StructureHub

…or so the eminently capable New York architecture firm, Peter L. Gluck & Partners Architects, would have us believe.  Even better, I am comfortable saying that the feat of finishing the project with $500,000 leftover was not simply a cynical effect of knowingly over-estimating the project’s cost early on so that savings could be declared at the end.

You are forgiven if you assumed The East Harlem School came in under the wire because of cheap materials, poorly conceived designs, and rushed construction.  Indeed, the utter paucity of buildings - let alone publicly-funded projects - that save money before the close of construction has girded countless penny-pinching opposition forces (spousal, local, and otherwise) against these money pits whenever they risk being dug.  New York City has a long tradition of construction-related cost-escalations, delays, and litigation; even its enormous 2005-2009 $13.1 billion capital budget (just for schools) failed to insulate it from cost-overruns, change orders, delays, and general contractor disputes/incompetencies that occurred in 2008 at P.S.’s 128, 169, and 366, just to name a few.

There are two primary reasons the school saved money and avoided the political, financial, and petty-interest minefields.  First, it isn’t public (yes, this means the post title may be mis-applied…); it is an independent non-profit, which provides each and every low-income student within its walls a full-scholarship for enrollment in its small-classroom, year-round, learning environment.

This fact - that there were fewer interests represented at the planning stages - may very well have allowed for the other major reason for cost-savings: agreeing to have Mr. Gluck, et al, serve as a general contractor as well as designer.  Serving as such supplied the firm with the vantage point and power to ensure that subs pay attention to detail and use quality materials; naturally, miscommunication between builder and architect was non-existent.

Okay, so money was saved; so what, if the building is a beast?  But beast, this school is not.  Mr. Gluck’s inventiveness is on full display, with the grid-like facade simultaneously preventing a monolithic vibe and disguising the seemingly random placement of windows, which are actually placed according to the internal layout of the upper stories.  Its modernity also distinguishes it from older buildings along the street-scape, at once respecting the authenticity of their design by not superficially replicating them and setting itself apart as a community gathering place by way of its energy and glass-enclosed first floor.  Inside, light uplifts even the most warren-like spaces, and each room’s shapes and materials cultivate, rather than stifle, the imagination of school kids within.

Despite the project’s modest size, it nevertheless suggests the possibility that capable architects really can save you headaches and money, converging interests, expensive city, and complex regulations be damned; of course the mere possibility of this proposition surely means it is doomed to never happen with the public schools…

…which leads me to a suggestion (Mayor Bloomberg, are you and your campaign listening?): much has been made of your (expired) dominion over New York City’s school system.  Assuming the visionary State Senate  sees fit to restore you to your accomplish-something-anything throne, try replicating the East Harlem School’s means of construction.

Surely the 2010-2014 $11.2 billion capital budget can manage a modest pilot program where you hire an architecture firm (with a track record of “good” design) that has demonstrated an ability to act as general contractor; even if you limit the pilot program to a single school renovation, or a couple schools in a single neighborhood, you’ll eliminate the risk of dealing with (occasionally) recalcitrant GCs and the expense of paying for them.  And if it works, imagine the savings from implementing it system-wide.  The GC community may will oppose the idea, but hey, it’s only a pilot program and you need to maintain your independent bona fides.  Besides, they’d still have 98% of the available gigs and if anything, will be motivated to work even harder.  Just do it.

More images at The Architect’s Newspaper

Image courtesy of piven