public buildings, they’re a resource, a community centre. Every school is an opportunity to do the very best we can. And I don’t think this does — architecturally, it attracts the eye, but it already looks dated.”
 

Pros: Eye-catching.

Cons: Over-indulgent design, failures in project management.

Christ’s college school, Guildford

Client: Surrey Country Council

Form of contract: Design and Build, JCT 2005, 2 stage lump sum fixed-price contract

Contract value: Architect quoted £14.4m, contractor quoted £16.3m. Difference probably lies in prelims plus additional work post-completion, to demolish old school and landscape the site.

Project size: 7,350m²

Out-turn cost per m²: Based on architect’s figure, £1,960 per m²

Consultants: DSDHA; Atelier Ten; Adams Kara Taylor; Davis Langdon (acting as client’s project manager and QS)

Contractor: Wates 

A new secondary school for Guildford, built outside the Building Schools for the Future programme under a Surrey County Council framework, was the final project discussed by the panel. The school was conceived by architect DSDHA as a true modern civic building, with a strong brick facade to suggest gravitas and longevity, and an interior that would feel robust and secure. A compact layout promotes its idea of “one big house”, centred on a timber-lined, multi-purpose atrium space.

Bob Heathfield alighted on one aspect of the project that set it apart. “It looks like a D&B fixed price contract, but it has open book accounting with cost savings shared with the client. Done properly, that formula does bring out the best in people. The architects said Wates were ‘fairly non-contractual’, so from a contractual aspect, it looks like it worked fairly well!”

An innovative ventilation and heating system was used, whereby each classroom had a mechanical heat recovery and fan unit set into the cavity wall, to warm fresh air entering via a vents under the windows. Until the room is up to the required temperature, dampers cut off the supply of fresh air.

This evidence of a strong sustainability strategy was welcomed. “Although it didn’t have a BREEAM assessment, it did have a pre-assessment – none of the others have mentioned anything to do with that,” said Gemma Sapiano.

The contractor had an equally robust sustainability strategy, recycling all the material from the demolition of the former school on the site, and re-using the displaced sub-soil and top-soil. But Wates was nevertheless given lukewarm praise for achieving an air-tightness score of 4.6. “To me these days, 4.6 is middle of the road,” commented Peter Caplehorn.

The panel saw many positives, but still struggled to see what really made Christ’s College special. All its positive attributes were no more than what is expected of the industry generally. “It’s a good advert for what can be done, and a good form of contract — but is this any better than other schools?” asked Heathfield.

Pros: All-round achievement.

Cons: An all-round achievement that shouldn’t be seen as exceptional. 

So which project won the Alternative Stirling Prize?

Our judges looked at the evidence from different angles. Bob Heathfield was drawn to contractual and procurement issues, Gemma Sapiano examined the projects as a construction manager. Peter Caplehorn was concerned with energy efficiency and evidence of innovation, and Stefan Eriksson highlighted resource efficiency and value for money.

The project that ultimately gave them most confidence in all these areas was the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, by Rick Mather Architects and BAM Construct.

“For the form of contract, being just two and half years on site, an absolutely nightmare to do, in a restricted area, and delivering after setting the opening date a year in advance,” summed up Heathfield. Erikkson added: “The logistics were incredible — you can see it was a tough challenge.”

The panelists agreed that Berlin’s Neues museum was the runner-up. “I like them both, but the Ashmolean stands out,” said Sapiano.

“In terms of design, I’m sitting on the fence. But holistically, I’m coming down on the side of the Ashmolean,” agreed Caplehorn.

So there you have it. Taking into account the technical challenge, sustainability and project efficiency, the  Ashmolean was judged to have done most to contribute to the “evolution of architecture”. 

But the evolution of industry  standards also moves rapidly. With the bar for projects in general now so high, future award winners must show they really are above the rest.