Lessons over funding have to be learned

THE architect Richard Murphy went on record recently to criticise the quality of school design produced under the Public Private Partnership procurement route. And he’s right - partly.

There have been some awful buildings constructed under PPP, but what’s new? Our cities, towns and landscapes are littered with awful buildings produced under a myriad of different procurement routes.

Equally, there are a huge and growing number of examples of good buildings, all over Scotland, delivered under these very same procurement routes, and there is no reason why PPP projects cannot be amongst them.

I suspect, however, that it will take more than Richard entering the fray on his big white charger, slaying the unkempt hordes of hapless technical clodhoppers with great sweeps of his mighty architectural broadsword to raise the quality standard. But, hey, you never know.

I recently pondered the whole issue of PPP with a fellow architect in the rather pleasant surroundings of Richard’s new theatre in Peebles. We started by looking back wistfully to our architectural education, where we were taught, quite rightly, about the primary importance of design in all respects.

I have come to realise, however, that there is an even more important ability that architects need to possess, particularly in the context of much of today’s non-traditional procurement routes, and that is the ability to persuade clients to build what we have designed, or, to put it another way, to have "the gift of the gab" - something Richard has in abundance. But even that won’t help if the sums don’t add up - a growing and increasingly frustrating problem in PPP.

Despite this, designing schools is something that my colleagues and I enjoy immensely. It is a privilege and a fantastic opportunity that we approach with passion and enthusiasm. Consequently, we entirely support Keir Bloomer, chief executive of Clackmannanshire Council, in his call for higher design standards for schools - who wouldn’t? But such standards can be difficult to achieve and are unequivocally dependent on the central issue of affordability.

In theory, the PPP process could and should work well but, in practice, it has one fundamental structural flaw, one that needs to be addressed urgently.

This is the difference between a council’s (understandable) aspirations and the funds it ultimately has at its disposal. This difference can sometimes be astonishing and it means the design process inevitably begins with us, as architects, having at least one arm strapped behind our backs.

Ah, but you don’t need money to build a good building, I hear you cry! Well, sorry - but you do. You don’t need a lavish budget, but you do need a realistic one.

I attended an education conference at Heriot-Watt a couple of years ago where ministers showed us endless images of sexy Scandinavian schools to which they would have us aspire (no complaints there), little realising that what they were illustrating was in most cases twice the price/m of a typical PPP project. Nevertheless, the Department for Education and Skills has sought to inspire us ordinary mortals with some exemplary designs, some of which are indeed inspiring, and all of them appear to be based on "interesting" budgets.

The hard reality is that buildings cost money, and good buildings usually cost more. Everything has a price, and no amount of self-delusion by any of us involved in the PPP process, particularly councils with all of their attendant political pressures, will change that.

A decent budget, based on a realistic timescale and founded on well-considered aspirations may actually help us to fight the good fight, with or without the gallant Mr Murphy on his trusty steed.

Kevin Cooper is a partner with Parr Partnership Architects.