New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | October 16, 2007 1:00 PM

Value Engineering means cutting cost with no significant aesthetic or functional impact. If you're visibly changing things or plain old removing things from a building, that's known as Cost Reduction. Development people love to abuse the term "Value Engineering" because it makes it sound like every cut they make is a positive thing. There's nothing wrong with cost cutting but abuse of the term VE is pure Orwellian Newspeak.

Posted by: charlie | October 16, 2007 6:32 PM

If we want to create warehouse-type buildings instead of schools that kids will be proud to attend, then let's VE even more! We can even hire Wal-Mart to build us our schools!

Posted by: fairhavener | October 16, 2007 10:15 PM

Didn't we just go over this a little while ago? ROBN you're pretty much right on technically, but now, pretty much anything that gets cut is considered value engineering. This could be due to a number of reasons, like only having to have one term instead of two or three. But, mainly, it is because it sounds nice for the client (and especially the tax payers when public projects are involved). (I don't remember what I wrote about this last time, but I think it was similar.) The BOE didn't just decide to use this term, they got it from the architects (maybe contractors as well). If anything, the term is Archspeak - then Newspeak.

Anyway, from first hand experience I know for a fact that the entire process is far from efficient (at least every school project that I have seen from start to finish (or near finish)). There is so much waste. There are so many bad ideas and decisions solely to suite egos. It is truly pathetic. John is the number one culprit (with architects close behind). He likes to fancy himself as an architect or something. John, what you really need to do is read a little about Thomas Jefferson. Maybe there are some lessons there for you, political and architectural.

Another point, I know it can be done, I haven't done it yet, but I really would like to see a list of the schools that were demolished vs those that were rehabbed. I have a sneaking suspicion (but I am not certain) that a majority of the schools that were (will be) demolished were of the Modern type. Now, if this is in fact true, then the argument(s) that the schools were sooo in need of repair that it would be cheaper to demolish than rehab, then why were so many of the much older schools rehabbed instead of demolished? I am almost certain (just haven't done the legwork yet) that Modern type schools were systematically chosen for destruction, while more "traditional" types were rehabbed. Regardless of your taste in architecture, that is wasteful. It is also lying.

"He reported to the committee Monday that the savings were found in some choices tough for architects and school officials: $76,000 would come from eliminating plans for a bus canopy, some $38,000 from eliminating a terrazzo floor in a section of the school and replacing it with concrete..."

Are you freakin kidding me? Terrazzo floors? That would be nice and all but maybe some of our architects need a lesson from Frank Lloyd Wright (and about another 1000 other Decent architects). His Usonian houses were designed "set on concrete slabs with piping for radiant heat beneath" (type Usonian houses in Google). If you looked at those floors you would be hard pressed to tell if they were concrete or stone. Furthermore, radiant heat is something like up to 50% more efficient than forced air (it is more expensive to install than forced air though, but it certainly pays off). Time and time again I see flashy fancy materials used to dress up hideous designs than brilliant designs utilizing green, efficient, thoughtful materials and methods. And how can you eliminate a bus canopy? I bet my bottom dollar that the bus canopy would have remained if countless other idiotic decisions hadn't.

Look at the new schools. Look where the "flash" is at. See how that correlates to where the money went (except the terrazzo floor - sorry dude). Realize that is all the architects care about (the "money" shot - I'm not making this up). Research the connection between school projects and campaign contributions. Who's laughing now?

Posted by: robn | October 17, 2007 10:07 AM

To paraphrase Otto Von Bismarck,

"(Buildings) are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."