Economic Appraisal: Maggie's Centre in Cardiff

Figure 1: Williams, 2019

Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff Unit 2 – Group 1 BSc3 Welsh School of Architecture Practice Management and Economics Building Study

CONTENTS 1. Maggie’s Centre Building Outline 2. Maggie’s Centre Intentions + Planning Policy 3. Profiles 4. Value 5. Risk Assessment 6. BCIS – Average Cost per m2 7. Net to Gross Floor Area Ratio 8. Precedent 1: Maggie’s Centre Nottingham a. Brief Description, Intentions, and Planning Policy b. Precedent Cost Factors c.

Precedent Cost Breakdown

d. Precedent Regional Index 9. Precedent 2: Chiddenbrook’s Surgery a. Brief Description, Intentions, and Planning Policy b. Chiddenbrook’s Cost Breakdown c.

Chiddenbrook’s Inflation Index

10. Elemental Cost Breakdown 11. List of Figures 12. Bibliography

MAGGIE’S CENTRE, CARDIFF Building outline: Building type: Care centre for cancer patients Architect: Dow Jones Architects Site: Velindre Road, Cardiff Date of completion: March 2019 Client: Maggie Keswick Jencks Cancer Centres Trust Gross internal floor area: 240m2 Funding provided: £850,000 (Williams, 2019)

Figure 2: Williams, 2019

Maggie’s centre situated in suburban Cardiff, Wales is a care centre for those who are suffering from cancer, as well as providing support for their families and friends too.

The centre is built on a car park site beside the Velindre Cancer Centre where nurses and staff are welcome to come and go to Maggie’s, as a form of providing professional care and advice when necessary.

“The Maggie’s Centre brief also provides for other stages of grief: a variety of crying rooms, including private loos with locks on the door, counselling rooms and uplifting, comforting spaces.” (Murray and Murray, n.d.)

Figure 3: Williams, 2019

Intentions: The intention behind the addition of Maggie’s Cardiff to the collection of Maggie’s Centres worldwide, was to be a temporary structure with a lifespan of 10 years, besides the Velindre Cancer centre, acting as an ‘interim centre’ (Williams, 2019). However, since the completion of Maggie’s, the Velindre Cancer Centre has proposed future developments for their centre which may minimise the need and therefore lifespan of Maggie’s Cardiff, dependant on whether the Velindre Centre receives funding for their proposals.

Planning Policies: The building is situated in Whitchurch, Cardiff therefore classifying it as a conservation area which is protected by the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

As a result of this, there would have been restriction on demolition of the original car park site seeking Conservation Area Consent.

Due to the external façade of the building being distinctively different to the context – a change in wall surfaces would require special planning controls (Conservation areas in Cardiff, n.d.).

As shown in the detailed sections below, it is clear that the external wall build up has two layers of insulation (200mm rigid insulation as well as 62.5mm insulated plasterboard) made to minimise coldbridging and maximise airtightness (Architecture.com, n.d.). Demonstrating that Dow Jones’ have considered the heating and cooling demands and exceeded regulatory standards, which were initially constrained by hospital authorities.

Figure 4: Williams, 2019

PROFILES Promoter Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff was funded by the Welsh Government in partnership with the NHS. For both parties, the construction of a Maggie’s Centre is a positive addition aimed to support patients suffering from cancer in South East Wales (Welsh Government, 2017).

Client Maggie’s, formerly known as The Maggie Keswick Jencks Cancer Caring Trust, was named after Maggie Keswick Jencks who designed the blueprint for the first centres while being treated for breast cancer: to create a support system and sanctuary for other cancer patients dealing with mental difficulties.

Architect Maggie’s, Cardiff was designed by Dow Jones Architects. A founding member of Dow Jones Architects is from Caerphilly which is important to the trust when choosing who will design their centres (Maggie's n.d.-c). All architects are given the same Architecture and Landscape Brief (Maggie's, 2015) which extensively details the centres requirements and priorities.

Client’s Motive

Architect’s response

The building is meant to be an interim centre that would remain on the site for roughly 10 years.

(Maggie’s, 2015)

Use of materials that have a lifespan matching the intended building’s time on site. Corrugated steel for instance, which is used for external cladding, has a 10-year lifespan. The steel structure is also recyclable (Williams, 2019).

The centre should be bold, inviting, and the user should be guided to the front door (Maggie’s, 2015).

The internal spaces are visually obscured from the carpark, so users don’t feel observed. Most internal views are exclusively facing the gardens.

Bollards around the centre shield pedestrians from cars in the car park whilst guiding users to the entrance courtyard.

The ethos of the building should be domestic and with optimal natural lighting (Maggie’s, 2015).

Large openings let in diffused north-facing daylight.

Spaces should encourage people to interact whilst considering people’s privacy (Maggie’s, 2015).

The cwtch has lots of natural light, and is shielded from its surroundings.

A place for cancer patients and their families to receive emotional, social and practical support (Maggie’s, 2015).

The centre includes spaces for socialising, meeting specialists or advisors, and group activities.

The building needs to be economically built while minimising compromise on what Maggie’s is trying to achieve with their centre (Maggie’s, 2015).

The architect compromised on the number of fittings whilst ensuring the building was rich and enlightening.

Table 1

FINANCIAL MOTIVES The Maggie’s Trust is entirely funded by donations and grants which helps to deliver psychological, practical and social cancer support at their centres. Donations also help fund staff; course and workshop costs; peer support and networking groups and stress management sessions (Maggie's n.d.-a).

Furthermore, each Maggie’s Centre is self-funded with both the capitals costs of the building and maintenance costs needing to be raised. As such, each centre has to be an “ambassador” within their own local community in making sure people talk about “their” Maggie’s (Maggie's 2015, p. 7).

RISK ASSESSMENT The promoter is the Welsh Government, in partnership with the NHS, who funded £850,000 to Maggie’s Caring Cancer Centres, to produce a new centre in Cardiff. Due to the Whitchurch site being in a conservation area, it is fair to assume a higher risk level for the promoter. As this is a large public body providing funding to the client, they would be highly prepared for any potential mishaps that may disrupt production.

Potential risks for the promoter of Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff may have included: -

Weather affecting construction speed and therefore inducing higher costs, possibly due to delayed construction deliveries.

The conservation area of Whitchurch may have had several delays in receiving planning permissions to start developing by Cardiff’s local authorities.

The conservation area may have restricted Dow Jones’ initial proposals if they did not conform to the architectural or historic character of local buildings.

(PlanRadar, 2019).

Figure 5: (Maggie's, 2022)

CABE VALUES

Types of Value

Descriptions and Applications of Values

Exchange Value

The exchange value includes the acquisition, building, or enhancement of Maggie's centre which are essentially the expense of the use value (CABE, 2006) .

It is demonstrated by the capacity of the building to generate a return on the capital expenditure funded by the Welsh government in collaboration with the NHS, which in this case is a public donation.

Use Value

The value is generated by the capacity of Maggie’s centre to provide support for the patients. This is demonstrated by the brief response to the functional needs of the building and the feedback from those who appreciate the building and their frequency of visits.

Architect’s Responses

Impacts

Dow Jones makes the most from the given budget, the primary constraint of this project, by maximising the use of space and minimising expense on the overall furniture (Williams, 2019). The building is said to be is ‘about 25% smaller than most Maggie’s and less than half of the average cost – it seems that due to complex NHS land deals" (Maggie's 2015, p. 10).

The promoter and the charity donors have the assurance that their contributions will be put to the best possible use.

Furthermore, it will encourage more organisations and public donors to support the centre financially as their witness the charity’s stability.

The design still meets the requirements to provide a welcoming space for the cancer patients as it provides a sense of home and becomes a refuge for them to relieve their worries regarding the diseases, as claimed by Griffiths (2019).

The spatial quality achieved by several design elements such as a cross-laminated timber interior, a small courtyard, and a lofty landscape of the pitched soffits provide a positive and welcoming environment that helps the patients overcome their difficulties.

In addition, the layout of Maggie’s centre features kitchen units and tables as the heart of the building (Williams, 2019). It allows the patients to have a familiar experience of home and enhance the performance of the building.

Table 2

Figure 6

The facilities enhance the user's experience, causing more individuals to come and utilise the building as the benefits from the service has been shown through the quality spatial design, leading to a stronger reputation in the charity’s image value.

Image Value

Image value relates to "public trust, visibility and the organisation's profile" (Cueva and Dessi, 2012).

People tend to feel altruistic towards those who share similar beliefs (Carlos Cueva, 2012), which could suggest how the image value a cancer support centre could assist in increasing the number of donations towards cancer support.

Cultural Value

Maggie's centre places a high value on the proposed building and the people who live in the region, thus, they select the architect firm with a personal connection to the area. One of the founding members of Dow Jones Architects is from Caerphilly, Wales, therefore, he is familiar with the site (Maggie’s Centre, n.d.).

The architect also incorporates the “thoughtful lighting, a view out to trees, birds and sky” to represent the warm and welcoming space that is the same brief and the identity for all the Maggie’s centres across the UK (Maggie’s Centre, n.d.).

The building form increases the positive image of the charity, attracts the nearby community and gets a media coverage to increase the charity’s credibility.

The roof shape takes inspiration from the Brecon mountains forming a strong relationship to nature. The colour of the rusty corrugated steel cladding represents the bracken that grows on these hills, creating a connection to the site (Griffiths, 2019).

The built environment of the South-East of Wales ties the locals to the region's main attractions, historical architecture, and artisan products, contributing to a strong bond between people and their sense of national identity.

The big chimneys in the Welsh vernacular inspired the cwtch in the heart of Maggie’s centre described by the architect as a safe and familiar space.

(Architecture.com, nd) They also collaborated with the National Museum of Wales to display works from their collection in the centre.

The architects were chosen on the basis that they have a ‘personal link to the local area” and understand ‘the challenges of each site’ (Maggie's n.d.-c)

Table 2

Figure 7

Environmental Value

The building fabric follows the Passive House principles to reduce cold bridging, maximise airtightness and comply with the UK sustainable regulations.

(Architecture.com, nd)

The structural frames were also constructed off-site, creating minimum impacts for the surroundings. In addition, the use of natural light on the key spaces, especially the skylight, helps reduce the use of luminaires during the day (Maggie’s, 2015). .

The strategy of this project is to make highly efficient use of energy and fewer carbon emissions, whilst reducing long term costs. This is due to less active service to run the facility.

Social Value

Maggie’s centre was designed to offer spaces to accommodate group activities and one-to-one sessions with specialities, advisors, or other cancer patients (Maggie’s Centre, n.d. -c).

Maggie’s centre is a home away from home, as the design does not resemble a hospital (Maggie’s Centre, n.d.). The interior design (especially the material choice), provides a comforting atmosphere.

People are encouraged to come for cancer support and to visit others in similar situations, creating a sense of belonging within the community.

Table 2

Figure 8

BCIS – AVERAGE COST PER M2 The BCIS did not have a category that accurately represented the programme of the Maggie’s Centre so instead we are comparing it to a long stay nursing home as the structural requirements are similar. The results suggest that the average long stay nursing home should cost an average of £2,038 per m2 as of 1Q 2022. We can expect that the Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff will fall on the higher end of this average as they are specialist constructions built by highly renowned architects where the priority will fall more on the quality of design..

Nursing Homes Long Stay Cost per m2 (£/m2)- 1Q 2018 (Sample 2) Mean

Lowest

Lower Quartiles

Median

Upper Quartiles

Highest

1,898

1,780

-

-

-

2,016

Table 3 Nursing Homes Long Stay Cost per m2 (£/m2)- 1Q 2022 (Sample 2) Mean

Lowest

Lower Quartiles

Median

Upper Quartiles

Highest

2,038

1,911

-

-

-

2,165

Table 4 Nursing Homes Long Stay Cost per m2 (£/m2)- 1Q 2026 (Sample 2) Mean

Lowest

Lower Quartiles

Median

Upper Quartiles

Highest

2,387

2,238

-

-

-

2,536

Table 5 (BCIS, 2022)

NET TO GROSS FLOOR AREA RATIO • • •

Gross internal floor area – 240m2 Net useful floor area – 185.62m2 Net to gross floor area ratio – 0.77

Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff has a relatively high net to gross floor area ratio meaning the care centre is efficient with its floor space. This is especially important in the case of this Maggie’s centre as it was built purposefully to be ‘the same as a regular Maggie's Centre but smaller, quicker, and cheaper’ (Griffiths, 2019). Dow Jones architects have minimised the effects of these constraints on the project by minimising corridor space – making necessary spaces more interconnected and more compact.

Figure 9: Williams, 2019

PRECEDENT 1: MAGGIE’S CENTRE, NOTTINGHAM Building outline Building type: Care centre for cancer patients Architect: CZWG Architects Site: Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham Date of completion: October 2011 Client: Maggie’s Centre Caring Centres Gross internal floor area: 360m2 Total cost: £1.45 million (Murray, 2011) The Maggie’s Centre, Nottingham was designed with the same intentions as the Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff - to provide a high-quality comforting environment for end-oflife cancer patients.

This precedent has been chosen because it was built under the same client and for the same programme meaning design and economic priorities can be compared with reasonable fairness. Maggie’s Nottingham costs significantly more than Maggie’s Cardiff due to the structure’s permanence and increased floor area.

Figure 10: Murray, 2011

Figure 11: Murray, 2011

MAGGIE’S CENTRE, CARDIFF & NOTTINGHAM - COST FACTORS COMPARISON The design and cost factors present in the Maggie’s Centre Cardiff and Nottingham have been compared to gain a better idea understanding of what Dow Jones Architects may have prioritised in the budget granted for the Cardiff care centre. These factors will be considered when attempting to estimate the percentage cost breakdown of the Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff later in this document.

Design and Cost Factors

Maggie’s Centre Cardiff

Maggie’s Centre Nottingham

Size of external envelope

The ‘snugness of the plot’s boundary’ (Williams, 2019) largely determines the dimensions of the external envelope. The external envelope measures 59m in total length which is quite small in comparison to its 240m2 internal floor area suggesting that less money will have been needed to be spent on the superstructure of this centre compared others of a similar size.

The Maggie’s Nottingham chose an ambitious approach to the external envelope in which a ‘hybrid steel and timber superstructure sits above a reinforced concrete pedestal’ (Murray, 2011).

The internal floor area ‘inside Gough’s overlapping ovals is a perfectly square plan’ (Murray, 2011) suggesting an efficient wall surface area to volume ratio. However, there are many aesthetic overlapping elements of the superstructure which add the size of the external envelope – increasing the allocation of the budget granted to it.

Number of floors

Maggie’s Centre Cardiff is all situated on one floor, again suggesting that less money has been prioritised on the superstructure and substructure as the building will require a lower structural capacity.

Maggie’s centre Nottingham is ‘staggered over two half-levels and an upper floor, with a podium for services only below’ (Murray, 2011) so that rooms such as the counselling rooms can ‘take advantage of its position among mature trees’ (Murray, 2011). This suggests that the not only will the superstructure require more funding but also the substructure as the building will require more structural stability than Maggie’s Cardiff.

Material specification

‘Despite the use of materials often associated with temporariness (Douglas fir and corrugated metal) the building feels hard-wearing and solid’ (Williams, 2019). This was an intentional decision to give the building a ‘retreat-like quality’ (Williams, 2019). Douglas fir is a relatively expensive wood, meaning more money would have needed to be given to the superstructure to afford this. However, the corrugated steel is relatively cheap meaning the exterior cladding will reduce the overall cost of the superstructure.

The main structure is quite a typical and cheap solution considering the complexity of the design.

However, it was Maggie’s chief executive Laura Lee who ‘pushed for the ceramic-tile facade’ which would have increased the price of the exterior cladding significantly (Murray, 2011). This, overall, would suggest that the material selection of the Maggie’s Nottingham would have larger than Maggie’s Cardiff.

Fittings and furnishings

The architect decided that spending money on ‘nice finishes, furniture, soft furnishings and crockery’ (Williams, 2019) was the priority for this project. However, typical fittings were not prioritised such as the ‘quite ordinary toilets’ (Young, 2019). Therefore, the budget given to fittings and furnishings was carefully allocated depending on particular furniture and appliances.

The design was ‘furnished and decorated by Nottingham-born star designer Paul Smith’ (Murray, 2011). This attention to detail and bespoke decoration will have meant that fittings and furnishings will have taken a significant portion of the overall budget for this project.

Quality, precision, and the urgency of the building process

‘The architects used the relatively low budget construction method’ (Williams, 2019) of a steel frame and OSB finish and the structure’s geometry is of a relatively low complexity meaning the structure will have been simple to construct and, therefore, easier to build quickly. This is a key aim as the building is a 10-year interim scheme (Williams, 2019). However, the urgency of construction may have also increased labour costs.

The overall building construction seems complex due to its ‘concentric rotated axes and small footprint [which] create large over-hangs which disguise the pedestal’s presence’ (Murray, 2011).

However, the structural engineer describes the construction as ‘a simple convention and fast construction method to create an otherwise complex shape’ (Murray, 2011) due to the prefabricated steel beams. Thus less money and time will have been spent on this project than expected. Furthermore, the Maggie’s Nottingham is not intended to be temporary, however, speed of construction is still important for this building because of the demand for end-of-life care for cancer patients throughout the country.

Site issues, topography, and climate

The high precipitation rate in Cardiff means that extra care will have been taken into drainage systems on site. This means the budget contributed to external works will probably be higher than most other constructions of a similar ilk in drier parts of the country.

The site for the Maggie’s Nottingham was awkward because it sits on a relatively severe slope. ‘Gough chose the awkward site because it was unlikely to be useful in any future hospital expansion plans’ (Murray, 2011): hoisting the building above ground as opposed to excavating the earth meaning additional funds wouldn’t be required to relandscape the existing land.

Regional labour costs

According to the BCIS, the average cost of construction of a ‘long stay nursing home’ in Cardiff is £2,038 (BCIS, 2022). This is cheaper than Nottingham suggesting that construction can be an average of approximately 7.8% lower for a given task in Cardiff.

According to the BCIS, the average cost of construction of a ‘long stay nursing home’ in Nottingham is £2,209 (BCIS, 2022). This is more expensive than Cardiff suggesting that construction can be an average of approximately 7.8% greater for a given task in Nottingham.

Table 6

PRECEDENT 2: CHIDDENBROOK SURGERY, CREDITON, DEVON Building outline Building type: Doctor’s surgery Architect: Smith Roberts Associates, Bristol Site: Threshers, Crediton Date of completion: April 1992 Client: Drs Maycock, Devon Gross internal floor area: 365m2 Total cost: £349, 721 (Bland, 1993)

Figure 12: Bland, 1993

The construction was built to replace the existing “Georgian cob surgery in Crediton High Street” (Bland, 1993) with the aim building a “light and quietness in all consulting and nursing areas” (Bland, 1993).

This building is similar to the Maggie’s Centre as it handles both health and social care and is broadly the same floor area, although, Maggie’s Cardiff has an increased priority on design quality.

Moreover, Chiddenbrook surgery requires more sophisticated services as surgery is undertaken in the practice whereas only minor medical services are provided for the patients in the Maggie’s care centre.

Figure 13: Bland, 1993

CHIDDENBROOK SURGERY – COST BREAKDOWN Structural Element

Cost per m2 (£/m2)

Substructure Foundations/Slabs

81.48

Superstructure

Total Cost (£)

Percentage (%)

29,740

9.9

29,740

9.9

109,503.65

36.6

Upper Floors

11.46

4,182.90

1.4

Roof (Including Rooflights)

100.27

40,248.55

13.5

Staircases

16.62

6,066.30

2.0

External Walls

57.04

20,819.60

6.7

Windows and External Doors

42.34

15,454.10

5.2

Wall Finishes

16.64

6,073.60

2.0

Floor Finishes

35.74

13,045.10

4.4

Ceiling Finishes

9.90

3,613.50

1.2

19,954.55

6.6

19,954.55

6.6

29,579.60

9.9

Fittings and Furnishings Furniture, IT Equipment

54.67

Services Sanitary Appliances

9.65

3,522.25

1.2

Disposal Installations

1.89

689.85

0.2

Water Installations

9.30

3,394.50

1.1

Space Heating/Air Treatment

27.38

9,993.70

3.3

Electrical Services

27.38

9,993.70

3.3

Builders’ Work In Connection

5.44

1,985.60

0.7

29,933.65

10.0

29.933.65

10.0

80,447

26.9

Preliminaries and Insurances Preliminaries, Overheads and Profit

82.01

External Works Landscaping, Ancillary Buildings

220.40

80,447

26.9

Total

819.61

299,158.45

N/A

Table 7: Bland, 1993

Chiddenbrook surgery’s overall cost (£349,721) is greater than the estimated cost gathered from the Architect’s Journal Cost Breakdown (Bland, 1993). This may be due to hidden costs not covered in the article or miscalculation.

Most of the cost of this structure was in the superstructure. This is to be expected in most constructions but is especially prevalent to this client as high-quality finishes, cladding and membranes are essential to maintaining a safe and sterile internal environment for vulnerable patients.

CHIDDENBROOK SURGERY – COST BREAKDOWN AFTER INFLATION AND REGIONAL INDEX Structural Element

Cost per m2 (£/m2)

Substructure Foundations/Slabs

264.08

Superstructure

Total Cost (£)

Percentage (%)

89,707.03

9.9

89,707.03

9.9

330,058.24

36.6

Upper Floors

37.14

12,607.81

1.4

Roof (Including Rooflights)

324.98

121,314.36

13.5

Staircases

53.87

18,284.62

2.0

External Walls

184.87

62,752.98

6.7

Windows and External Doors

137.22

46,580.67

5.2

Wall Finishes

53.93

18,306.62

2.0

Floor Finishes

115.83

39,319.63

4.4

Ceiling Finishes

32.09

10,891.56

1.2

60,145.61

6.6

60,145.61

6.6

89,156.76

9.9

Fittings and Furnishings Furniture, IT Equipment

117.19

Services Sanitary Appliances

31.28

10,616.52

1.2

Disposal Installations

6.13

2,079.29

0.2

Water Installations

30.14

10,231.46

1.1

Space Heating/Air Treatment

88.74

30,122.31

3.3

Electrical Services

88.74

30,122.31

3.3

Builders’ Work In Connection

17.63

5,984.86

0.7

90,223.91

10.0

90,223.91

10.0

242,477.72

26.9

Preliminaries and Insurances Preliminaries, Overheads and Profit

265.79

External Works Landscaping, Ancillary Buildings

714.32

242,477.72

26.9

Total

2,656.36

901,702.46

N/A

Table 8: Bland, 1993

According to the Tender Price Index, the second quarter of the year 1992 (the year Chiddenbrook surgery was realised) is given a value of 108 whilst the first quarter of 2022 (the current date) is given an value of 350 (BCIS, 2022). Therefore, the price of the construction, if it were built today, would be approximately 324.1% larger than in April 1992. However, it is also important to consider regional differences between Cardiff and Devon. The BCIS Regional Tender Price Index for Mid Devon is 101.

This compared to Cardiff’s index of 94 suggests that (if Chiddenbrook surgery were to be built in

Cardiff, the price of construction would be approximately 7% cheaper (BCIS, 2022). The final price after regional and economic inflation can be seen above.

In comparison to the average price per m2 of a long stay nursing home (BCIS, 2022), Chiddenbrook surgery is relatively expensive. This may be because of the slight differences in programme but is most likely due to additional focus Chiddenbrook surgery placed on relandscaping the site which was initially a quite severe slope (Bland, 1993). The overall price is similar to the funding for the Maggie’s Centre by the Welsh Government (£850,000), suggesting that figure is quite accurate considering Chiddenbrook surgery has a larger gross internal floor area.

MAGGIE’S CENTRE, CARDIFF – PROPOSED ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN Through analysing the percentages (%) provided by Chiddenbrook’s Surgery’s elemental breakdown (see figure 14), an estimation was able to be created for each building element of Maggie’s Cardiff, using the Welsh government’s NHS partnership’s funding of £850,000 (see figure 15).

However, due to the several external; internal; site factors etc., the percentage (%) breakdowns issued by Chiddenbrook’s surgery would not be completely applicable to Maggie’s Cardiff - therefore the precedent of Maggie’s Nottingham has also been considered and analysed for factor differences too (see Table 9).

Factor Comparisons Summary: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff in comparison to Chiddenbrook’s Surgery & Maggie’s Centre, Nottingham CS & MN: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff requires less budget for external works as it did not require significant landscaping CS & MN: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff has intentionally lower construction costs as it is an interim structure of 10 years CS & MN: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff has a smaller floor area than the precedents mentioned thus having a lower overall cost.

CS & MN: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff applies a greater importance on furnishings compared to mentioned precedents, and a relatively low budget for the general fittings CS: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff requires fewer services than the surgery therefore suggesting a lower budget for their services MN: Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff has a smaller steel frame in comparison to Nottingham, therefore, a lower budget for their superstructure Table 9 CS – Chiddenbrook Surgery, Devon MN – Maggie’s Centre, Nottingham

Chiddenbrook Surgery - Percentage Breakdown:

Figure 14 External Works – 26.9% Substructure – 9.9% Superstructure – 36.6% Services – 9.9% Fittings and Furnishings – 6.7% Preliminaries and Insurances – 10.0%

Table 10

Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff – Proposed Percentage Breakdown

Figure 15 External Works – 15% - £127,500 Substructure – 8% - £68,000 Superstructure – 32% - £272,000 Services – 5% - £42,500 Fittings and Furnishings – 30% - £255,000 Preliminaries and Insurances – 10% - £85,000

The average cost per m2 of Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff can be estimated to equate to £3,541.67 which is significantly above the average (as shown in table 4). This may be due to the fact that the figure of £850,000 was used as the total cost (as this was the value granted to the Maggie’s Trust by the Welsh Government) whereas it is likely that the total cost of construction was lower than this. Also, the Maggie’s Centre, Cardiff prioritises the quality of design much more than Chiddenbrook surgery.

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Williams, F., 2019. Maggie’s Cardiff by Dow Jones: an oasis of Douglas fir-lined solace.

Figure 2: Ibid.

Figure 3: Ibid.

Figure 4: Ibid.

Figure 5: Maggie's Centres. 2022. Maggie's – everyone's home of cancer care. [online] Available at: <https://www.maggies.org/> [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Figure 6: Author’s Own Image Figure 7: Author’s Own Image Figure 8: Author’s Own Image Figure 9: Williams, F., 2019. Maggie’s Cardiff by Dow Jones: an oasis of Douglas fir-lined solace.

Figure 10: Murray, C., 2011. Maggie’s Centre, Nottingham City Hospital, by CZWG Architects. [online] The Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/maggies-centre-nottingham-cityhospital-by-czwg-architects [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Figure 11: Ibid.

Figure 12: Bland, C., 1993. Doctors Working With Design. Architects Journal, pp.33-44 Figure 13: Ibid.

Figure 14: Author’s Own Image Figure 15: Author’s Own Image

BIBLIOGRAPHY Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/maggies-centre-nottingham-cityhospital-by-czwg-architects [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Architecture.com. n.d. Maggie's Cardiff. [online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/awards-andcompetitions-landing-page/awards/riba-regional-awards/rsaw-award-winners/2021/maggies-cardiff [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Bland, C., 1993. Doctors Working With Design. Architects Journal, pp.33-44 Carlos Cueva, R. D. 2012. Charitable Giving, Self-Image and Personality.

Cardiff Council 2007. Conservation areas in Cardiff. [ebook] Strategic Planning and Environment. Available at: https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Planning/Documents/Conservation%20Areas.pdf [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Griffiths, A. 2019. Ridged roofline at Maggie's Cardiff recalls outline of Welsh mountains. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/12/maggies-cardiff-dow-jones-architects-maggies-centre/ [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Maggie's. 2015. Maggie's Architecture and Landscape Brief.

Maggie's. 2022. Ollie on coming to terms with cancer as a young man. Available at: https://www.maggies.org/about-us/difference-we-make/stories/id-missed-out-two-years-life-ollie-coming-termswith-cancer-as-a-young-man/ [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Maggie's. n.d.-a. Charitable trusts, foundations and other grant givers. Available at: https://www.maggies.org/get-involved/donate-maggies/charitable-trusts-and-foundations/ [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Maggie's. n.d.-b. Our Approach. Available at: https://www.maggies.org/about-us/how-maggies-works/ourapproach/ [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Maggie's. n.d.-c. Our Buildings. Available at: https://www.maggies.org/about-us/how-maggies-works/ourbuildings/ [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Murray, C., 2011. Maggie’s Centre, Nottingham City Hospital, by CZWG Architects. [online] The Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/maggies-centre-nottingham-city-hospital-byczwg-architects [Accessed 19 March 2022].

PlanRadar. n.d. 7 major risks in construction projects and how to avoid them - PlanRadar. [online] Available at: https://www.planradar.com/gb/builders-risk/ [Accessed 19 March 2022].

RIBA JOURNALS. 2019. Maggie's Velindre Cardiff Caring Centre. [online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/maggies-velindre-cardiff-caring-centre-dow-jones [Accessed 19 March 2022].

Welsh Government. 2017. £850,000 for new Maggie’s Centre for South East Wales. Available at: https://gov.wales/ps850000-new-maggies-centre-south-east-wales-0 [Accessed: 19/03/2022].

Williams, F., 2019. Maggie’s Cardiff by Dow Jones: an oasis of Douglas fir-lined solace.