Why this proposal? Thomas cites two practical examples: "In Aurora (an educational building at WUR), workspaces for students were missing from the PoR. Nevertheless, we managed to integrate these spaces, even within the compact building design. Now we hear that these workspaces are extremely popular among students. For us, this confirms what we always aim for: Designing a building that truly meets the needs of its users. Or the tribune stairs. These have been prescribed for years in integrated children's centers, despite the square footage remaining unused most of the day. That's a waste."
"We see no added value in having a project management firm prepare a PoR. In fact, it's a revenue model for them." Thomas therefore advocates for a different approach: "Every client knows who the users are, how many square meters they need, and what the budget is. Put that on the market, because then you optimally engage architects' creativity by involving them in the thinking process from the beginning. It's only when architects get to work that what is really needed often becomes apparent. What's stated in the pre-established PoR often doesn't align with the actual needs. This can and must be improved."
► Read the full interview here (in Dutch): De Architect.