Design for Maintainability: The Hidden Costs Embedded in Building Design and Why Many Buildings Face Problems from Day One

Chakrapan Pawangkarat

Head of Property Management, JLL Thailand

Secretary-General, Property Management Association of Thailand

5 June 2026

Introduction

In the real estate industry, project success is often measured by the ability to complete construction within budget, deliver on schedule, and create a compelling experience for buyers or tenants on opening day. Award-winning architecture, impressive amenities, and cutting-edge building technologies frequently receive greater attention than a building's ability to be maintained efficiently over its lifetime.

Yet once a building begins operations, the life of the asset has only just begun. A development project may take three to five years to plan and construct, but the building itself may remain in service for thirty, fifty, or even more years. During this period, owners, asset managers, property managers, and occupants must live with the consequences of decisions made in design meetings decades earlier.

This is where Design for Maintainability (DfM) becomes critically important. DfM is not merely an engineering principle; it is an asset management philosophy that views a building through the lens of its entire lifecycle rather than focusing solely on construction. Its core objective is to ensure that buildings can be inspected, maintained, repaired, upgraded, and managed efficiently throughout their operational life, preserving performance, reliability, safety, and long-term competitiveness.

The fundamental question is therefore not how attractive a building appears on opening day. The more important question is whether the building will continue to perform effectively twenty or thirty years from now.

When Buildings Become Difficult Because Designers Never Considered the People Who Would Operate Them

At the heart of Design for Maintainability lies a simple principle: accessibility. Every component that will eventually require inspection, maintenance, repair, or replacement must be accessible throughout the life of the building.

While this sounds obvious, many operational problems originate from a failure to apply this principle during design.

In countless projects, critical equipment is concealed above ceilings, behind walls, or inside spaces that are technically accessible on drawings but practically inaccessible in reality. Maintenance access panels may exist, yet their locations do not align with the equipment they are intended to serve. In other cases, equipment is positioned so far above the access opening that technicians cannot safely reach it.

The consequences are significant. Routine maintenance often requires ceiling demolition, wall removal, temporary scaffolding, or other costly interventions. What should be a straightforward maintenance task becomes a disruptive and expensive operation.

The same issue extends to plumbing systems without inspection access doors, electrical systems installed permanently behind inaccessible finishes, and HVAC equipment positioned in locations where filters, coils, and motors cannot be conveniently serviced. As a result, cleaning, repair, and replacement activities require more time, more labor, and greater expense than originally anticipated.

From a property management perspective, these are not technical failures. They are hidden operational costs transferred from the design phase to the operational phase.

When Architectural Beauty Creates Long-Term Operational Costs

Many buildings are designed to maximize visual impact and user experience during the first years of operation. Far fewer are designed with equal consideration for how those features will be maintained over the next several decades.

A common example is the use of premium finishes such as marble walls in areas containing concealed plumbing systems. When leaks occur, repairing a relatively minor plumbing issue may require the removal and replacement of expensive architectural finishes.

Similarly, many restrooms are designed without adequate maintenance access panels. Minor repairs that should take hours can evolve into extensive renovation projects simply because maintenance access was not considered during design.

Vertical gardens and green walls present another challenge. These features have become popular because they support sustainability branding and create attractive visual environments. However, many projects fail to provide safe and practical access for pruning, plant replacement, irrigation maintenance, and pest control. Over time, what was intended as a sustainability feature becomes an ongoing maintenance burden.

Water features often present similar issues. Designed primarily for aesthetics, some installations lack adequate safety barriers, are excessively deep, or are positioned where accidental falls can occur. These conditions introduce operational and safety risks that could have been avoided through more thoughtful design.

The lesson is clear: architectural features should be evaluated not only for how they look on day one, but also for how they will be maintained throughout their lifecycle.

The Safety Risks That Begin at the Design Stage

One of the most overlooked aspects of building design is maintenance safety.

Many rooftops lack dedicated service walkways, lifeline systems, anchor points, and fall protection infrastructure. Maintenance personnel are expected to access critical equipment in environments that were never properly designed for safe work activities.

Some projects provide unrestricted access to rooftops without sufficient security measures, creating risks associated with accidental falls, unauthorized access, or intentional self-harm incidents.

Within occupied areas, similar issues emerge. Slippery floor finishes, ramps without handrails, stairs lacking visual contrast markings, and guardrails below recommended heights continue to appear in modern developments. In some cases, guardrail openings are large enough for children to pass through, creating entirely avoidable hazards.

Passenger drop-off areas frequently lack sufficient weather protection. Rainwater intrusion creates slippery surfaces that increase the risk of accidents for both occupants and visitors.

These examples demonstrate that DfM is not only about maintainability. It is equally about ensuring that maintenance personnel, occupants, and visitors can interact with the building safely throughout its life.

When Parking Becomes an Operational Problem from Day One

Few areas illustrate the operational consequences of design decisions more clearly than parking facilities.

Problems frequently arise from parking bays that are too narrow, vehicle circulation layouts that do not reflect actual user behavior, inadequate visitor parking, insufficient motorcycle parking, and poorly designed parking management systems.

Automated parking systems provide a particularly important lesson. Many developments adopt these systems to maximize parking capacity. However, insufficient attention is often given to lifecycle maintenance costs, equipment reliability, operational complexity, and vehicle compatibility limitations.

The result is a system that may perform well on paper but becomes an operational challenge in practice.

Entrance and exit configurations present another common issue. A single entry or exit lane may appear sufficient during design, yet create congestion during peak periods. Slow barrier gates or systems lacking redundancy can quickly become bottlenecks that affect the overall user experience.

Parking facilities are therefore not simply transportation infrastructure. They are operational assets whose performance directly influences tenant satisfaction and property value.

Why Poor Operational Design Leads to Higher Labor Costs

One of the least visible consequences of poor design is increased staffing cost.

Many buildings contain multiple control rooms distributed throughout the property. While this arrangement may appear functional during design, it often requires additional personnel to monitor and operate separate locations.

Security systems such as CCTV screens are sometimes installed within shared spaces that compromise operational security and reduce monitoring effectiveness.

Loading facilities are frequently undersized or located in areas that restrict efficient logistics operations. As e-commerce activity continues to grow, inadequate loading infrastructure places increasing pressure on building operations.

Property management offices are often designed with insufficient space for actual operational requirements. Mail rooms and parcel facilities may be too small to accommodate modern package volumes. Access control systems may not adequately support secure parcel management.

Individually, these issues appear minor. Collectively, they create long-term operational inefficiencies that require additional labor, increase operating expenses, and reduce service quality.

Mechanical Rooms Are the Heart of the Building, Yet They Are Often the First Spaces to Be Reduced

Mechanical and electrical rooms represent some of the most critical infrastructure within any building. Ironically, they are also among the first areas to be reduced when designers seek to maximize commercial space.

Transformer rooms and main electrical distribution rooms are often located in humid basement environments, exposed to dust, water pipes, inadequate ventilation, and restricted equipment replacement access. Poor floor finishes create dust accumulation, while building openings allow rodents and other animals to enter critical electrical areas.

Generator rooms sometimes lack adequate noise control measures and fail to provide proper fuel containment systems in the event of leaks.

Cooling towers frequently suffer from excessive vibration, noise, water drift, corrosion, and unsafe maintenance access.

Chiller rooms may experience standing water, poor drainage, inadequate ventilation, electrical equipment located near wet areas, and a lack of containment measures to prevent water migration during pipe failures.

Elevator machine rooms are often exposed to excessive heat, humidity, insufficient air conditioning capacity, and even water pipes that introduce unnecessary operational risks.

These conditions affect reliability, maintenance cost, equipment life expectancy, and ultimately building performance.

When Replacing Equipment Becomes a Construction Project

Perhaps the most expensive design failure occurs when buildings are not designed for future equipment replacement.

A building may successfully accommodate the installation of chillers, generators, transformers, and cooling towers during construction. However, many projects fail to consider how those same assets will eventually be removed and replaced.

Critical questions should be addressed during design:

• How will equipment be removed from the rooftop?

• How will replacement equipment be delivered to the basement plant rooms?

• Can trucks access the required delivery points?

• Is there sufficient space for crane operations?

• Can the structure support temporary lifting loads?

Although these questions have little impact on opening day, they can have enormous implications decades later when major capital replacements become necessary.

Failure to plan for future replacement often transforms routine asset renewal into a costly construction project involving demolition, structural modification, and significant operational disruption.

Strategic Implications

For developers, Design for Maintainability reduces long-term quality risks and strengthens the competitiveness of their projects.

For investors, maintainable buildings typically achieve better cost control, stronger operational performance, and more sustainable cash flows, all of which influence asset valuation.

For asset managers, DfM is a critical tool for reducing lifecycle costs and improving asset resilience.

For property managers, DfM directly affects operational efficiency, safety, service quality, and maintenance effectiveness throughout the life of the building.

For Thailand and other rapidly developing markets, integrating DfM into design review processes could significantly improve building quality while reducing hidden costs embedded within the built environment.

Conclusion

Many buildings do not struggle because property managers lack competence or because engineering teams fail to perform.

Their challenges were often embedded in the design long before the building opened.

• Missing access panels.

• Undersized plant rooms.

• Insufficient maintenance space.

• Inaccessible systems.

• No strategy for future equipment replacement.

These are all decisions made years before the first occupant arrives.

Design for Maintainability is therefore not simply about maintenance. It is the discipline of designing buildings through the eyes of those who will operate, maintain, and manage them for decades to come.

Ultimately, the true value of a property is not determined on the day it is handed over.

It is determined by its ability to continue operating safely, efficiently, and competitively throughout its entire lifecycle.