$1,113/sf

One of my absolute favorite designers is Italian Architect Renzo Piano.  Piano's work has spanned more than four decades and includes many of the most iconic architectural examples of the last 25 years.  His work oversees and in the United States has many attributes of modern architecture that I appreciate and attempt to emulate; structural expressionism, large scale geometric moves, lightweight materiality, sustainability, and awe-inspiring interior spaces.  My admiration for his work and practice make it all the more difficult to write this type of post that is not all praise and adulation. 

I recently was reading a critical review of his most famous recent completed works, the Modern Wing expansion to the Art Institute of Chicago.  This article in one of the major architectural publications lauded his beautiful and striking urban intervention grafted onto the classical structure.  The imagery was overwhelming even in print and having seen it personally during construction I could confirm its impressive stature up close.  My favorite component of Piano's presentation graphics is his frequent use of a large scale building section that illustrates the vibrancy of the layers and scale of the structure.  In this magazine, the page with the sultry black and white line drawings is often also utilized for some details about the project (architect, builder, material suppliers, etc.).  Such was the case with this project, and included in the description was the total square footage and total cost.  I have never claimed to be a math whiz, but I can do some simple division to calculate the cost/sf which is often used in architecture as a ballpark estimate of costs and a rule of thumb for complexity of design or degree of finishes. 

The number that I calculated made me wonder if I missed a decimal point.  $1,113/sf (1,113.63636 to be exact).

Now in full disclosure, I have worked on a few complex lab science buildings and a few high design buildings that garnered a higher level of interior and exterior finish...but I have NEVER worked on a building that cost more than $300/sf.  In fact, I had heard that upwards of $500 was the limit set for many of the most famous "starchitects" in the US.  This is more than TWICE that much!!  How could this be?

It begs the question, is it right to spend that much money on an art museum?  I can maybe rationalize that type of spending on a structure of higher significance but for simply a civic function it seems (dare I say) wasteful.  What message does this send to the public about what Architects do?  How must our non-profits and small business of the world feel when they scrape together $100/sf and design a building that they consider the Taj Mahal?  The biggest error in this whole thing is the tacit acceptance of this practice.  The glossy magazines believe this to be commonplace.  In the latter stages of a great recession, we should all understand the fundamental problem that this sort of excessive spending is having on our profession.  Who will stand up and say, "enough is enough?"

dollars per square foot of building as compared to automobile costs

This is precisely the kind of inattentiveness that has caused the public perception of Architects to wane.  The moment that people think that this sort of practice is common, is the moment we have reinforced the sentiment that hiring an Architect is a luxury and ultimately, "not worth it because they will design something that I cannot afford."  Many would argue that these world renowned architects cannot be limited by banal budgets or cost overruns because it compromises the design.  I am sorry, but cost, budget and fees are inextricably linked to design.  You can't sweep costs under the rug for the sake of an outstanding design.   

For the sake of design, and for its ability to transform people's lives, this blatant disregard for financial considerations is hurtful and unsustainable.  Hopefully, the next big project that is produced from Piano's studio makes up for the lack of realism of this project. 

Et tu, Renzo?