Steel Cost Studies out of Step with Today’s Asset Performance Focus

News: 02/12/2010

The latest cost comparison study from the steel industry is behind the times and demonstrates how the sector is becoming out of step with clients, developers and tenants.

“The steel industry’s cost study is limited in its scope”, said Andrew Minson, executive director of The Concrete Centre. “It fails to take full account of the overall impact of the structural frame on other elements of the building. It fails to take account of lead times which for steel are not very favourable. And, importantly, it fails to take account of the whole life operational cost and asset performance of buildings”.

Increasingly, clients, developers and tenants are examining the long-term asset performance of their buildings and not just the short-term cost. This is being done both on an economic and on a sustainability basis. Concrete with its built-in performance benefits that include thermal efficiency, robust finish, sound insulation, minimal vibration and structural flexibility means that it has less need for additional materials and finishes with all their associated additional cost and carbon footprint.

“The day-to-day performance of a building is moving up the business agenda”, explained Minson. “Buildings are increasingly being recognised as a strategic resource that has an impact upon corporate profitability and carbon footprint. Heavyweight constructed buildings that provide reductions in energy requirements for heating and air-conditioning, require less additional finishing materials and need less maintenance are seen as providing a better long-term cost and sustainability solution. This makes heavyweight construction a more attractive option for tenants and occupiers and, therefore, a better lettable option for clients and developers.”

Minson points to the independent cost comparison studies carried for the concrete industry that examined a full range of building types including offices, schools and hospitals: “Rather than grabbing subjective headlines, these studies aim to provide objective templates for design that allow project teams to identify those non-structural elements that are affected by the structural design choice. For example, the cladding costs and internal partitions are directly affected by the frame choice and should not be ignored when looking for overall value. In addition, exposure of the concrete soffits for increased thermal efficiency removes the need for suspended ceilings – an upfront and periodic replacement and maintenance cost.”

He continued: “For the true cost of a building it is disingenuous to focus only on the initial structural frame construction cost. The impact of the frame choice upon other construction and fit-out elements and the asset performance of the construction in terms of its day-to-day running costs must also be considered.”

Ref: TCC696