Having your cake and eating it

By Janie Mullaney, Head of Specification, EQUITONE

There’s a saying I’ve heard often in my career that I think explains a lot about our profession: “we don’t all have the ability to enter every building, but we do have the ability to see every building.” In other words, architecture carries a public duty. Every façade makes a statement; or it doesn’t. And right now, far too many aren’t saying anything worth hearing.

Walk through any British town centre built in the last decade and you will see what I mean. A certain dullness and flatness. Uninspiring, ‘cookie cutter’ materials, with surfaces that are smooth, featureless and interchangeable. Buildings that look as though they were specified from a spreadsheet by someone who never visited the site.

This is ‘blandification’ of Britain. And it is not so much an architecture problem, as a procurement one.

Where Value Engineering went wrong

Value Engineering is supposed to mean delivering the best long-term outcome for the available budget. But far too often, main contractors wilfully interpret VE as a race to find the cheapest possible alternative, protecting their tight margins at the expense of the architect’s vision and the building’s long-term performance prospects. That may look good on a spreadsheet, but it doesn’t do much for the project, or the appearance of our cities and towns.

As a result, architects and specifiers see their carefully considered façade choices swapped out at tender stage, usually by quantity surveyors who haven’t engaged with the design team. By the time anyone objects and tries to defend the original design intent, the sub-contractor is already on site with entirely different material.

The real-world fix

When you bring façade manufacturers in at concept stage rather than specification, you change the conversation; preventing the potential for a staggering 30% material wastage that frequently happens when panels are not fully optimised. Architects should design with proper technical collaboration. That way, designs can match real panel sizes: otherwise, framing strategies that look good on paper can become technically and budgetarily undeliverable at tender.

Early engagement with manufacturers does not compromise creative ambition. It defends it. When you understand what a material can actually do; its formats, fixing tolerances and fire classification, you design around practical reality. Moreover, you lock in your design vision before a QS can substitute it away.

Urban Splash understood this for their award-winning, canal-side Port Loop regeneration  in central Birmingham, where EQUITONE was specified from the early concept stage. The project comprises over 100 new homes, along with a new park, leisure centre and community Art House. It looks cohesive because it was designed that way from the outset; it was not ‘rescued’ at the last minute.

Safety and character are not at odds

Following the Building Safety Act, I often hear from specifiers who stick to a shortlist of familiar materials to avoid regulatory headaches. That’s understandable. But the Act didn’t outlaw interesting façades, it made accountability non-negotiable.

Fibre cement panels that conform to European standard EN 13501-1 for low combustibility don’t have to look cautious. They can carry raw texture, depth and natural through-colour that looks great from the street. A rainscreen system can pass every required fire test and still appear as though someone genuinely cared about the building they were creating.

Building safety and building character were never actually in conflict. They were just separated during procurement.

The takeaway here is to talk to your façade manufacturer at concept stage. The conversation you have at that point is a creative one. But the one you have after the QS has been through is about damage limitation.

We can integrate both safety features and appealing character into our new buildings; creating structures that are truly valued by their communities. The sooner we start talking, the sooner we get there.