 |
UT School of Nursing and Student Center
Finance & Cost
In late 1996, an international design competition was conducted to generate interest in creating a permanent home for the School of Nursing. A year later, the Texas legislature was convinced to support the project; it subsequently authorized $17.5 million in bonds for the School of Nursing, and the institution announced a $10 million capital campaign. The combined amount, $27.5 million, was less than half of the total project budget estimate of $63 million, which included the deconstruction of a substantial building and the relocation of 18,000 ft2 of wet laboratory program space to provide a site for the school. The program for the building was then altered to include a student community center.
In 1999, a plan was devised to enroll the entire student population in assessing a general use fee upon themselves through incremental adjustments. Due to much open dialogue, this plan was approved, securing an additional $32.5 million in bonds to finance the project; the institution itself funded the remaining $3 million from cash reserves. The student support for this measure, combined with the groundbreaking ideas of the client, was key to the building being built.
Cost Data
Cost data in U.S. dollars as of date of completion.
- Total project cost (land excluded): $57,000,000
The building owners created a unique process in 1998 that they called a “building systems assessment." The process was designed to review the universe of design and building tactics, products, styles, and customer needs, and to assess them based upon their green attributes, using full-cost accounting methodologies. What made this process unique was that it was founded upon several fundamental principles, including stewarding resources, doing no harm, benefiting others in the present and future, and respecting the environment (with an emphasis on balancing carbon dioxide emissions).
The process was informed by more than 60 experts and included numerous detailed full-cost exercises. The building owners adopted a mindset that allowed them to meet their fiduciary responsibilities, and they clearly understood that those responsibilities did not and do not end with the building’s design and construction costs. The owner concluded that design and construction costs represent less than 20% of the total cost of ownership. Their mantra was “you can’t sustain it if you don’t maintain it.” The results of the studies supported the decision to specify an asymmetric envelope design, underfloor air distribution, daylighting, rainwater harvesting, waterfree urinals, and moveable walls as tactics with obvious long-term advantage.
Thorough life-cycle cost analyses were performed during the design process for a number of building systems, including interior demountable partitions, an onsite wastewater treatment system, mechanical systems, and many other items. As an example, the demountable walls were viewed as an important part of the flexible system approach that optimized flexibility over time. The manufacturer assisted the design team in decision-making regarding finishes and module sizes that enabled integration of the floor, carpet, furnishings, and lighting systems in the most economical way. Switch and device locations were predrilled in the walls, simplifying coordination during installation.
Total individual module use and reuse was anticipated from the outset. Because these panels are planned on a typical, 40-inch module, it is simple and economical to switch door and wall panel locations—and having no panel-to-panel electrical connections allows for this pop-in, pop-out ability. The first cost of this system was shown to offer distinct savings over the life of the building.
Last updated: 5/18/2009
For more information about the AIA/COTE
Top Ten Green Projects, contact AIA/COTE. For help on how to use this Web site, contact .
|
