From GWP's website: ''Simplicity is the essence of good design. It must also satisfy the aspirations and demands of the Client, the needs of the end user ...''
Interesting to note that clients (ie them with the dosh) get to have aspirations and can even make demands - hell yeah! Whereas the end users only have 'needs'.
Says it all, really.
I know this building, this 'facility', this model, this institutional type. I haven't even visited it. I know it from the description and umpteen others just like it that I've been to. Of course, Mental Health Facilities like this are a big improvement from their Victorian predecessors and for example, the advanced intervention unit at Ninewells is wonderful at slowly turning peoples' lives round, but i just feel that the architectural/structural response is so poor and limited, that designers /lawyers /architects /clinicians /accountants have clearly never really listened to 'end-users' and how they experience being incarcerated in a place like this.
Of course, better not forget the patient artwork. They'll need it.
This is a truly dispiriting yet somehow persistent model. Maybe they want it to be institutionalised so that the patients want to get out as soon as possible.
Not good enough. And this has nothing to do with what it looks like, that's another story.

@james... I agree completely with what you are saying. The 'Care Model' for buildings procured, designed and built in this country is criminal. Careful with the use of the word incarcerated, unless your making the point on the overall feeling we get from this design type :)

There has to be a separate process where a building that is being designed for the purpose of care; whether it be for mental health, palliative or elderly/ nursing care. Current trends in public projects... Cost!... Value for money!... Best Price! should have no place in the discussion when laying out the brief for this type of building. I'm not calling for unlimited budgets and no control, but we should not be forced to adhere to design models & sqm. rates that would be more appropriate to mass housing or school budgets.

We surely need to readdress the balance of how we budget & cost the housing of care of societies most vulnerable. Went a bit Gandhi there folks...

On the point of the Victorian predecessors, I believe the buildings and architectural aspirations of SOME of these facilities, hold more merit in the well-being of the user. It was the attitudes and services provided inside these institutions that was a detriment to patient care.

We can only help in the progression of mental health care in this country, by not only supporting strategies, but being able to ask questions and test them with a higher quality of spaces and facility.

Something that 'Value for Money' procurement has no business in!!

#1 & #2.... Some valid points there, but I would suggest that its not all doom and gloom. I fully understand the frustrations of the argument, particularly around the 'Value for Money' debate.

I cannot speak for this particular scheme as I have no understanding of the background to it, however, I would suggest that the budget is not always to blame. There are a number of other factors that could affect the outcome of a project such as bad briefing, a misguided vision, poor leadership and lack of appropriate design skills.

Having worked in this sector, I would also note that there is a great deal of good work going on in the background to improve the quality of design within the NHS. As a practice, we have been involved in a number of projects in the health sector and in recent years there has been some good work being done, particularly through organisations like A+DS to improve the quality.