In search of balance

A property should be a money-making machine - or so we are told by advisors. And they are getting increasingly involved in the design process. But is a conflict emerging between advisors, architects and developers?

According to one advisor: "A building should be like a mannequin: it should look good in a wedding dress or a suit but also in jeans and a t-shirt." These are the words of Tomasz Daniecki, project management department director at Cushman & Wakefield. As he goes on to say: "This means that the most important thing is flexibility and functionality. Basically, each property should be a money-making machine. It does not make any sense to realise architectural visions without thinking of the functions they are supposed to serve," he remarks. In the words of another architect, Mariusz Rutz, the co-owner of the JSK Architekci architectural studio: "It is very important for investors not to lose contact with architects and to listen to their advice. They have to remember that at the end of the day they will not be getting an excel chart, but a real building which will have an impact on the local environment," he emphasises.

Design effectively
What is commercial effectiveness in design? And should investors and developers bother with it at all? Advisors operating on the property market insist that this is a very significant element in the creation of any commercial project. Without adequate knowledge or skills one can even make mistakes at the stage of planning the project which will affect the future value of the property. So how should the design process be approached? Where should you start and how can you avoid mistakes? "It is very important to approach each project with the assumption that it will be sold in the future. Designing a building for a particular tenant can often lead to making bad decisions. Flexibility is an important factor in nearly every project," asserts Tomasz Daniecki. He underlines that these days tenants' needs are changing very dynamically. The demand for buildings that can acquire LEED or BREEAM type eco-certificates has been growing. There is more and more talk about adjusting the office space for the needs of the so-called 'Generation Y' - born during the demographic peak of the 1980s. These young people, often referred to as "the generation of flip flops and iPods", can be rather problematic for employers: they have high financial expectations but at the same time are not loyal employees. They know how to use new technologies and want a lot of freedom and ease at work. It is with a view to this generation that 'fun rooms' have been set up in some corporations with comfortable sofas and consoles. The generational changes and those occurring in the economy are leading companies to investigate areas that can be radically transformed. "This mainly concerns marketing companies, the FMCG sector and the banks. Very often project teams are established in such enterprises to work on a specific project for a short time. When the task is finished the employees are transferred to other groups. Such an approach to the organisation of work translates into different office requirements. Companies operating in a modern way will look for the solutions which will allow them - without incurring any major costs - to adjust the office space to their current needs. If a developer is able to predict this and prepare the building to satisfy such needs, they are sure to succeed," notes Tomasz Daniecki.

The architect vs. the advisor
Specialists believe that advisors are getting increasingly involved in the process of designing projects. Everything is being geared towards achieving the best operational efficiency for the building. Moreover, there is a need for the operational knowledge which is more and more often being offered by facility managers. "It is very frequently the case that architects do not have practical knowledge about the functioning of office buildings or shopping centres. They simply do not know how certain things work. And this is why the experience of facility managers is needed here, because - for example - they are the ones who know best which façade is the easiest to clean. Such seemingly trivial matters translate later on into the operational efficiency of the building, which is why it is extremely important to take them into consideration at the architectural design stage," maintains Tomasz Daniecki. But according to Mariusz Rutz of JSK Architekci: "Everything depends in this case on the skills of an architectural studio. Of course there are studios on the market that cannot design good commercial buildings, but there are also those which have a lot of experience in this field and can understand developers' needs very well. There is a certain rivalry between architects and advisors at the moment. All I can say is that a lot of advisers are able to say what is wrong, but are still unable to come up with a solution," says Mr Rutz.

Compromises, compromises
As experienced developers, architects and advisors all agree, the most important thing is to achieve a compromise between the requirements of the investor, the future users and the architectural vision. "I do not entirely agree with the idea that architects do not have good knowledge about the commercial aspects of buildings. I think that architects know their line of work very well and are able to create attractive projects using the knowledge of an experienced developer. It is financial investors who do not have any experience in development processes and who need the knowledge of advisors. And it is a good idea for them to use it," argues Jarosław Zagórski of Ghelamco Poland. This Belgian developer is generally regarded by specialists on the property market as a company that has managed to find the happy medium between good architecture and commercial success. However, there are many that feel that Ghelamco projects are very similar to each other, almost identical. "We are working with the Belgian architectural studio M. & J-M. Jaspers-J. Eyers & Partners. The architects understand our needs perfectly. The buildings we have developed in the Mokotów district in Warsaw are similar to each other because they are classic business parks. Their look and layout result from the needs of our tenants. We use a lot of glass because our clients want to have good lighting in the interiors. The layout of a particular floor is also adjusted to the users' needs. All these requirements must be reflected in the projects, which are created in order to provide tenants and investors with the maximum satisfaction," declares Mr Zagórski.

Are you monument or machine?
However, it is worth considering whether in aiming for the operational efficiency of buildings, the limiting of the architects' and urban planners' roles will not lead to a situation where commercial buildings will become mere money-making machines - soulless buildings that only satisfy facility managers and book-keepers. "I do not agree with such an approach. There is nothing standing in the way of office buildings contributing to the character of a city, enriching public space and bringing profits to investors at the same time. We can see this with such buildings as Warsaw's Rondo 1, Warsaw Trade Tower and the Metropolitan. Such examples prove that good architecture can, and should, go together with economy and functionality," remarks Tomasz Daniecki. Jarosław Zagórski of Ghelamco expresses a similar view: "The question over whether you are developing buildings that are architectural follies or money-making machines forces us into being more aware of the choice between the two extremes. And choosing either extreme is never a good decision. I think that every good developer's ambition is to create projects which will be appreciated in the architectural world and that will be good investment products at the same time. In my opinion the most important thing is to find some compromise between these two extremes." Michał Rutz is optimistic about the future. "Architecture is not just art. We prepare designs for specific orders, for developers who have their expectations. At the beginning of the 1990s it was possible to lease or sell just about any building, which is why there were a lot the designs that are of a poor quality. Nowadays a change has come about - users' expectations are forcing developers to pay more attention to the aesthetics. A building must be appealing not just in terms of its price but also its quality," he concludes.

Radosław Górecki