PROF.VALESSANDRA OPPIO, ASSISTANT FEDERICA CADAMURA POLITECNICO DI MILANO 2021-2022
Innovative school in Milan Viale Sarca 24
PROJECT EVALUATION
N.School
G6
Clara Foissard Diana Nakhodkina Renata Ramazanova Sofia Rostilova Chloé Valla
Table of content 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
2. APPRAISAL OF THE MARKET VALUE : COST APPROACH
•
Extrinsic feautures
• Land Value
-
Location
-
Accessibility Transports Services and green areas
•
Construction Cost : comparison with existing building -
Walking distance perimeter -
Delibera Aree Edificabili IMU Description of the comparative building Constructive methods, surface, year…
Quality of the environment
• Profit
Site features
• Conclusion on the Market Value
Intensity of traffic Surrounding buildings •
Historical evolution
Intrinsic feautures -
Description of the building Plans, sections, elevations Model
-
3. ESTIMATION OF THE COST VALUE • UNI_8290 Comparison chart • Refine cost
Construction : structure and materials Details, material explanations
-
Technical features
-
Leasable area
4. CONCLUSION
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
2
1. Description of the project
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
3
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Location Bicocca - Greco neighbourhood
Viale Sarca 24
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
4
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Accessibility
Transports
Transportation
Tramway Lines 5/7/31
Metro Line M5
Bicycle Line
Train Line
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
SOURCE : Geoportale Comune di Milano
1/10000
5
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Accessibility
Services
Green Area
Sports Center
Restaurant, bar, coffee
Commercial supply
Education
Medical center
SOURCE : Geoportale Comune di Milano, Google Maps
1/4500
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
6
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
6 min
Accessibility
Walking distances 7 min
6 min
8 min Radius = 100 m Radius = 200 m
8 min Radius = 400 m
1/4500
SOURCE : Geoportale Comune di Milano, Google Maps Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
7
N / N-E
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Quality of the environment
Site features
meeting point
outdoor gym
children playground parking
siting area
siting area
outdoor field
W
E
Greenery Artificial lights Benches Bins Dominant wind
1/1000
SOURCE : Google Maps Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
8
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Quality of the environment
Intensity of traffic
meeting point
outdoor gym
children playground parking
siting area
siting area
outdoor field
Slow Fast Sound and pollution
1/1000
SOURCE : Google Maps Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
9
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Quality of the environment
Surrounding buildings 1
2
1 2
meeting point
3 outdoor gym
4
3
4
children playground parking
siting area
6
5
siting area
outdoor field
5
6
SOURCE : Personal pictures Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
10
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Quality of the environment
Surrounding buildings 7
7
8
meeting point
outdoor gym
9
children playground
8
parking
siting area
9 siting area
10
10 outdoor field
11
11
SOURCE : Personal pictures Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
11
EXTRINSIC FEATURES
Historical evolution 1 9 1 0
1910
0 3 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 ,1 0 :0 7 :5 4
M ila n o1 9 1 0-P R G 0 2 5 5
1 9 6 5
0
0 ,0 3
0
0 ,0 5
1 :5 .0 0 0 0 ,0 6
0 ,1 2m i
0 ,1
0 ,1 9k m
S o u rc e s : E s ri, H E R E , G a rm in , F A O , N O A A , U S G S , ©O p e n S tre e tM a p c o n trib u to rs ,a n dth eG ISU s e rC o m m u n ity
1 9 6 5
1930
0 3 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 ,1 0 :0 6 :0 6
M ila n o1 9 3 0-C T C 0 1
0
0 ,0 3
0
0 ,0 5
1 :5 .0 0 0 0 ,0 6
0 ,1 2m i
0 ,1
0 ,1 9k m
2 0 1 2
C o p y rig h tC o m u n ed iM ila n o
C o p y rig h tC o m u n ed iM ila n o
E s ri C o m m u n ityM a p sC o n trib u to rs ,E s ri,H E R E ,G a rm in ,G e o T e c h n o lo g ie s ,In c ,M E T I/N A S A ,U S G S|
1965
0 3 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 ,1 0 :0 5 :4 9
M ila n o1 9 6 5-C T C 0 2 5 4
0
0 ,0 3
0
0 ,0 5
1 :5 .0 0 0 0 ,0 6
0 ,1 2m i
0 ,1
0 ,1 9k m
S o u rc e s : E s ri, H E R E , G a rm in , F A O , N O A A , U S G S , ©O p e n S tre e tM a p c o n trib u to rs ,a n dth eG ISU s e rC o m m u n ity
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
C o p y rig h tC o m u n ed iM ila n o
E s ri C o m m u n ityM a p sC o n trib u to rs ,E s ri,H E R E ,G a rm in ,G e o T e c h n o lo g ie s ,In c ,M E T I/N A S A ,U S G S|
2012
0 3 /0 5 /2 0 2 2 ,1 0 :0 3 :3 2
0
M ila n o2 0 1 2-C T C
1 :5 .0 0 0 0 ,0 6
0 ,1 2m i
SOURCE : Geoportale di Milano 0 0 ,0 5 Comune 0 ,1 0 ,1 9k m
R e d : B a n d _ 1 G re e n :B a n d _ 2 B lu e :B a n d _ 3
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
E s ri C o m m u n ityM a p sC o n trib u to rs ,E s ri,H E R E ,G a rm in ,G e o T e c h n o lo g ie s ,In c ,M E T I/N A S A ,U S G S|
0 ,0 3
12
C o p y rig h tC o m u n ed iM ila n o E s ri C o m m u n ityM a p sC o n trib u to rs ,E s ri,H E R E ,G a rm in ,G e o T e c h n o lo g ie s ,In c ,M E T I/N A S A ,U S G S|
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Description of the building PLOT DIMENSION: 14300sqm TOT. GROSS FLOOR AREA: 7262sqm FOOTPRINT: 3791sqm -26.5% of the plot area MAX. HEIGHT: 8 m GENERAL IINFORMATION: Main goal of creation this middle school was to increase the level of public space and ope facilities in the district through the open spaces in the school's lot. That is why green zone in front of the area as important as the building itself. As for the building it is a unit of private and public spaces. We have public and private blocksthat are connected through the inner corridor and outdoors paths. Thiscreate a easily accessible areas. The inner space of the school was designed using CLT panels, using mainly a skeleton structure to allow a lot of flexibility in the educational process for kids. BUILDING'S FUNCTIONS: PRIVATE BLOCK: Educational -29 classrooms(with 16 people capacity each) Cultural -Library with coworking spaces, common study spaces Recreational -canteen, common spaces Support services -stock area, security center, reception PUBLIC BLOCK: Sport facilities -covered sports ground with tribunes Cultural -auditorium (with 80 people capacity) Support services -technical room, coatroom, stock rooms, changing rooms.
Master plan
Source : personal
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
13
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Description of the building
Interior atmosphere Intrinsic features: The classroom windows overlook the courtyards, which are designed to motivate students to interact with nature. Two courtyards create a different atmosphere: the northern one is calm for studying, the southern one is playful for breaks between classes.
Groundfloor plan Source : personal Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
14
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Description of the building
Model : relationship of the library with internal garden (view and natural lighting)
First floor plan Source : personal
STRUCTURALGRI DFI RSTFLOOR SCALE1: 500 Pol i t ec ni codi Mi l ano/AUI C/2021/ 2022/Ar chi t ec t ur alDesi gnSt udi o3 pr of .Cami l l oMagni pr of .Andr eaDeMat t ei s as si s t antBogdanPer i c
Gr oup2
Di anaNakhodk i na Renat aRamaz anova Sof i aRos t i l ova Vas i l ei osMar l ant i s
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
15
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Description of the building
Sections Axonometry
North Elevation
Source : personal
South Elevation
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
16
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Typical classroom DIMENSION: 62.4sqm
Main feature: easy access to the inner courtyard through the glass door panels, movable furniture, movable walls for group's interactions. MAIN MATERIALS: wooden panels, plasterboards, metal bars, whiteboard panels. RAI VERIFICATION -LIGHTING RATIO active space -62.4 sqm Regulation: >1/8 Proposal: 19.6 sqm -windows/doors Ratio: 2.51/8
Section of the classroom
RAI VERIFICATION -VENTILATION RATIO active space -62.4 sqm Regulation: >1/10 Proposal: 9.8 sqm -window+glass door Ratio: 1.57/10
View from the classroom
Plan of the classroom
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
Source : personal
17
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Construction : structure and materials Skeleton structure, main material -CLT columns and panels. Foundation -concrete.
technical section (source: personal)
elevation of the facade
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
(source: personal)
18
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Pros & Cons CONS
PROS ECOLOGY Energy efficiency (Skeleton structure allows to place glazing as much as needed for daily light, CLT panels have high thermal performance, and does not require additional insulation) Low CO2 footprint Reusable material that can be burned into clean energy SOCIAL Additional public areas for the district Enlargement of the green zone Provides mixed-use facilities for the neighborhood (library and gym open to the neighborhood) Little noise pollution during the construction phase TRANSPORTATION Close location to the M5 metro line Easy accessibility with public transportation
ECOLOGY Usage of non-local material (transportation impact) SOCIAL Close location to the busy roads Destruction of local heritage (demolishing of the original school) TRANSPORTATION Difficult access with private transport DOWNSIDES FOR INVESTMENT The far location from the downtown Increase in construction cost The structure must be dry to prevent it from rotting (cost of ventilation systems)
HEALTH AND SAFETY A healthy environment for breathing Higher fire resistance (in comparison with brick structure and reinforced concrete) Well performance of the structure in case of earthquakes POSITIVES FOR INVESTMENT Flexible can easily be transformed to serve different functions The building has multiple views from inside The shape of the building creates different atmospheres: silent, moderate, and active for different types of users Corridors work both as distribution and leisure spaces
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
19
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Gross floor area Ground floor: 3 651,4 m² First floor: 3 611,2 m² Total Gross floor area: 7 262,6 m²
N
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
20
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Leasable area
Function
1
3
8
4
s1
7 3
2
4
1
5
B
s2
6
C Classrooms
A 2
Bathrooms Staircases
5
Entrance/corridor
N
Changing rooms 6
D Storage Auditorium Sport hall Canteen Library Office/Teaching room
Classrooms A Classrooms B Classrooms C Clasrooms D Bathroom 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 3 Bathroom 4 Bathroom 5 Bathroom 6 Bathroom 7 Bathroom 8 Sport hall Auditorium Cloackroom Changing room 1 Changing room 2 Offices Teachers room Library Canteen Entrance/Corridor Corridor/Common sp Staircase 1 Staircase 2 Staircase 3 Staircase 4 Staircase 5 Staircase 6 Staircase 7 Elevator Kitchen
Surface [sqm]
Common space/corridor
Coefficient Commercial area [sqm]
Ground floor Main surfaces/direct services 223.07 100% 195 100% 196.8 100% 264.34 100% 47.17 100% 66 100% 32.6 100% 16.59 100% 29.55 100% 11.79 100% 29.45 100% 22.45 100% 439.83 100% 207.46 100% 42.52 100% 33.49 100% 33.49 100% 131.06 100% 65.9 100% 147.97 100% 124.81 100% 240.39 100% 1005 100% 26.86 100% 10.2 100% 10.06 100% 5.99 100% 19.97 100% 14.9 100% 7.8 100% 6.19 100% 8.45 100%
Garden Courtyard
N School
Storage 1 Storage 2 Courtyard Garden 1 Garden 2
Related services 7.33 7.45 Ornamental 7014.12 277.14 874.97
223.07 195 196.8 264.34 47.17 66 32.6 16.59 29.55 11.79 29.45 22.45 439.83 207.46 42.52 33.49 33.49 131.06 65.9 147.97 124.81 240.39 1005 26.86 10.2 10.06 5.99 19.97 14.9 7.8 6.19 8.45
50% 50%
3.665 3.725
10% 10%
701.412 27.714
10%
87.497
First floor
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
223.07 195 196.8 196.55 66.73
21
Staircase 2 Staircase 3 Staircase 4 Staircase 5 Staircase 6 Staircase 7 Elevator Kitchen
INTRINSIC FEATURES
Leasable area
10.2 10.06 5.99 19.97 14.9 7.8 6.19 8.45 Related services 7.33 7.45 Ornamental 7014.12 277.14
Storage 1 Storage 2 Courtyard Garden 1 Garden 2
3’ D’
Classrooms Bathrooms Common space/corridor
1’
Common spacel
B’
s2’
Canteen C’
Library Common space/corridor
A’ 2’
Storage
Classrooms A' Classrooms B' Classrooms C' Classrooms D' Canteen Library Bathroom 1' Bathroom 2' Bathroom 3' Corridor/Common sp Distribution space Seats/common space Projection room Storage 2'
874.97
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
10.2 10.06 5.99 19.97 14.9 7.8 6.19 8.45
50% 50%
3.665 3.725
10% 10%
701.412 27.714
10%
87.497
First floor Main surfaces/direct services 223.07 100% 195 100% 196.8 100% 196.55 100% 66.73 100% 91.32 100% 47.17 100% 66 100% 65.19 100% 1006.04 100% 196.76 100% 221.8 100% Related services 8.46 50% 7.45 50%
Total commercial area
223.07 195 196.8 196.55 66.73 91.32 47.17 66 65.19 1006.04 196.76 221.8 4.23 3.725
7121.548
D’
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
22
2. Market value : Cost approach
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
23
MARKET VALUE
Land Value
Land value per square meter = 345,28 € Gross floor area Ground floor : 3 651,4 m² 345,28 x 3 651,4 = 1 260 755,4 € Our land value according to the 2009 land value of the area would be 1 260 755 €.
SOURCE : Comune di Milano, Aree Fabbricabili 2009
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
24
MARKET VALUE
Comparison
The school proposal has been associated with type F1 due to similaritiesin general layout, number of floors,their height and foundation type (fig.1-2). However, the structure of the proposal is a wooden structure, particularly glulam beams and CLT slabs and wall panels, which is not typical for F1. The new incidence of the structural part was calculated according to the data found for a construction of CLT partitions and wooden structural elements. Another difference of costs, compared with F1, was calculated according to the bigger number of lift systems,the proposal includes 7 of them, while F1 type 4. The proposal type does not include any masonry partitions. The excavation and foundation similarities are accounted for due to the nearly same number of floors, their height, general layout and the foundation type.
F1 School from listino - 3 980 m² covered area - 15 classrooms - library - canteen - gym - auditorium - 2 floors
Our school - 7 262,6 m² covered area - 29 classrooms - library - canteen - gym - auditorium - 2 floors
fig.1 Floor plan and section of F1 type (source: ListinoTipologico)
fig.2 Floor plan and section or the school proposal (source: personal)
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
25
MARKET VALUE
Construction Cost F1
SECONDARY SCHOOL
SUMMARY TABLE OF COSTS AND PERCENTAGE OF INCIDENCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Description Foundation Prefabricated structures Work on site Screed and gravel crawl space Waterproof barrier Internal partitions Flooring and skirtings Coatings Internal doors Alluminium and glass works Blacksmith works Painter works Sanitary water systems Electrical systems Fire protection systems Air Conditioning systems Lift systems Total Construction Cost
Cost (€) 198,133.00 870,617.00 93,206.00 42,937.00 159,353.00 163,963.00
Incidence 7.5% 32.9% 3.5% 1.6% 6.0% 6.2%
Cost -/+ -21.85% 140.0% 1333.1% 81.0% 82.3% -98.3%
New cost (€) 162,598.90 2,089,258.11 1,335,769.65 77,709.82 290,504.00 2,718.30
New incidence 2.7% 35.2% 22.5% 1.3% 4.9% 0.0%
150,431.00 55,787.00 37,948.00 251,728.00 8,314.00 70,000.00 39,007.00 125,712.00 134,481.00 198,057.00 37,797.00
5.7% 2.1% 1.4% 9.5% 0.3% 2.6% 1.5% 4.8% 5.1% 7.5% 1.4%
82.0% -3.01% 81.81% 82.45% 74.71% 81.57% 82.46% 81.98% 82.00% 82.25% 75.0%
273,800.02 54,109.00 68,994.70 459,286.82 14,525.20 127,095.50 71,173.48 228,771.90 244,749.62 360,951.22 66,144.75
4.6% 0.9% 1.2% 7.7% 0.2% 2.1% 1.2% 3.9% 4.1% 6.1% 1.1%
2,642,762.00
100.00%
5,928,161.00
100.00%
PARAMETRIC COST TABLE 5,928,161.00 7,263 5,928,161.00 23,967
816.00 Euro
Costo dell'opera al m2
247.00 Euro
Costo dell'opera al m3
Gross floor area m2
7,262.64
Volume of structure m3
2321.14
SOURCE : Listino tipologico and Prezzario Regionale
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
26
MARKET VALUE
Construction Cost: sources
Conclusion on Market Value
Il Prezzario Regionale - sulla base di quanto previsto dall’art. 23 del D.Lgs. 50/2016 e s.m. e i. (Codice dei Contratti)
Since our project is a public school, the values we accounted for the appraisal of market value are : - Land value : 1 260 755 € - Appreciation cost (we don’t have depreciation for public buildings), this is a construction cost and not a production cost : 5 928 161 € - Profit : for a school, we consider a 3% profit of the sum of the Land Value and the Construction Cost estimations :
Foundations
1 260 755,4 + 5 928 161 = 7 188 916,4 Profit = 215 667,492 €
Our estimate Market Value is 7 404 583 €. Inner partitions
Coatings
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
27
3. Estimation of the Cost value
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
28
COST VALUE
UNI_8290 Comparison chart Refinement of the achieved construction cost by using UNI_8290 Comparison Chart
GROUP OF TECHNOLOGICAL UNITS
TECHNOLOGICAL UNITS
GROUP OF TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
COMPARABLE
INCIDENCE
DIRECT FOUNDATIONS
Reinforced concrete isolated footing
Reinforced concrete footing (beams and transverse connections)
↓
INDIRECT FOUNDATIONS
X
X
X
VERTICAL FRAME
CLT columns 30x30x670
Concrete pillars
↑
HORIZONTAL AND SLOPING FRAME
CLT beams 30x30x400, 30x30x800, 30x30x330
VERTICAL BEARING FRAME
Glulam columns (300 mm)
HORIZONTAL BEARING FRAME
Glulam beams (300 mm) CLT panels (270 mm)
FOUNDATIONS
STRUCTURE
NON BEARING ELEVATION STRUCTURE
VERTICAL CLOSURE
on site Concrete pillars + 15cm concrete blind walls for bracing
ELEVATION STRUCTURE
EXTERNAL WALLS
Prefabricated plates with completion casting
Prefabricated plates with completion casting on site
Prefabricated concrete element (15cm thick), 10cm CLT panels +20cm insulation + waterproof breathing membrane + timber cladding continous parapet
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
EXTERNAL WINDOWS
Triple glazing window system (double-air cavity) + aluminium and copper frame (3,5x175x335)
PVC profile with wooden stiffners and
GROUND FLOOR
Wood
plaster
↑
HORIZONTAL WINDOW
X
X
X
FLOORS ON EXTRERNAL SPACES
Mineral
Red stoneware
↑
ROOF
Flat monolithic slab 270mm CLT + aluminium
Aluminium
↑
EXTERNAL HORIZONTAL WINDOWS
X
X
X
completion
↑
HORIZONTAL ENCLOSURE CLOSURES
HORIZONTAL ENCLOSURE ON EXTERNAL SPACES
TOP ECLOSURE
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
29
COST VALUE
UNI_8290 Comparison chart GROUP OF TECHNOLOGICAL UNITS
TECHNOLOGICAL UNITS
INTERNAL PARTITION VERTICAL INTERNAL PARTITION
GROUP OF TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
COMPARABLE
INCIDENCE
INTERNAL WALLS
Plasterboard walls
15 cm concrete walls
↓
INTERNAL WINDOWS
X
X
X
FLOORS HORIZONTAL INTERNAL PARTITIONS INTERNAL PARTITION
Thermal +accoustic insulation + concrete Red stoneware 7,5x15 / stoneware tiles 10x10 screed + fireproofing + marmoleum finish + CLT panel (150mm) +suspended timber + rubber 6cm + 3cm wear layer ceiling with LED lights set
↑
INTERMEDIATE FLOORS
X
X
X
INTERNAL HORIZONTAL WINDOWS
X
X
X
Concrete structure, Botticino marble 3x3cm
↓
Metal staircase with wood finishing, glass and
STAIRS
wood railings
SLOPING INTERNAL PARTITION INTERNAL SLOPES
X
X
X
FINISHES
Wooden panels (already accounted in structure)
Plaster
↓
DETAILS
X
Ceramic or wooden cladding for skirting
↓
PROJECTION ELEMENTS
Screed
X
↑
SEPARATION ELEMENTS
X
X
X
FINISHES
Wooden cladding
Under-window panels covered in marble grit
↓
DETAILS
X
X
X
INTERNAL DETAILS
VERTICAL EXTERNAL PARTITION EXTERNAL PARTITION EXTERNAL DETAILS
After comparing our building with the reference of the Listino Tipologico, we took into account the shape of the building, its overall dimensions, functions, and after using the UNI_8290 comparison chart, we obtained an overall picture of incidence differences in the new construction.
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
30
Conclusion The school proposal on via Sarca in Milan was chosen as a subject of the project work, since it had the elaborated level of design and the sources for market evaluation for Lombardy are accessible. The first stage of the school evaluation was the in-depth analysis of the extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics. For the extrinsic ones location and the vicinity of the subject property, accessibility and transportation network, quality of the urban environment, attractions and historical evolution were analyses. The school area is calm, clean, surrounded by moderate density residential area, giving green and vast atmosphere. Surrounding buildings mostly in a good condition, newly painted and renovated. There are differentiated functions along the neighborhood, such as schools, university, theatre and musical recording studio or sport center, that creates a circulation in the area and supports the movement of residents. Second stage of the evaluation was the general description of the layout of the building, technical solutions and details, as well as the quantitative data, such as gross-floor and leasable areas. The project proposal provides qualitative public space, which has a main function of school but can be transformed to the other function such as offices, co-working spaces or other educational facilities. The indoor quality reaches the high level of comfort by the use of CLT panels, aircirculation systems and the vast glazing. Finally, the cost approach was taken for the evaluation of the market value since public buildings such as schools do not have comparable examples in the open market and do not usually produce an income, therefore cannot be evaluated with sales comparison and income approaches. Market value estimation was started with the analysis of the land value in Biccoca area. The construction cost was calculated, using the data from listino topologico F1 school type, however the cost of the structure was recalculated according to the CLT construction costs (including labour and material cost) in “Il Prezzario Regionale di regione Lombardia”. Similarly, the cost value was estimated using the amount achieved in construction cost calculation and the comparison chart. As a result of the analysis we consider the final market value 7 404 583 eur as and cost value as 5 928 161 eur.
Politecnico di Milano 2021-2022
Case Study : Elementary School
Group 6 : Clara Foissard,
Project Evaluation
Viale Sarca 24
Diana Nakhodkina, Renata Ramazanova,
Prof. Alessandra Oppio, Assistant Federica Cadamura
20125 Milano
Sofia Rostilova, Chloé Valla
31