Why do we keep constructing buildings that are difficult to maintain?

A building can be beautifully designed, energy efficient and technically advanced and still be a nightmare to maintain. A light fitting fails, but nobody can reach it without specialist access equipment. A plant room is too cramped to remove a component. A ventilation filter needs changing, but getting to it means dismantling part of the ceiling. A roof-mounted unit needs servicing, but there is no straightforward route to it. These are not hypothetical problems. They are the consequences of failing to ask one basic question early enough in the design process – and that is - how will we maintain this building, writes John Ridgeway?

The construction industry spends enormous time considering how a building will be designed and constructed. Far less attention is given to what happens once the contractors have left and the building enters decades of operational use = and that needs to change.

None of these problems necessarily mean the building has been badly designed. They may simply mean that maintenance wasn't given enough consideration during the design process.

And that raises an uncomfortable question for the construction industry - why do we continue to design buildings around how they look and how they are built, rather than how they will actually be used and maintained for decades afterwards, because the building isn't finished when construction ends?

One of the fundamental problems is the way we think about completion. A project reaches practical completion. The contractors leave. The keys are handed over. The building is occupied, but this is actually the beginning of the building's operational life.

For a commercial building, hospital, school, manufacturing facility or residential development, the building may need to be maintained for decades. Filters will need changing. Roofs will need inspecting. Plant will require servicing. Lighting will fail. Pipes and cables will need access. Components will eventually need replacing.

Yet many of these requirements can become secondary considerations during design. The result is a building that works perfectly well on day one, but becomes progressively more difficult and expensive to operate.

Designing for access

Perhaps the simplest question designers should ask is - "How will someone maintain this?" It sounds obvious, but it can expose problems surprisingly quickly. Can an engineer safely reach the equipment? Can a failed component actually be removed without taking something else apart? Is there enough room for tools and replacement parts? Can maintenance teams access roofs, plant rooms, ceilings and service zones without disrupting occupants? Will routine inspections require expensive access equipment?

These aren't necessarily architectural questions. They are operational questions, but they should be asked while the building is still being designed, because changing the arrangement after construction can be enormously expensive.

The hidden cost of poor maintainability

Poor maintainability doesn't necessarily appear as a major defect. Instead, costs accumulate quietly. A maintenance engineer spends an extra hour accessing equipment. A contractor requires specialist lifting equipment. A ceiling needs removing to reach a service. A piece of plant has to be replaced earlier than expected because it cannot be maintained properly. Multiply those costs across a building's lifetime and the financial consequences can become significant.

There is also the cost of disruption. A hospital cannot shut a clinical area because maintenance access was poorly considered. A manufacturing facility may lose production time. An office may have to relocate staff while work takes place. A school may need to restrict access to parts of the building.

The cheaper building to construct isn't necessarily the cheaper building to operate. That is why whole-life thinking needs to become a much more important part of construction decision-making.

The maintenance team needs a voice

Another problem is that the people who ultimately maintain buildings are often not involved sufficiently early in the design process. Architects, engineers, contractors and clients all have important perspectives, but facilities managers and maintenance teams understand something that others may not – and that is how buildings behave after the drawings have become reality.

They know which components fail. They know which spaces are difficult to access. They know where previous projects created problems. They understand how maintenance work affects occupants. That knowledge is invaluable. Bringing those people into design discussions earlier could prevent many problems that only become obvious once a building is occupied.

Technology isn't the answer to everything

This is because modern buildings are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Building Information Modelling, sensors, digital twins and connected building-management systems can provide unprecedented information about building performance, but technology cannot compensate for fundamentally poor physical access. Knowing that a piece of equipment is failing doesn't help much if an engineer cannot safely reach it.

Digital information should therefore support maintainability, not replace basic design thinking. A well-maintained building needs both good information and good physical access.

The sustainability argument

There is also a strong sustainability case for designing buildings that are easier to maintain. Replacing components unnecessarily creates waste. Difficult maintenance can shorten equipment life. Poor access can encourage replacement rather than repair and premature refurbishment generates additional material use, transport and embodied carbon.

Designing for maintenance can therefore contribute to the wider goal of reducing a building's environmental impact. A building that lasts longer, performs better and allows components to be repaired rather than unnecessarily replaced is inherently more resilient.

Sustainability is not just about how efficiently a building operates on day one. It is also about how well it can continue operating for the next 30, 40 or 50 years.

Perhaps we should design for 3am

One useful way of thinking about maintainability is to imagine the building at its least convenient moment. Not at midday during a planned client walkthrough. Not when the architect is showing visitors around, but at 3am on a wet Tuesday morning, when something has failed and somebody has to fix it.

Can they find what they need? Can they access it safely? Can they isolate it? Can they remove it? Can they replace it and can they do all of this without causing unnecessary disruption? If the answer is no, perhaps the building wasn't designed quite as well as we thought.

Maintenance should be designed in, not bolted on

The construction industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated about safety, energy efficiency, carbon, digitalisation and building performance. Maintainability deserves the same level of attention.

It should be considered alongside aesthetics, structural performance, energy use and construction cost, not several years later when the facilities team discovers that the beautifully designed building is incredibly difficult to look after.

The best buildings are not those that look impressive when they open. They are the buildings that continue to perform, adapt and remain economical to operate long after the construction team has left.

Perhaps the question we should be asking at the design stage isn't - "How do we build this?" It should be - "How are we going to look after it?" Because a building isn't really successful if it is easy to build but difficult to maintain.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why is maintainability important in building design?
Maintainability affects how easily, safely and cost-effectively a building can be operated throughout its life. Designing for maintenance can reduce disruption, repair costs and premature replacement.

2. What does designing for maintainability mean?
It means considering how equipment, services, finishes and building components will be inspected, repaired, cleaned and replaced during the design stage, rather than addressing access problems after construction.

3. What are the consequences of poor building maintainability?
Poor maintainability can lead to higher maintenance costs, difficult access, longer repair times, operational disruption, premature replacement of equipment and increased health and safety risks.

4. Why should maintenance teams be involved in building design?
Facilities and maintenance teams understand how buildings operate in practice. Their experience can identify potential access, servicing and operational problems before they become expensive to resolve.

5. How can building design improve maintenance access?
Designers can provide adequate access routes, service zones, plant-room space and safe working areas around equipment. Components that require regular inspection or replacement should be accessible without unnecessary dismantling.

6. What is whole-life costing in construction?
Whole-life costing considers the costs of a building throughout its operational life, including maintenance, repairs, energy, replacement and refurbishment, rather than focusing solely on the initial construction cost.

7. Does designing for maintenance increase construction costs?
Some maintainability measures may add to the initial cost, but they can reduce long-term expenditure by making maintenance easier, extending component lifespans and reducing disruption and replacement costs.

8. How does maintainability contribute to building sustainability?
Buildings that are easier to maintain can remain operational for longer and allow components to be repaired or replaced efficiently. This can help reduce waste, unnecessary replacement and the embodied carbon associated with new materials.

9. Can BIM improve building maintenance?
BIM can provide valuable information about building components and services, helping facilities teams understand what has been installed and where it is located. However, digital information needs to be supported by practical physical access.

10. Why is access to plant and equipment important?
Regular servicing and repairs require safe and practical access. Poorly positioned equipment can increase maintenance time, require specialist access equipment or make relatively simple repairs unnecessarily disruptive.

11. What should architects consider when designing for maintenance?
Architects should consider access, servicing requirements, component replacement, plant-room layouts, roof access, maintenance routes, cleaning requirements and how work can be carried out without unnecessarily disrupting building occupants.

12. When should maintainability be considered in a construction project?
Maintainability should be considered during the early design stages, when layouts, services and access arrangements can still be changed. Identifying problems after construction is usually more expensive and disruptive.