Tall Buildings in the Netherlands: Constraints to Innovation 3. Conference Proceeding Ctbuh.Org/Papers

ctbuh.org/papers

Title: Tall Buildings in the Netherlands: Constraints to Innovation

Author: Frits Scheublin, Professor, Royal BAM Groep

Subject: Architectural/Design

Keyword: Construction

Publication Date: 2008

Original Publication: CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress, Dubai

Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished

Prof. Ir Frits J.M. Scheublin

Royal BAM Groep nv, Bunnik, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 30 659 8677 Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 40 247 8391, Email: [email protected]

Abstract The Netherlands is a densely populated country with 16 million inhabitants. About 50% of the population lives and works in an area about as large as London or Paris, cities of about 8 million people. The green fields in this country are, step by step, being lost to city planners in need of more land. Environmentalists are not able to stop this land-swallowing trend, which is becoming a monster. High-rises seem to be a suitable solution to limit the urban growth and preserve the green fields that are left. Currently, high-rise buildings dominate only a minor part of the skyline in The Netherlands. Therefore, a research project was defined to inquire into the constraints of High-Rise construction. The project, in particular, focussed on the question of whether innovative construction processes could possibly lower the construction costs of Tall Buildings. Consequently, could the use of high-rises, as a solution for housing needs, also be a preservation tool for the remaining green fields. [email protected] BiographyThe questions to be answered in this research were: Prof. Frits Scheublin graduated in 1972 as an architect. He worked from 1972 till 1982 for OGEM International contract- ing inx TheWill Netherlands lowering and the in cost the Middle of high-rise East. He construction was resident effectively in Saudi Arabia encourage for four project years. developers His major to projects propose were more the design of high-rises?facilities for King Abdul Aziz Universiyty in Jeddah and Design management for a High Rise Housing project in Dammam. From 1982 till 1993 Frits Scheublin was partner in a Construction Management firm in the Netherlands. In 1993 xhe becameWhy does director high-rise of BAM construction Engineering. not BAM provide is a moretop-10 be contractornefits from in Europe the economy in terms of of scale turn over. and whyIn 1993 is littleFrits Scheublinsignificant was appointed innovative professor progress at the demonstrated? Eindhoven University of Technology. His chair is in Construction Engineering. His reserach has a focus on sustainability, safety and adaptability. He was member of the CIB-board from 2000 till 2007 and isx coordinatorHow could of wethe improveCIB-task the group conditions on Industrialisation for innovation in inConstruction. high-rise projects?

x What type of innovation is most needed in high-rise construction?

Keywords: Tall Buildings, Innovation, Construction Process

1. Introduction special regulations apply. In the perception of the public, The construction industry is said to be conservative. buildings are seen as high-rise at about 100 meters (see Innovation is not part of its culture. This may have been Fig 1). Today there are only 24 buildings in The true in the past, but in recent years innovation in Netherlands higher than 100 meters, the highest being construction has gained great attention and even political 151 meters. (www.Hoogbouw.nl). The market for support. In particular, the United Kingdom provides high-rise buildings, under the Dutch public definition, is substantial financial support from public sources in order an average of about 1 contract a year. to seek ways to improve the construction industry’s The research project started with a quick scan of performance. (Egan 1998, Latham 1994). opinions among the major construction firms in The It seems that the high-rise building type is most Netherlands. The contractors appeared to be of the suited in the construction industry for innovation than any opinion that the industry has disintegrated in general and other building type. The repetition of activities in a single that the separation between design and construction, in project should be drivers for innovative techniques. In particular, are the main constraints to a fruitful climate for practice this is quite different. Even Tall Buildings are - innovative high-rise developments. This opinion may not in general - still built in a rather traditional way. Some be typical for high-rises since it may be valid for all innovative activities are seen, but not to the extent that complicated construction projects. one may expect. Guided by this view, the research team chose as its To understand the perspective of this paper it is approach to organize into workshops, with participants in necessary to know that, according to Dutch building the construction process such as clients, architects, regulations, buildings are considered to be high-rise when structural engineers and suppliers. For each workshop, they exceed 70 meters in height. Above this height only one category was invited to prevent discussions between different parties defending their own interests.

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008 Tall Buildings in the Netherlands, Constraints to Innovation, a tool to preserve green fields.

Prof. Ir Frits J.M. Scheublin

Royal BAM Groep nv, Bunnik, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 30 659 8677 Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 40 247 8391, Email: [email protected]

x Why does high-rise construction not provide more benefits from the economy of scale and why is little significant innovative progress demonstrated?

x How could we improve the conditions for innovation in high-rise projects?

x What type of innovation is most needed in high-rise construction?

Keywords: Tall Buildings, Innovation, Construction Process

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008 function of a high-rise building because of 1 Delftse Poort R’dam 91 151 changing market conditions was discussed. It 2 Hoftoren Den Haag 03 142 was suggested that the high-rise building type 3 West Point Tilburg 04 142 may be less flexible than other concepts. 4 Montevideo R’dam 05 140 5 Rembrandt A’dam 95 135 6 Millennium R’dam 00 131 7 Red Apple R’dam 07 128 8 World Port Center R’dam 01 123 9 Mondriaan A’dam 02 123 10 Achmea Leeuwarden 02 115 11 Erasmus MC R’dam 68 114 12 Prinsenhof Den Haag 04 109 13 Waterstad R’dam 04 109 14 Fortis Bank, Blaak R’dam 96 107 15 Weena R’dam 90 106 16 De Admirant Eindhoven 06 105

Fig 1, top 16 Dutch Tall Buildings

The conclusions from these workshops indicated that innovation in high-rise construction is possible and may be feasible provided that all parties (clients, designers and contractors) are prepared to give innovation a chance.

2. The Initiative for this Research Project The Dutch Association of Contractors (Bouwend Nederland) was aware of the fact that Dutch contractors are building fewer Tall Buildings than they historically have and fewer than other densely populated countries do today. In the first half of the last century, the Dutch were leading experts in High-Rise construction. For many years, the Hooge Huis in Rotterdam was the highest building in Europe (see Fig 2). After World War II, the Fig 2, Het Hooge Huis in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Once the highest Dutch lost this leading position. This awareness pushed building in Europe. the Dutch Contractors Association to define this research project. The contract for this project was awarded to 3. The Approach RRBouw, a research institute governed by a board of Most contractors interviewed in the quick scan industry representatives. appeared to be of the opinion that the disintegrated The main purpose of this project was to find the industry in general and the separation between design and reasons why Dutch clients do not promote high-rise construction in particular are the main constraints to a buildings. A second question was why Dutch designers fruitful climate for innovation. All public contracts and are not leading in High-Rise design and why so little many of the private contracts are awarded after a tender innovation is dedicated to High-Rise construction. process where the lowest bid is the only criterium. The (RRBouw 2004) bids are based on an architectural and structural design Apart from the leading questions mentioned in the that is already so far detailed that no opportunity is introduction above, special attention was asked in the available for innovative proposals. Usually it is even brief for two possible constraints to innovation in specifically mentioned in the specifications that high-rise construction. alternatives will not be considered. For these workshops that included industry x Firstly, it was suggested to investigate what specialists, a number of completed projects were selected impact the building codes and standards have on as samples to focus the discussion. The major data of the climate for innovation. these buildings are (www.Skyscrapers.com) x Millennium Tower, Rotterdam, The x Secondly, the research team was asked to take Netherlands, 132 meters high (#6 on the Dutch into account the effect of a growing demand for tallest buildings list) flexibility. The issue of the owner changing the

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008 x World Port Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Ad 1 Parties are in general convinced that innovation is Office of the Port Authority of the harbour of only feasible when the investment can be Rotterdam. 124 meters, (#8 on the Dutch tallest recovered within a few years. Contractors tend to buildings list) allow for only 2 or 3 years recovery time while designers and clients are prepared to accept a x Achmea Tower, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, longer period. For innovation with a long recovery headquarters of the Achmea insurance group, time, or doubtful chance to recover at all, public 115 meters (# 10 on the Dutch tallest buildings funding may be helpful to encourage an initiative. list) ( see Fig 3). Such funding programmes exist but most financial support is applied for and is awarded to research x ABN*AMRO tower, Amsterdam, The institutions. Contractors are unfamiliar with Netherlands, headquarters of the ABN*AMRO applying for this type of funding. Most bank, 105 meters, (#15 on the Dutch tallest contractors’ research is initiated to improve the buildings list) process of already contracted work and cannot await the time-consuming procedures of an application for funding. x Belvédère Tower, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, headquarters of the Royal Postal Services for The Netherlands (KPN) 96 meters, (#22 on the Dutch tallest buildings list)

For many High-Rise experts, this list may be a surprise. What is considered to be a High-Rise in The Netherlands is, in other countries, far from high. The 10 tallest Dutch buildings are between 115 and 150 meters high. These are dwarfs when compared to Tall Buildings from other countries.

In all of the workshops the representatives of the contractors were present. These would include a contract manager, a design manager and a site manager. A typical workshop started with a short introduction to one of the sample projects, followed by an open discussion about the process. This was followed by a discussion taking into account the three research questions mentioned above.

4. The Conditions for Effective Innovation. Based on the overview among contractors participating in the research programme, a literature study and the opinions gathered in 5 workshops, the conditions for successful innovation were assessed to be: 1. Investments in innovation by contractors must be recoverable in only a few years.

2. An innovative strategy should be repeatable to Fig 3, A typical Dutch High-Rise, compared to the size of the Empire become recoverable. State Building in New York, USA.

3. For recoverable and repeatable innovation, a certain Ad 2 If a contractor can benefit only once from an market size is required. innovation, the investment is not likely to be recovered. Though high-rise construction, with its 4. Innovations for high-rise construction should repetition of floors, provides an perfect primarily focus on saving time. opportunity for repeated application of cost-saving activities on a single project, it still is hard to 5. Innovation in construction strongly depends on recover innovative processes on only one project. support from clients. Innovations that are applicable on a series of projects will encourage substantial innovative

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008 efforts. 2. As mentioned earlier, almost all public contracts Ad 3 The Dutch market, with 7 big contractors and an and many private ones are awarded after a average of only 1 high-rise contract a year, is not tender based on a complete set of design big enough to make costly research programmes drawings and a detailed output specification. feasible. From publications on the Japanese The contract is awarded to the lowest bidder. An construction industry, we know that this currently innovative approach to the building process is much bigger market was not big enough to support not possible under such a tender. Lowest bid the advanced robotic construction systems that tenders are a constraint to innovation by were developed in the 1990s. (Beemster, 2000) contractors Ad 4 Time saving is often more beneficial than cost saving is. The high investment in high-rise 3. If the contractor is selected to participate in a projects and the impossibility to let part of the Design and Build team, the designers in many work before completion make high-rise projects, cases are not prepared to adjust their conceptual in particular, suitable for time-saving innovations. design to meet the contractor’s desires. Ad 5 Companies responded to interviewers (Twynstra Designers are often not convinced that the 2003) that they would likely innovate if clients ask contractor is prepared and able to understand them to. But most clients appeared not very their drivers. The mutual understanding and trust interested in innovations. The traditional tender between designers and contractors is system used by many clients seldom allows for traditionally low. In general, structural engineers innovative alternatives. appreciate contractors’ influence better than architects do, but both do have their reservations. 5. Constraints to Repetition of Innovative Practices. A practical solution to this lack of mutual As can be concluded from the observations above, understanding and trust in building teams is the innovations for high-rise projects require a series of Project Alliance (Scheublin, 2001), a contractual projects that can benefit from the same innovation as it is form that aligns designers and contractors repeated, to make the innovations feasible. Clients for a interests. In an alliance, contractors, designers series of high-rise contracts do not occur in the Dutch and the client share profit and risk. Innovative market. Such clients may not exist at all. Construction approaches can be introduced by all parties and, companies that build a series of standardised high-rises if accepted, all parties share in the profit. In for the market do not exist either. Repetition is only industrial construction processes, some possible when designers and contractors are prepared to examples of successful and innovative alliances look for opportunities to use existing innovative were found. In high-rise building projects, still approaches, developed by others, on their current project. no comparable contract has been awarded so far. Therefore, already in the design stage, the favourite approach of the contractor should be known and the 4. If designers are open to contractors’ input then designers should be open to the integration of such a currently these contractors may not be favourite and innovative approach when possible. The represented in the design stage by their concept of Design and Build contracts delivering better construction manager. The designing parties are value and not necessarily leading to a lower architectural of the opinion that contractors do not always or aesthetic quality has been demonstrated convincingly have the right specialists available to participate by Bennett (1996). The actual study found, nevertheless, in the design stage. In many cases, the some reasons why the willingness of contractors to be representative of the contractor is not the one innovative in the design stage is still limited: who will finally decide on how to construct the project. When a contractor has created a 1. The Dutch building regulations are applicable separation in his organization between the for buildings up to only 70 meters high. For design managers and the construction managers, taller buildings, the conditions for a building this is likely. The construction manager, permit must be negotiated with the local ultimately responsible for the approach of a authorities. Each community has its own officers project, will deviate from the strategy foreseen with their own vision. Often, some courage is by the design manager. In the workshops the needed to give an innovative action a chance. parties agreed that contractors would be more Contractors are more likely to accept any risk in influential in the design stage and more this respect than civil servants are. As a result, successful in the promotion of their innovative there is no certainty about what will be accepted approach if they were represented by employees and what will be rejected. So innovative authorized to make final choices in respect to the constructions may be acceptable for one city, but construction process. not allowed in another one.

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008 5. The contractors´ position in a team is usually not impossible structural concepts. Structural engineers and in balance with the designers influence. When contractors spent much of their innovative capabilities in clients are aiming to build a monument, not just the development of structural concepts and construction a facility, they tend to select an architect first. strategies to build these unusual forms. A typical example Preferably they select a well known often is the tilted façade of the Belvedere tower, supported by internationally recognized one. His position is just one steel support (see Fig 4). This structural novum is strong since he has the full and unconditional visualised by leaving out the column below this support. support of the client. The contractor has, in such cases, a limited influence and it will be hard for Conclusions him to convince the designers of the value of his The conclusions are that innovation in high-rise innovative proposals. In less monumental construction is possible and may be feasible provided that building projects, where commercial factors get all parties, designers and contractors are prepared to give priority over image building, the contractor may innovation a chance. Clients could promote innovation by be selected first. The architectural design work shifting their focus from lowest bid to best overall may even be included in his contract. Here, proposal. Designers should be more open for partnering innovative proposals are more likely to be with contractors. Last but not least, contractors should accepted. In general, high-rise projects are delegate their real experts and final decision makers to more likely to be among the monuments than the designers’ meetings. Another conclusion specific for among the commercial projects. As a result, the Dutch market is the development of building codes high-rise projects are not likely to benefit easily applicable for buildings above 70 meters. This would from innovation. promote and facilitate innovative actions for high-rise construction.

References BEEMSTER, W. (2000). Bouwen in Japan Arko Nieuwegein, The Netherlands (Dutch version only) BENNETT, Et. Al. (1996), Designing and Building a world-class Industry, University of Reading, London. EGAN, Sir J. (1998), Rethinking Construction, London LATHAM, Sir M. (1994), Constructing the Team, London RRBOUW, (2004) (Ed: F.J.M. Scheublin) Proces en Product innovation bij Hoogbouw (Dutch) report 116, VGBouw Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. SCHEUBLIN, F. (2001) Project Alliance Contracts in The Netherlands, Building Research and Information #29, page 451-455 STICHTING H. (2007) The official top 50 High Rise Buildings in The Netherlands, completed and under construction., Rotterdam The Netherlands. TWYNSTRA The Bridge, (2003) Innovation Monitor, October 2003, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

Fig 4, Innovation to make the impossible happen. Tilted façade on steel support.

In these workshops, several structural engineers and contractors wanted to emphasise that the sector is able to be very innovative. Often the innovative capacity is needed to make a single project possible instead of developing improvements that serve a wider need. Much innovative effort is required to make the impossible happen. Architects sometimes propose unusual if not

CTBUH 8th World Congress 2008