Opinion: So now it’s cost over design for new state buildings? What could possibly go wrong? – 1v1 Video Chat & LIve Streaming & Influencer Subscription

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you’ve seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

One-off amount

I already contribute

An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.

Investigates

Money Diaries

Daft.ie Property Magazine
Allianz Home Magazine
The 42 Sports Magazine
TG4 Entertainment Magazine
The Journal TV

Climate Crisis

Cost of Living
Road Safety

Newsletters

Temperature Check
Inside the Newsroom
The Journal Investigates

The Explainer

A deep dive into one big news story

Sport meets news, current affairs, society & pop culture

have your say

Or create a free account to join the discussion

More Stories

The National Children’s Hospital in Dublin 8, built at an astronomical cost.Alamy Stock Photo

government plans

So now it’s cost over design for new state buildings? What could possibly go wrong?

Andrea Horan looks at the government’s new plans to favour value for money over design and aesthetics from now on.

7.31am, 6 Jul 2025

Share options

LAST WEEK, JACK Chambers, Minister for Public Expenditure, stated that the government will prioritise “cost and efficiency over design standards and aesthetics” when it comes to future infrastructure spending.

On the face of it, if you’ve been exposed to the huge budgetary overruns that big infrastructure projects have had recently, pragmatically, that is soothing.

However, on closer inspection, it begs the question of capital infrastructure designers, planners and managers — why are they not better at their job of managing projects and budgets, and why should their shortcomings be at the expense of the quality of the built environment we have to live amongst for decades going forward?

Good design is pragmatic and answers to the needs of its environment, but it should also answer design standards and aesthetic needs as a basic requirement, not an optional add-on. What we build matters, not just as a fluffy, feel-good measurement. It impacts on behaviour, social cohesion, crime rates, emotional wellbeing and resilience and the health of people who interact with these surroundings.

Architecture matters

Neuroarchitecture is a growing field of social psychological research that is interdisciplinary in nature and explores how the built environment affects human brain function and behaviour. It combines neuroscience, environmental psychology, and architecture to provide evidence-based architectural design principles for better buildings that positively influence well-being, cognition and emotions.

Cityscape of Poznan neuroarchitecture office buildings and skyscrapers among trees.Alamy Stock Photo

Alamy Stock Photo

Focusing only on cost is simply not good practice; functionality and aesthetics need to walk side by side for a successful society. Building with design standards and aesthetics as primary principles isn’t just a-nice-to-do, it’s science!

But does the built environment *really* have that much of an impact?

In Philadelphia, Wharton University conducted research into the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society’s (PHS) ‘Philadelphia LandCare Programme’, which backs up the science. The programme is an initiative that works with local businesses and communities to transform the tens of thousands of abandoned parcels of land in Philadelphia into attractive, well-manicured micro-parks through a process called “greening”.

The research showed that as well as property values going up 4.3% in the first year (a figure not pervasive to result in gentrification, works actually helped these neighbourhoods reclaim value lost through disinvestment), these improvements resulted in 29% less gun violence, 22% fewer burglaries and a 30% drop in issues like illegal dumping. What a place looks like, and more importantly, feels like, changes behaviour.

The antithesis to good, aesthetic-led designs is hostile architecture. Hostile architecture, also known as defensive architecture or exclusionary design, is an urban design strategy in which public spaces and structures are used to prevent certain activities or restrict certain people from using those spaces. Hostile buildings result in hostile behaviour.

Hostile, or defensive, spike architecture alongside Staple Inn, High Holborn, London.Alamy Stock Photo

Alamy Stock Photo

Hostile architecture demonstrates how the environment can significantly influence behaviour and well-being. The design or culture of the space can create a sense of unease, exclusion, and even fear, leading to negative consequences for individuals and communities. Therefore, we can credibly hypothesise that building without including design standards and aesthetics would have negative effects on the surrounding population.

The humanisation of buildings

Design standards and aesthetics are not just what buildings look like; it’s understanding how we use and respond to them that’s important. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (2002), writer and activist Jane Jacobs posited that the issue with modern developments that were primarily focused on a pleasing aesthetic as the primary purpose of design, ignored the functioning order of design and how the environment was used. That design needed to be built not just to look good, but to be engaged with. Buildings needed to be humanised.

On Thomas Heatherwick’s Humanise Campaign website, the bold statement ‘Boring buildings starve your soul’ fills the homepage. He expands in his book Humanise, “Boring is worse than nothing. Boring is a state of psychological deprivation. Just as the body will suffer when it’s deprived of food, the brain begins to suffer when it’s deprived of sensory information. Boredom is the starvation of the mind.”

The architect says the Humanise campaign is about “making [cities] more joyful and engaging through the design of buildings. We need to be asking, how do buildings make us feel? What is their impact on our emotions? Do they create the conditions where people feel safe, happy and included?”

The Global Head of the Humanise campaign Abigail Scott Paul told VML that it “is about sensitising people, including those responsible for designing and commissioning buildings, to the negative impacts of boring buildings on our health and wellbeing,” adding that “studies are beginning to show that being surrounded by boring buildings that lack visual complexity increases cortisol levels, causing higher levels of stress.”