Maximizing Building Life
In accounting terms, the life of a building is finite and its value is evaporated once the building has been fully depreciated. However, those of us who work in construction know that a building retains some value as long as it is still standing; the questions are what is that value, how much life is left and what would it cost to extend the life.

The answer is not as complex as it may seem. Rider Levett Bucknall developed and gifted to the state of Arizona its building life extension study model, a mathematical tool, through which it is possible to quickly and effectively determine how much value remains in the building, how much life is left in it and how much money needs to be spent on the building to extend its life to certain milestones. This methodology, en­shrined in Arizona state legislation since 2004, saved Arizona $26 million dollars in the first six months alone and has the potential to save considerably more for any government entity or private institutions that wishes to use it.

Lifecycle Cost Analysis
The technique of analyzing the lifecycle cost of a building has been known for many years and is practiced in a lot of industries, including the energy industry, shipbuilding and certain Department of Defense installations.

However, it is strangely still not considered important enough for use on most government or private building construction projects.

Unfortunately, many projects are driven by their capital budgets only, with scant acknowledgment that a balance can be found between capital cost and long-term operating and maintenance costs, which is a vital consideration when public funds are being invested.

The state of knowledge of lifecycle cost analysis has now reached the point where not only the capital and operation and maintenance costs can be compared and balanced, but usage of power and water can be pre-estimated – along with the carbon footprint – to give a true measure of the impact that the building has on the environment.