Almost two decades ago, in the downtown corridor of Columbus, Ohio, the century-old landmarked Lazarus Building underwent an extensive renovation to save the department store and restore it to its former glory. Sixty million dollars went into its restoration and transformation into a retail and office complex. During the construction, workers recycled nearly 5,000 pounds of steel, 2,000 pounds of concrete, and significant amounts of carpeting, ceiling tiles, and various wood- keeping 22,000 pounds of debris out of Ohio’s landfills. They also saved more than $25 million dollars by implementing this rigorous recycling process.
Dwellings can be understood as the most significant and primary form of architecture, as the house is intimately related to the idea of shelter, one of humanity’s basic needs. In the words of architect Mario Botta, “As long as there is a man who needs a house, architecture will still exist.” Yet, in spite of its ubiquity, or perhaps because of it, an exact definition of a home is difficult to find. Throughout history, different functions and spaces have been added and subtracted from this unit, reflecting directly the character of the society that produced it.
The list of expectations that a house has to fulfill is long and ever-evolving: to provide intimate and safe spaces where one can recharge their energy, but at the same time to allow for interaction, welcoming friends and family to join in; it is the purveyor of leisure and relaxation, but also the site of most labors of care, while also providing a small incubator for starting entrepreneurs. This tendency to demand a residential unit to fulfill multiple roles was heightened to unprecedented levels during the pandemic. Health concerns led to the closing of most workspaces, the second place where people spent most of their time, and of cafes, restaurants, cinemas, and malls, the “third places.” Suddenly, the home had to become an all-purpose space.
To talk about architecture and construction without ever mentioning cost overruns is not an easy thing to do. These kind of unforeseen problems happen in the majority of projects, as the dynamics of architecture and construction are extremely complex and often present challenges that aren't 100% controllable. Over the years, project management consultants have been integrating cost management into their services, making an effort to fill this market gap with a proper solution. Still, most of this work is performed by consultants with a financial background and little knowledge of architecture and construction solutions and processes.
With this increased attention to budgetary issues, the cost performance of projects has been steadily improving, but usually at the expense of the project’s aesthetic concept and final quality. Would it be possible to put architects in control of this kind of management? After all, they’re the ones with the conceptual sensibility and the technical knowledge necessary to perform this work in a truly integrated way.
