Cost precedents

The proposal features a large number of changes to the current building envelope; therefore, finding cost precedents for individual segments is largely important to formulate an accurate expectation of the building refurbishment/extension costs.

Vertical Extension | structure

Building use: Hospital

Sq.m.: 2392m2

Cost: 9 402 512.78 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 4 026 £/m2 (rebased)

The proposed use of the roof extension is a community garden and kitchen. Plant pots and kitchen appliances are heavy components; therefore, a structural frame with high resistance to vertical loading is necessary. Therefore, as a precedent for the new roof structure, I have chosen a Hospital in YORK because of the heavy dead and imposed loads in hospital buildings. Additionally, the type of work was a vertical extension; thereby, the costs of the substructure are also relevant as it gives an estimate of how much it costs to extend a building upon an existing envelope.

Stairwell extension

Building use: Medical Centre Sq.m.: 22m2 (2 storeys)

Cost: 143 371.23 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 6 676m2 (rebased)

The precedent for beacon features (vertical access) is the stairwell extension of St Georges Medical Centre. This extension only covers 2 floors and accounts for one staircase, thereby; I assume that the price of my proposal will be significantly higher. Additionally, from the elemental cost breakdown I assume that the stairwell does not offer vertical access for the disabled, thereby, my proposal will be even more expensive.

Vertical Extension | frame

Building use: Warehouse

Sq.m.: 2,788m2

Cost: 1 272 499. 26 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 482 £/m2 (rebased)

For the vertical extension of the building frame (the greenhouse), I have chosen to interrogate the cost of an industrial warehouse unit in East Midlands as warehouses use steel framed structures, and in most cases, the roof does not have to deal with heavy loads. However, I do estimate that my build cost would be 20% higher than the precedent because the precedent is larger in scale (thus cheaper) and uses perforated steel as a facade whereas my proposal is entirely glass, thus will be more expensive.

Refurbishment | Conversion

Building use: Community Hub

Sq.m.: 560m2

Cost: 2 099 976.41 £ (rebased)

Cost /sq.m.: 3 749 £/m2 (rebased)

The most important precedent regarding the interior restoration of MWR is the Community Hub in Glasgow. It offers a direct prize comparison as the works carried out on the interior behind a retained facade a very similar; thereby the price estimation should be fairly accurate.

Estimated Cost

Overall, the design is very ambitious; therefore, the estimated price of the project is around 3 million pounds and could be more. The renovation of the building is intended to be delivered in stages to ensure that a part of the building remains operational throughout the entire process. This would allow the shareholders to maintain a steady income and cover operational costs whilst waiting for building permissions, grants and other sources of funding, as well as cover a part of the initial deposit for the grants.

It is important to note that the success of the rejuvenation of the MWR building relies heavily on the communities willingness to participate in the activities and pay the fees while the building is being restored. However, as the building is for the community after the building is complete, the idea would be to charge the minimum after the building is complete to pay off depts and cover opeational costs and wages.

Funding strategy

Total area: 749 m2

Estimated cost of build: 2 936 566.74 £

Cost per sq/m: 3 920 £/m2

Lobby Demolition / Renovation

Vertical Extension (1 storey)

Ground Floor Renovation

Vertical Extension (2.5 storey)

Theatre Roof Renovation

Rooftop Extension Facade

Revenue Streams

Community space Event space

Mon - Fri 2h - 60£ (10h. work day)

Sat - Sun 2h - 80£ (14h. work day)

Income per month - 6880£

In the 4 year span - 192 640£

Theatre Cafe

Rehersal / performance space

Mon - Fri 3h - 70£ (6h. work day)

Sat - Sun 4h - 200£ (8h. work day)

Income per month - 6000£

In the 4 year span - 84 000£

4.5£ spent per person

5 customers per hour in 10 hour working day = 225£

Income per month - 6300£

In the 4 year span - 176 400£

Reflections

Overview

My Phase 4 proposal is a mix of the modernisation of an old building envelope and the conservation of valuable architectural elements. The key design driver was the creation of a beacon feature that would serve as a source of inspiration as well as a reminder of the rich Resolven History, whilst building for the future.

Intent

Overall, the design is very ambitious due to the extent of the work carried out and the mix of different ideologies. In reference to the cost breakdown and comparison to Phase 2 work, the design is potentially not very realistic, especially in the context of Resolven being a village. However, I do believe I have identified a much-needed architectural vision for the MWR building and Resolven as a whole and made it my own. From my working experience I have learned that the proposal before advanced talks with contractors, clients etc. should strive to represent the best possible scenario for the development and can always be scaled down. I do; therefore, believe the proposal captures the initial goals of developing a beacon that embodies community, sustainability, representation and culture.

Phase 2

In comparison to Phase 2, my phase 4 proposal offers a design intent focused largely on the wider scope of influence rather than detailing a multifunctional event space. The Phase 2 proposal whereas the Phase 4 proposal takes on a wider approach, seeking to have a positive financial and representational impact n Resolven.

Integrated Thinking

I tend to enjoy the process of thinking technically in developing design spaces. As a whole, I believe it would have been better if my proposal had been less ambitious technically, as I had to detail and explore a lot of components. Instead, it would have probably been better to take one element and go in-depth on it, as balancing and producing drawings for 4 different elements meant a slight drop in quality and rigour.