Picture this: a grand new building, gleaming and modern, designed to house the nation’s lawmakers and provide a beacon of sustainable architecture. But as the costs spiral upwards, public outcry grows louder. This scenario isn’t from the pages of the dystopian novel but rather a real-world issue faced by the new Philippine Senate Building.
As our nation grapples with economic hardships, the building’s high costs have sparked controversy sparking off the following headline:
Escudero wants P23-billion new Senate building reviewed: Parang OA – Inquirer
The headline above tells of Senate President Escudero’s “shocking” discovery of the P23-billion allocation for the construction of the Senate’s new home which was only bid out for P8.9 billion.
The new Senate Building is a beacon of modernity and sustainability. This project is not just about providing office space but also about showcasing eco-friendly architecture – promising energy-efficient systems, water conservation measures, and the use of sustainable materials. Not bad. However, these noble ambitions come with a hefty price tag.
As the building approaches its opening, the public debate over its costs has intensified. During a time when our country is facing economic challenges, such an expensive project appears to be tone-deaf to the needs of ordinary Pinoys.
OA
What has piqued my curiosity is Escudero’s word “OA” which stands for a lot of things. It could stand for “Over Acting” which means dramatic, as in “the structure will have four connected, elegant, ultramodern buildings which symbolize the four pillars of democracy, namely justice, equality, freedom, and representation.” Really? Wow! Talaga, ha?
Or, OA could stand for “Over Allocated,” or better still, “Open Account” which seems to imply “the sky’s the limit.” The final Approved Budget for the Contract amounts to P8.6 billion which covers only the core and shell of the building. “The interior fit-outs are to follow separately,” Sen. Panfilo Lacson reported.
That reminds me of the construction of my family house many years ago. When the contractor completed the core and shell of our house, we found large cash balances in our project total fund after we subtracted the actual costs. We were so excited then that we thought of buying a second-hand car. But, in the final analysis, we’re off the mark in our cost projection. Besides not having bought our dream car, upon completion of our house, we incurred lots of debts due to unplanned but desired “interior fit-outs.”
“The interior fit-outs are to follow separately.” Such a statement in Sen. Lacson’s report appears so inconsequential that the term “interior fit-outs” could have gone under the evaluation radar -- with many probing eyes failing to catch its high value unless the probers are insiders who know about the nuts and bolts of the construction business.
To paint a picture of what interior fit-outs are all about, there are three types: shell and core fit-outs, category A fit-outs, and category B fit-outs. Shell and core fit-outs include base flooring, plastering, doors, stairs, elevators, insulation, toilets, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, to name a few.
Category A fit-outs include suspended ceilings, internal surface finishes, basic lighting, fire detection, electrical outlets and cabling, among others. Category B fit-outs include office furnishings, kitchen and break rooms, lighting fixtures, artwork and décor, specialized flooring and finishes, carpets, and furniture, among others.
In other words, the seeming incidental “interior fit-outs” were a bulk of items of immeasurable value which was, wittingly or unwittingly, underestimated for whatever reason.
Historical Parallel
I have a handpicked OA: “Over Ang dating,” or “Over the Arrival,” to sound snazzy. Let me share a striking controversy, eerily cut from the same cloth – the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The New York Times column bannered it then as “The Costliest Federal Building Ever.” Senator William Proxmire said that the new Hart Building “would make a Persian prince green with envy.”
Originally budgeted at $48 million, during its construction from 1975 to 1982, the final cost soared to $137.7 million – equivalent to $379 million today – strangely enough, equates to about P23-billion – the final allocation for our new Philippine Senate Building.
Public reaction then to the controversy of the Hart Senate Office Building was swift and severe. Senator Proxmire famously awarded the project his “Golden Fleece Award” for wasteful spending, criticizing the addition of extravagant features. Senator Chafee warned colleagues that the structure would “loom as an embarrassing monument to our efforts to stem inflation.”
Criticized for its stark appearance and considered by some as banal and excessively costly, it led Senator Daniel Moynihan to introduce a “Sense of the Senate” resolution – humorously suggesting that the building should be covered back up with the plastic sheathing that was used during construction.
Openly opposed to the construction of the Hart Building, Senator Dick Lugar called it a “fiscal and architectural affront to the American public” and issued a formal protest when he was moved into the building.
Referred to as a Taj Mahal and a “Mussolini-style marble barn,” with some critics likening it to a “glorified Hyatt Hotel,” such descriptions of the Hart Building reflect the perception that it was overly luxurious.
Public Perception and Backlash
The backlash against both Senate buildings centers around a common theme: the timing and necessity of such costly undertakings during periods of economic difficulty. In the Philippines, the billions spent on the new Senate building could be better allocated to pressing issues like healthcare, education, and social services. Echoed by many, such a sentiment reflects the new Senate building as a misallocation of resources when so many Pinoy families are struggling to make ends meet.
Similarly, the Hart Senate Office Building faced public outrage at its cost, particularly the luxury additions that seemed out of touch with the economic realities of the time. The elimination of some planned amenities, such as a rooftop restaurant and gymnasium, did little to quell the criticism.
It is worth noting that the new Philippine Senate Building has a gymnasium, plus other amenities such as a dignitaries lounge, senator lounge, library, food court, auditorium, museum, and gallery.
Lessons Learned
The experiences of both the Philippines and Hart Senate buildings offer valuable lessons.
Financial Planning and Management. Accurate cost estimates and contingency planning are crucial. Both projects suffered from financial overruns due to underestimations and a lack of stringent cost controls.
Public Communication and Transparency. Keeping the public informed about the need, progress, and benefits of large-scale projects can help mitigate criticism, especially during economic hardships.
Balancing Modernization and Prudence. While modern, efficient buildings are essential, it’s important to balance these needs with cost-effectiveness. Avoiding unnecessary luxury features and prioritizing essential functionalities can help keep projects within budget and reduce public backlash.
Content put together in collaboration with ChatGPT
Head Photo Courtesy of AECOM
Video clips courtesy of YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment