Introduction
While new schools understandably receive more press coverage, capital expenditure on existing schools far exceeds that spent on entirely new developments. Even at the height of investment under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, the presumption was that only 50% of expenditure was to be on new buildings, with 35% on ‘heavy’ refurbishment and 15% ‘light’ refurbishment. Bearing in mind the higher construction costs of new buildings it is clear that even BSF was intended to deliver many more refurbishment and remodelling projects than high-profile new schools.
Goose Green Primary School, Southwark (Cazenove Architects). A bright new atrium and reception area provide a welcoming and accessible entrance for the whole school with previously hidden administrative functions now open and visible. The new entrance structure creates a focus on the original brick and terracotta craftsmanship, contrasting the timber and glazing of the extension with the warm solid masonry of the Victorian building.
In austerity and post-austerity Britain, the emphasis on works to existing buildings is even greater. While investment continues, albeit at a reduced scale, the presumption today is towards maximising the potential and value of the existing estate.
With pressure on school places in many parts of the country there is also a need for expansion of existing schools to meet increasing demand. This has been particularly true since the Academies Act 2010, as local authorities are generally no longer able to establish new schools themselves and must therefore expand existing schools to increase places. In recent years such expansion has been most prevalent in the primary age group, but the growth in student numbers is now naturally moving through into secondary schools.
For these reasons it is appropriate and important to identify and celebrate successful refurbishments and extensions, as well as new-build schemes. Irrespective of future funding decisions they are likely to remain as the majority of schools projects and require a particularly flexible and creative approach both in briefing and design.
Redevelopment versus refurbishment
The benefits of wholesale redevelopment are self-evident, providing modern, purpose-built accommodation suitable to the needs of 21st century education. In contrast, existing buildings may be in poor condition or built to very different standards than those now required, both educationally and technically.
Educationally, pedagogical styles and practices are constantly changing, and with them the type and size of space required. The UK’s school estate however, dates back well over a hundred years and includes thousands of buildings from the Victorian and Edwardian eras. These were typically designed to accommodate static teaching, with children learning by rote and in serried ranks. Even schools from the 1960s and 1970s are often undersized and inflexible compared to modern standards, or simply unsuitable for contemporary practices such as widespread use of ICT. Outside the classroom, older schools often lack facilities for supporting class-based learning including resource areas, group rooms or private study spaces. Certain school layouts, particularly campus arrangements (as described in Chapter 3) may also create ‘silos’ within the school and limit opportunities for cross-curricular activities.
Technically, existing school buildings vary widely in their performance. Victorian and Edwardian classrooms typically have high ceilings, excellent daylight and good natural ventilation, although their load-bearing masonry walls can be very restrictive and expensive to modify. In contrast, the framed, system-build schools of the 1960s and 1970s are typically flexible and easy to remodel. However, their lower ceilings and lightweight construction mean they frequently suffer from poor ventilation, bad acoustics and inadequate insulation, being cold in winter and overheating in summer. Poor environmental performance is also exacerbated by activities for which the buildings were not originally designed, such as the extensive use of ICT with its associated heat output.
Although refurbishment can offer remedies to many such deficiencies, there may nevertheless be disadvantages or limitations to such an approach. One of the most critical is the disruption involved in works to occupied buildings. Phasing or the use of temporary accommodation may make refurbishment possible, but both will incur costs and may protract disruption, particularly if multiple moves are required. Remodelling may also be limited by listing or other protective designations.
However, if existing buildings can be brought up to modern standards cost-effectively, then retention and refurbishment is by definition a more sustainable approach than wholesale replacement. It may also offer other benefits:
- Current funding is based on gross internal areas that may be less generous than existing buildings. In this instance, a refurbished school with extra space may be preferable to a smaller new school even though the latter would be purpose designed to current needs. The additional space may provide sufficient flexibility to overcome other deficiencies.
- If the construction budget is already defined, then it may go further if an acceptable and efficient refurbishment option can be identified. If so, the same budget may be able to deliver more space or a better standard of finish or fit-out than the new-build alternative.
-
The inherent value of existing buildings is not always quantifiable. Just as a poor reputation or history of underachievement sometimes favours comprehensive redevelopment, successful schools may prefer to retain well-loved buildings, even if they are no longer entirely fit for purpose. They are part of the school’s individual identity and character and their loss may be detrimental in itself. They may also have wider heritage or cultural significance within the neighbourhood. Listed buildings in particular may offer qualities that could never be replicated. The listing may impose restrictions but there are many extremely creative examples of their refurbishment for contemporary needs.i
Not surprisingly, existing school buildings tend to be constructed in the most appropriate position on the site. If temporary accommodation or phasing is to be avoided, to minimise both costs and disruption, then replacement buildings will need to be in a less favourable location. This may be marginal and of little consequence; on the other hand the drawbacks may be significant and lead to a preference for retention and adaptation. - Where funding is limited or only available over a longer period, refurbishment and extension is more likely to be deliverable than wholesale replacement. In such cases, a comprehensive masterplan and phasing strategy are essential to ensure funds are spent effectively over the long term.
- When working with existing buildings it is often easier for a school to test out alternative solutions (both physical and educational) in a small area before embarking on wider scale changes.
Hayes Primary School, Croydon (Hayhurst and Co). This expansion provides an exciting and vibrant new extension to a tired and outdated school building. New accommodation, incorporating a 54 metre long, mirror-finish stainless steel screen, wraps around the front and side of the school to shield the existing fabric and provide a cohesive visual treatment from the road.
Walthamstow School for Girls, Waltham Forest (ArchitecturePLB). This project involved the refurbishment and extension of an existing Grade II listed Edwardian school to provide new facilities and to improve circulation and accessibility across a constrained and sloping site. At the interface with the existing building a new drama studio doubles up as a fully serviced stage for the historic assembly hall.
For these reasons, refurbishment, remodelling and extension should not be considered as a necessarily inferior alternative to redevelopment. Although the limitations imposed by existing buildings may require compromises or derogations against modern performance standards, refurbishment can also deliver positive benefits. Redevelopment may also have its own drawbacks. Evaluation and comparison of alternative options therefore needs to be carried out very carefully and against the widest possible criteria.
Establishing needs
Evaluation of possible needs typically starts with an assessment of the sufficiency, suitability and condition of the existing estate. The specific scope may vary from project to project but all three elements are essential to provide a balanced appraisal and to ensure that investment is focused on delivering best value.
- Sufficiency of accommodation addresses the number of spaces required, teaching and non-teaching, their size and capacity to accommodate student and staff numbers. While guidance for a particular size of school is available in Building Bulletin 103, it is necessarily generic and based on new-build provision. The number and size of spaces will vary from school to school according to teaching preferences and practice, and in the case of existing schools, the spaces available. Wherever possible, sufficiency assessments should therefore be carried out on the basis of preferred group sizes and an idealised timetable.
- Suitability of spaces addresses a wide range of issues, including room size, accessibility, proportion, orientation, environmental performance and services provision. It may also relate to site-wide issues such as location within the school, access for deliveries and/or community use and proximity to other facilities, both internal and external.
- Like sufficiency, suitability relates to teaching practice and how the room will or can be used. An assessment is therefore best if specific to an individual school. Furthermore, resolution of a particular deficiency may not require a construction solution at all, but instead a change in the way the school operates and delivers. For example, a particular room may be unsuitable for its current use but perfectly adequate for other functions.
- Condition is perhaps the most straightforward of assessments. Nevertheless, investment decisions are not always clear. Some repair or refurbishment requirements may be absolute while others will deliver benefits that need to be evaluated against the costs involved and the likely lifespan of the building. If the latter is limited then significant investment is unlikely to deliver value in the long term.
Together these three different kinds of assessment provide the project team with a comprehensive understanding of the existing buildings, what works and what doesn’t, both from an educational and a technical viewpoint. Only on such a basis can effective and informed brief development and options appraisal occur.
Hilden Grange Preparatory School, Tonbridge (Hawkins|Brown). The new building is designed to exploit the steeply sloping site, providing two wings of teaching accommodation and a new hall, all set within a conservation area and in the shadow of the school’s main Victorian building. The slope of the site allows the roof of the hall to be used as a terrace and allows long views across the Weald of Kent.
A creative approach to briefing and design
While all projects are likely to benefit from the involvement of design professionals at the early briefing stages, this is particularly true when adapting existing buildings.
In developing new schools, the client is likely to have a reasonable understanding of what is possible, at least sufficient to establish outline requirements, informed by their own expertise and the recommendations of Building Bulletins and other guidance. In new-build projects, the design team is therefore typically required to respond to a previously-developed brief, albeit one that may be revised or refined as part of the iterative design process.
When working with existing structures however, the possibilities are likely to be less clear at the outset as well as more restricted. In such cases, the early involvement of expert designers is particularly valuable. Not only can an architect offer a technical appraisal of existing buildings and their potential, one with knowledge of the sector may be able to suggest alternative educational solutions based on their experience of working with other schools. In such cases the architect is crucial in assisting the client to formulate the brief as well as the design solution.
Identifying existing problems, both educational and technical, therefore provides the starting point and requires the expertise of both the educationalist client and their technical advisers. Working together, they can then develop alternative design solutions and assess their educational implications in terms of delivering the curriculum, timetabling and staffing requirements.
Information gathering
With pros and cons to both refurbishment and redevelopment, it is imperative that all decisions, from feasibility stage onwards, are carried out on the basis of the best possible understanding of the existing buildings and site. Detailed surveys are therefore essential if the costs associated with different options are to be accurately evaluated.
At the early stages however, there is a natural disinclination to commission surveys that may prove unnecessary in the long run, either because the project fails to progress or because a particular building ends up being demolished rather than refurbished. Intrusive surveys may also be unacceptably disruptive in the context of an occupied school.
Deciding which surveys should be commissioned and when requires a judgment call based on the experience and expertise of the team. In general it is probably best to risk too many surveys rather than too few. Some however may be carried out only at a high level in order to establish whether more detailed and/or intrusive investigations are required, either immediately or at a later stage in the process.
Typical requirements include:
Site-wide surveys and investigations (also required for a new school):
- Title, boundaries, easements etc.
- Planning status and history.
- Arboriculture.
- Ecology/Habitat.
- Flood risk.
- Archaeology.
- Ground/Soil investigation.
- Contamination.
- Utilities searches/surveys.
- Drainage.
- Topographical survey.
- Site acoustics.
- Traffic and highways.
Building surveys and investigations (specific to existing buildings):
- Heritage assessment – listings, conservation area status etc.
- Condition.
- Structural.
- Building acoustics.
- Asbestos.
- Measured building survey.
While many or all of these surveys may be needed at some stage in the process, the most important information-gathering exercise can be carried out by the architect at the start of the project.
Spending time on site with end users will always pay dividends in improving the design team’s understanding of a building, its performance, limitations and potential. The wealth of knowledge available from teaching staff, students and site managers is an extremely valuable resource and one that should not be ignored, even when it is anecdotal and needs interpretation by construction professionals.
Cost effectiveness and value
When working with existing structures, the relationship between cost and value is even more complex than when designing new schools.
Costs
Detailed and accurate costs are unlikely to be available at the early design stages when the implications of existing structures are yet to be established. While new-build costs can be relatively easily benchmarked against similar recent projects, relevant precedents for adaptation will be rarer and harder to identify.
The range of options is also likely to be broader when working with an existing estate than when designing a new school. Each building or building element might be retained in its current state, refurbished, remodelled, extended or replaced; it may maintain its existing function or change its use as part of a wider reorganisation of the school. In the case of existing buildings, the client therefore needs to understand not only what is technically possible but also the order of costs associated with different solutions, including the costs of temporary works or phased construction if required.
St Marylebone School, Westminster (Gumuchdjian Architects). Located on an extremely tight urban site, the school required new facilities including art and music accommodation plus dance/drama studios and a gymnasium. The latter are located entirely below ground, maximising the potential of the site and allowing the roof to be used as a new outdoor play space.
St Benedict’s School, Ealing (Henley Halebrown Rorrison). The scheme, like Russian dolls, incorporates an examination hall within an assembly hall, along with a new Chapel, a Music School, Modern Languages department, visitor and pupil entrances. The cloister reflects the school’s Benedictine culture and offers barrier-free access to much of the existing school estate.
The relationship between capital and revenue costs may also be less clear-cut than when designing new buildings. If the environmental performance of an existing building is to be upgraded, there is a balance to be struck between additional short-term capital costs and long-term revenue savings.
The advice of cost consultants, engineers and other designers with experience of working with existing buildings is therefore essential at the early stages of the project. Their expertise will allow alternative strategies to be scoped and cost-assessed for an effective comparison.
Value
The notion of value is almost always nebulous. While it is easy to agree the need for best-value design solutions, it is harder to define what this means. Investment in existing school buildings will, almost inevitably, deliver improvements. Greater investment may deliver incremental improvements but at what point they stop delivering value is for the team to assess.
To evaluate value in the context of a particular project it is necessary to understand the values of the client. In the case of schools, there are multiple such clients – funders, governors, managers, teachers, students, parents and the wider community. Not only may their values be hard to identify or define, with such a wide group of stakeholders there will inevitably be differences in concerns and opinions.
It is therefore essential to come to some shared understanding of the outcomes sought of each particular project, incorporating a wide range of different perspectives including the educational, pastoral and social. Without such an understanding at the start, it will be impossible to evaluate and compare alternative design solutions that, in the case of existing schools, may be widely divergent.
The role of the architect in defining goals and delivering value
Briefing
While defining the goals of a particular project is the responsibility of stakeholders, the architect has an important role in assisting the process. As an external adviser during brief development, the architect can help by taking an objective view, balancing potentially conflicting requirements and recording agreed objectives in the form of a written brief or statement of desired outcomes. If preferred, he or she may also be able to facilitate the process using industry-standard systems such as the Design Quality Indicators for Schools.ii
Design stages
The evaluation and comparison of alternative design solutions is the function of clients and designers working together. As the design develops into detail however, it is typically the architect’s role to represent the client’s interests in making decisions regarding effective expenditure. As ‘guardian’ of the brief he or she must ensure that other members of the design team understand the client’s vision and that all aspects of the design, including decisions relating to where and where not to spend money, are focused accordingly. In this way, the architect is responsible for ensuring that design and construction solutions deliver value by meeting the goals defined at the outset by the client.
Achieving the best return on investment or ‘more for less’
Whether working in the state or independent sectors, there is a natural requirement for designers to deliver the best possible outcomes from investment, either by achieving more or spending less. Evaluation of return can be complex, particularly in the case of refurbishment and remodelling. If the maximum benefit is to be achieved then it is self-evidently necessary to avoid ineffective expenditure. When adapting existing buildings however, it is not uncommon for costs to be incurred as a result of inadequate information at the critical decision-making stages. With an experienced team, good communications and mutual understanding, it is equally possible to ensure that all investment is directed towards project goals through a combination of intelligent briefing and design.
Change the brief, not the building
As has been described previously, an understanding of the technical implications and the construction costs associated with different design solutions is essential if they are to be compared effectively. Any intervention that affects structure, building services or environmental systems comes with a price tag. Best value therefore tends to be delivered by solutions that minimise such intervention, working with rather than against the grain of the building and its inherent design logic. In turn this may require a more flexible approach to briefing than is necessary when designing new schools.
The architect therefore needs to understand the building’s performance as a learning environment as well as in a technical sense. By spending time with building users in order to understand those things that a building does well, as well as its failings, it is possible to minimise costly interventions and hence maximise value.
For example, Building Bulletin 103 suggests an area of 55m2 for a 30-pupil general classroom and 62m2 for an infant or ICT-rich classroom. However, many existing school buildings have classrooms well below these areas, often as low as 45m2. In some cases, such as the system-build schools of the 1960s and 1970s, it may be simple enough to relocate internal partitions to increase room sizes. The buildings were designed with such flexibility in mind and enlargement can be achieved relatively easily and cost effectively.
In contrast, Victorian and Edwardian buildings tend to have load-bearing internal walls and window arrangements specific to the original plan form. Enlarging these classrooms to modern area standards may be cost prohibitive or even impossible. In such cases the solution is likely to be partially educational. By assessing the activities precluded by the smaller rooms, and by providing for these differently or elsewhere, it may be possible to address the deficiency without meeting the standard area requirements.
At its most extreme, it may be that the 45m2 classrooms are considered perfectly functional, but for 24 pupils rather than 30. In this case, one option would be to leave the existing building alone but build additional classrooms and employ extra
JCB Academy (LHC Architecture) The reuse, conversion and development of a former Arkwright Cotton Mill into the UK’s first university technical college, focused on delivering high quality engineering and business education. The project involved sensitive restoration of the Grade II* listed structure, the addition of sympathetic but contemporary new buildings, landscaping and specialist facilities.
Goose Green Primary School, Southwark (Cazenove Architects). This phased remodelling and extension of a Grade II listed 1901 board school was designed to minimise disruption to the occupants while updating the existing accommodation, improving circulation and providing a new entrance, administration and catering facilities. The new wing is designed to complement and enhance the original building.
teaching staff. Such a solution may be difficult to achieve as it would involve different budgets and funding streams. Nevertheless it may be worth considering if it delivers better value than costly remodelling, particularly if the reduced group size also offers learning benefits.
Designing out temporary costs and disruption
The costs of redevelopment are not restricted to construction alone. Other project costs, such as those associated with phasing, temporary accommodation or multiple decanting, can be significant. Unlike construction expenditure however, these costs deliver no long-term benefits in themselves. They may however be necessary, and valuable, in order to achieve a preferred scheme.
It is therefore imperative when comparing alternative design solutions to consider the costs and disruption of implementation, even where these may be hard to quantify. If a design solution can be developed that minimises the need for complex phasing or temporary accommodation, then a greater percentage of the overall budget can be directed towards delivering long-term benefits. In contrast, the costs of implementation and the impact of disruption may mean that the best long-term design solution is not in fact the best value, or the preferred option.
Disruption and temporary implementation costs may also vary according to the time of year. It is therefore important to consider the construction sequence and programme against the academic cycle. For example, delaying the start or changing the sequence of construction may deliver value if it reduces the detrimental impact or costs associated with mitigating disruption to exams.
Multi-purpose, multifunction, multi-user
Modern school buildings are generally briefed and designed to maximise utilisation, allowing as many areas as possible to be used for as much of the day as possible. This is not necessarily the case for existing buildings where, for example, the dining hall may have been designed for use only at lunchtime.
When working with existing school buildings, one of the best ways of maximising value is therefore to increase the use and functionality of existing spaces. For example it may be possible for a revamped dining hall to be used outside dining hours, as a student social space or for informal assembly or private study. Alternatively, a facility may retain its existing function but expand its user base. Opening up sports facilities to the community can generate extra revenue, as can allowing historic buildings to be used for functions such as wedding receptions.
Conclusion
It is undoubtedly true that working with existing school buildings requires greater compromises than designing new ones. Not only can it be complex or impossible to bring existing structures up to modern standards, but technical, functional or cost restrictions may require difficult decisions.
On the other hand, refurbishing existing buildings may offer possibilities and outcomes that a new school cannot. While new school buildings can, at least to some extent, be standardised, this is not the case when working with existing buildings, each of which has its own positive and negative characteristics. Understanding and responding to these is essential if we are to unlock their potential. Successful schemes are those that bring out the best in the original structures, exploiting what works well while at the same time addressing those things that do not.
For the Architect, the challenges of working with existing school buildings can be especially enjoyable, requiring project-specific solutions, design flair and individual creativity to liberate and enhance their inherent value. The juxtaposition of new and old offers the chance to explore and enjoy contrasting forms, materials, colours and textures in a way that may be impossible in an entirely new building.
The relationship between designers and educationalists can also be especially productive and rewarding when working with existing structures. Designing buildings is always a team effort but in the case of existing schools, effective and early collaboration between client and designers is particularly important. Each must respond to the expertise of the other in order to fulfill their own role in the process and together reach the most effective synergy between brief and design. This is both the challenge and the particular pleasure of working with existing school buildings.
References
i Refer, for example, ‘England’s Schools. History, Architecture and Adaptation’ (English Heritage, 2010).
ii The Design Quality Indicator (DQI) is a ‘toolkit’ developed by the Construction Industry Council (CIC) to measure, evaluate and improve the design quality of buildings. A school-specific version was launched in conjunction with CABE and the Department for Education and Skills in 2005 and became an integral part of the process for BSF projects. A CABE/DFES guide to the use of the DQI for schools can be found online.