AVOIDING COMMON MISTAKES
SWIMMING POOL AND SPORTS FACILITY PLANNING Author
Gar Holohan B.Arch.Sc., Dip.Arch., FRIAI. Aura Holohan Leisure Group, Ireland
After 40 years specialising on sports design, the author is weary of clients and architects continuing to make the same mistakes and waste scarce resources on badly planned and poorly designed sports and leisure facilities. Gar Holohan is the founder and chairman of the Aura Holohan Group who operate several public aquatic centres and a chain of private fitness gyms in Ireland. He shares his ideas on how to avoid common mistakes when planning swimming pool and sports facilities. Back in the early 1980s, long before I got involved in sports facility management, I used to visit facilities all over the world and be guided around by fellow architects who proudly showed off their “award-winning” work. During that time, I recall being enthusiastic about the terrific contribution architects made to sports & leisure. Then one day I was shown around by a centre manager. As we walked around, I was taking photos and remarking on various design features and then I noticed a pattern in his responses, which invariably began with “ya, it does look well, but…” Over the following years I revisited many of the architectural “masterpieces” that I had been shown around previously, only this time I asked the managers to give me a guided tour. I soon understood what Marcel Proust meant when he said, “The real voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new landscapes but in seeing with new eyes.” I soon began to realise that: • the layout of a club can have a major impact on staffing costs, on secondary spend, and how effectively a membership “sales tour” can be conducted. • the lack of understanding how to properly calculate the capacity of different areas (e.g. changing accommodation) can lead to bottlenecks and an underutilised facility. • the detailed design and fit-out of a club can create barriers to a large proportion of potential customers who are not fully able-bodied. • within five years many facilities may want to refurbish, expand, or change the use of several areas, without having to shut down their existing business for a long period. • poor budgeting, particularly in relation to lifecycle costs, can lead to high maintenance and energy costs on the one hand and a waste of money on the other.
20
Communication and consultation Many of the problems arise from poor communication and consultation throughout the design process. Clients tend to assume that architects understand how sports and leisure centres operate, and many architects assume they have all the answers – unfortunately, this is often because they are not aware of half the questions that must be addressed. Different groups use the same facilities for different reasons, e.g. fitness swimming vs relaxation or socialising. The design team need to understand what facilities will appeal to people in the catchment area, and when and how they will use them. Different cultures can have different consumer preferences e.g. the market demand and revenue potential for spa facilities in central and northern Europe does not exist to the same extent in the British Isles. Project brief and importance of feedback In many cases no written brief is prepared setting out clearly the objectives of the project, what facilities are to be provided, for whom, or how the facility will operate on a dayto-day basis. Often the briefing amounts to the client and architect visiting several facilities, which the client “likes the look of” and then putting together an “à la carte” selection of the “best parts” to create the ideal building. This might work when designing a house but not for a sports / leisure facility.
The remarkable thing is that many of the basic design-generated problems that were pointed out to me 20 years ago are still being repeated today! Why is this?
The “research visit” usually involves a tour where all the best features of an existing facility are pointed out by the architect or owner. Many of the common problems in sports and leisure design are not obvious to an inexperienced eye, and the proud tour guide is not likely to point out the shortcomings of a facility. The result: many design-generated problems are copied time after time. This casual approach to learning can never replace a proper review of the feedback from experienced managers and operators.
One reason is the “copycat” approach of project teams who want to replicate successful facilities without realising that the facilities they have visited were based on thinking and trends 10+ years ago. A key question that must be asked is what current trends should we consider for the future?
If there’s only one question you ask on a research site visit, it should be addressed to the owner or the general manager, and it is: “What would you do differently if you were starting all over again?” You will be amazed at the different impression you will come away with. sb 3/2022
