Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured instagram smm panel Quake Michigan Iowa Michigan School football

reads.

More expensive is sometimes cheaper

The recipe for the perfect controversy goes like this: You take a topic with as high stakes. With the addition of give a scapegoat. To add a feisty opponent. You leave this a heavy charge of formulating and knead it well.

About the runs just in the city of Zurich, where it is voted on next Sunday on the 213-million-franc loan for the municipal settlement leutschenbach with 349 flats.

Markus Mettler, CEO of the General Contracting owner, said with a view to this project for the NZZ, build the city up to 40 percent too expensive. He would realize such a project for 120 million. An announcement that the Bourgeois in the vote fight, thanks to recordings. Therefore, it is not only about the specific project, but also to a fundamental principle. Therefore, whether the city has as a client a grip on the costs.

Private, do not want to prove

An almost identical controversy in 2010, also with the NZZ in a supporting role. The newspaper wrote at the time, the city would spend on your projects twice as much money as private developers. The building Department responded with an investigation on the accusation: It had five new residential settlements of the city, cooperatives and Private compare – as far as the Plan.

to open The private developers were not prepared, your documents. If banks, pension funds, insurance companies, or General contractors: Almost all of the blocking. The reasons could be puzzles only. Only the pension Fund of the Migros and the cantonal pension Fund BVK a close on the comparison. Result: you will not buildings 50 per cent, but 7 per cent.

Rather during the construction to invest more, if they save over the years when it comes to maintenance.

it remained unclear how residents and other users will be assessed the price-performance ratio of the various settlements, because so far the investigation went. The building construction Department is the Belief in the own projects, the General public can get more for the money. This is because they point, for example, greater demands on the quality of the exterior, to the urban planning or environmental sustainability.

Nevertheless, the city took as a result of the investigation, to reduce construction projects the costs in the future by 10 percent. Primary, by applying at the land is saved. This is reflected in the leutschenbach, where in the architecture competition "specifically cost-effective solutions" were asked. Among other things, with "minimum living space" – 70 square meters for a three-room apartment, 90 in four rooms. Also, wet cell, "is limited to a minimum", and, in General, with a simple materialization. Accordingly, the construction costs per apartment are in the Leutschenbach lower than in the other municipal settlements.

The holder-in-chief is of the view that it should leave the city at such General requirements. Instead, you go down to the last Detail and raises the price of these. In fact, the competition included a specific request, list of documents for the leutschenbach settlement, based on an overall planning for the district, in which local residents were included: an "inner garden should serve" as a counterpart to the main road. There should be a fine mesh development for pedestrians and bicycles, with a bridge over the restored Creek in reed ditch. In the appearance in addition, diversity and unity should come at the same time.

care in the planning is so what does not pays off

exceptionally, however, such as a survey of architects shows that have already been built for the city, and only anonymous comment. Also, pension funds, and cooperatives to inform them, in detail, prepared for competitions. It is an advantage if a Builder have such clear ideas. Due to the many involved agencies sometimes takes a little longer, but there are also fewer empty runs – 'm doing a project rather cheaper than more expensive. Also of advantage is the fact that the city let all the legal frameworks already in advance clarify.

With a view on the cost is less, the number of targets is crucial, but rather, what the city. The required MINERGIE standard is about raises the price of a project by up to ten percent. He writes, among other things, wood from sustainable production in front of or under a cheap facade says fungicidal plaster with admixed. So what you could not be hold in the city but as an unnecessary expenditure, because they Decide on policy, such as those for the 2000-Watt goal bound.

Independently of each other, several architects also stress the fact that the city is a comparatively innovative building owner. Instead of 08/15-solutions, leave it to new approaches. In the Ecology and urban development. You played a part in the progress. In Private, however, the willingness to innovate is often "equal to zero", because new approaches are time-consuming and therefore a cost factor.

General contractor does not pay later

A final particularly important point that the architects of The city remains after the construction the owner of their houses and therefore has a financial interest in quality. The simple statement: better to be in the construction a little more to invest, if you are saving for it over the years for maintenance. Because the total lifetime of a building, the preparation accounts for only about 20 percent of all costs.

This is the reason why the city is in the leutschenbach, for example, window, frame mount, which are on the outer side is made of metal instead of wood is more expensive, but easier to care for and durable. One of the architects surveyed said it this way: "Would the city for some costs when you Build common quality standards below, she would have to pay for them later – a General contractor does not have this Problem."

(Tages-Anzeiger)

Created: 12.05.2019, 21:06 PM

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.