Someone on Linkedin recently asked "Why is building only to minimum code an injustice to our clients?" Maybe more for the wording of the question, but it's an interesting point to contemplate.
After all, this is a question we ask ourselves every time clients require us to design buildings that are to be erected for the lowest cost per area. While it can be seen as an obligation of the design, or construction professional to edify the client, I think it's rare, if not unheard of, to do a building life-cycle cost analysis for projects that are going to be built at $80/SF. There's probably too little time in anybody's budget to make that happen.
In fact, the answer is, that our being asked to design or construct a building to the lowest cost, is a reflection of a cultural norm, in much of North America, that buildings are disposable. This transient nature is, in part, a consequence of the dynamic social, economic, and geographic mobility of our society.
Much as we'd all like to raise monuments to stand in perpetuity, there's little point, if a building will be razed for a higher density project within a quarter of a century.
As a parallel, Lotus Cars were reputed to have built their formula one racers of the seventies each to win one race. If they were capable to go much further, after that race, they were considered overbuilt for the task at hand.
Of course, at a level where we work with clients whose need or desire it is to reduce annual maintenance (and associated costs), and who are able to defray that cost via a higher initial investment in construction cost, the question starts to be valid, and simultaneously becomes moot.
A question that grows out of the original one, is why we don't have a standard that requires a high degree of recyclability of buildings and components. Maybe this could be a voluntary standard, incentivized by a reduction in impact fees, or permitting costs. After all, if it is the fate of these buildings to not be around for very long, we are fools to not simply morph them into another reincarnation. This could reduce construction costs, C02 emissions, VOC emissions, save valuable natural resources, and possibly have more far-reaching, positive consequences.
What may be a more effective way to approach the incentive, is to move at least part of that reward to end of each life cycle. This could look like a free demolition permit, or a reduced building permitting fee for the next project on the site. In so doing, the added resale/market value would be a part of the benefit to an owner. In theory we can thus ensure that a project is deconstructed responsibly, in such a way as to create viable components for new constructs, as opposed to simply rewarding that it was built with the option to do so.
In the end, instead of asking why we build to minimum standards, we could be asking why our least expensive building methods are still so costly, and so wasteful.
B.
