 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
THE ARCHITECTURE ISSUE
The Chronicle Review's yearly look at architecture examines buildings on and off campuses. Above, Caltech's new Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, designed by Morphosis. (Chronicle photograph by Lawrence Biemiller)
Other News
U. of Tennessee Landmark to Move to Nearby Location
New campus buildings
Multimedia
Pomona's Skyspace
The artist James Turrell turned a Pomona College courtyard into a work of art worth waking up at dawn for.
Subscribe
Subscribe to Buildings & Grounds in a feed reader.
Get the Buildings & Grounds widget for Facebook, Myspace, or your own blog.
About Buildings & Grounds
Buildings & Grounds is written by Scott Carlson (left) and Lawrence Biemiller (right). Scott Carlson writes about architecture, facilties, energy, and sustainability, among other topics. Lawrence Biemiller writes about architecture and facilities and contributes to Notes from Academe. What's happening on your campus? Let us know.
At Saint John's U., Taking the 1,500-Year View
Collegeville, Minn. — Here’s a tidbit of advice, gathered from people I met at Saint John’s University, in central Minnesota: When you’re making decisions about the built environment on your campus, think like a monk.
The Benedictine Order has been around for about 1,500 years, and that gives you some idea about how building-maintenance decisions are made here. More than one person told me that there is no (or very little) deferred maintenance on the campus. When the monastic community here makes a decision about materials, they think about the long term.
Last week, I walked around the campus with Gregory Friesen, an architect who has been hired to renovate the university’s stunning (and remarkably well-maintained) buildings by the well-known modernist Marcel Breuer.
I told Mr. Friesen what someone had told me — that Breuer relished the idea of working at Saint John’s because he knew that the monks would take care of his buildings forever.
“I’d believe it,” Mr. Friesen said. “They have a different sense of time. They don’t make decisions based on the tenure of a president or the tenure of a board chair. They make decisions because they are the right ones, and you don’t often see that on campuses.”
He pointed to some buildings on the campus that had recently been re-roofed with copper, an expensive but very durable material. “They take the long view,” he said.
This attention to durable materials and long-term maintenance might be as unusual as Mr. Friesen suggests. A recent report from APPA, the organization for facilities managers, says that colleges and universities do not plan sufficiently for ongoing operating costs and maintenance in buildings. APPA’s report, called “Buildings … The Gifts That Keep On Taking,” is based on a three-year study that included interviews and meetings with top college administrators, including presidents, chancellors, and facilities managers.
The research found that design and construction costs are often considered one-time capital costs, separate from maintenance costs, and that those maintenance costs are not always clearly defined when a building goes up. Also, administrators often don’t have a clear sense of how a building project might fit into a college’s mission and institutional needs.
This lack of planning seems to have led to a huge backlog of deferred maintenance. APPA’s report cites past studies that estimate the backlog at $36-billion nationwide. Colleges spend about $20-billion on facilities operations every year (including maintenance, energy, and utilities), and $14-billion on new construction. Yet the amount being spent on maintenance has been going down in recent decades, the report says.
The report profiles “Warbucks Hall,” a real building with a different name at an unidentified research university in the Midwest. The lifetime cost of designing, building, and demolishing the structure will come to $80-million. Meanwhile, the cost of maintenance, operations, retrofits, and upgrades to the building in its 75-year life will run about $115-million.
Many colleges have buildings far older than 75 years. A campus environment can be filled with permanent fixtures. So think like a monk — you might be making decisions for the ages. —Scott Carlson
Scott Carlson | Monday August 27, 2007 | Permalink | Contact usComments
Previous: Historic Structure at Broome Community College Threatened
Next: New Science Building at Franklin & Marshall Draws on Old Models
Add this to the list that also includes grants and gifts to establish programs, facilities, and laboratories. When the grant and gift funds are gone the programs, facilities and labs live on, most often at the dean’s expense. But how can you say no to the initial money? It’s like a deal with the devil…....
— marci Aug 27, 03:13 PM #
A reply to “marci”: The APPA report addresses your question directly. To sum up, it tells you that resisting the initial money might be a wise decision. (And resisting the lure of easy money would be monk-like thinking, wouldn’t it?)
“Most institutions find it difficult to turn down a generous offer to fund a new building,” the report says. But donors usually want to build the most space that their dollar will buy, leaving the colleges to figure out how to find money to operate and maintain their new buildings. “Because [maintenance and operation] costs far exceed initial design and construction costs, it is imperative to hold frank discussions about the implications of the total cost of ownership before initiating a major capital investment.”
— Scott Carlson, Chronicle reporter Aug 27, 04:43 PM #
Administrators responsible for physical plant decisions would be wise to institute green building policies for their campuses. If life cycle cost analysis is part of the planning process, many of these fiscal issues become more transparent. Even if the environmental benefits of sustainable design are disregarded it makes economic sense over all but the very short term. Higher education should be taking the lead (or LEED, as it were) in demonstrating the efficacy of green building across the nation and using our economic muscle to help develop green building capacity among local architects, contractors, and tradesmen/women.
It’s up to the development officers to educate themselves on sustainable design, and then to educate the donors. There’s no reason that $20 million gift cannot provide space while also creating new educational opportunities, addressing climate change, and reducing our environmental footprint at the same time.
— Derek Larson Aug 28, 09:51 AM #