【正文】 en taken to be those that are not necessary for the structural strength and physical integrity of a building design.“Essential services” forms a third construction cost category and refers to the provision of mechanical and electrical equipment and other service systems. On the average, these service costs account for some 15 to 30 percent of the total construction cost, depending on the type of building. Mechanical and electrical refers to the cost of providing for airconditioning equipment and he means on air distribution as well as other services, such as plumbing, munications, and electrical light and power.The salient point is that this breakdown of costs suggests that, up to now, an average of about 45 to 60 percent of the total cost of constructing a typical design solution could be considered as architectural. But this picture is rapidly changing. With high interest costs and a scarcity of capital, client groups are demanding leaner designs. Therefore, one may conclude that there are two approaches the designer may take towards influencing the construction cost of building.The first approach to cost efficiency is to consider that wherever architectural and structural solutions can be achieved simultaneously, a potential for economy is evident. Since current trends indicate a reluctance to allocate large portions of a construction budget to purely architectural costs, this approach seems a logical necessity. But, even where money is available, any use of structure to play a basic architectural role will allow the nonstructural budget to be applied to fulfill other architectural needs that might normally have to be applied to fulfill other architectural needs that might normally have to be cut back. The second approach achieves economy through an integration of service and structural subsystems to round out one’s effort to produce a total architectural solution to a building design problem.The final pricing of a project by the constructor or contractor usually takes a different form. The costs are broken down into (1) cost of materials brought to the site, (2)cost of labor involved in every phase of the construction process, (3)cost of equipment purchased or rented for the project, (4)cost of management and overhead, and(5) profit. The architect or engineer seldom follows such an accurate path but should perhaps keep in mind how the actual cost of a structure is finally priced and made up.Thus, the percent averages stated above are obviously crude, but they can suffice to introduce the nature of the cost picture. The following sections will discuss the range of these averages and then proceed to a discussion of square footage costs and volumebased estimates for use in rough approximation of the cost of building a structural system.2. Percentage EstimatesThe type of building project may indicate the range of percentages that can be allocated to structural and other costs. As might be expected, highly decorative or symbolic buildings would normally demand the lowest percentage of structural costs as pared to total construction cost. In this case the structural costs might drop to 10～15percent of the total building cost because more money is allocated to the socalled architectural costs. Once again this implies that the symbolic ponents are conceived independent of basic structural requirements. However, where structure and symbolism are moreorless synthesized, as with a church or Cathedral, the structural system cost can be expected to be somewhat higher, say, 15and20 percent (or more).At the other end of the cost scale are the very simple and nonsymbolic industrial buildings, such as warehouses and garages. In these cases, the nonstructural systems, such as interior partition walls and ceilings, as will as mechanical systems, are normally minimal, as is decoration, and therefore the structural costs can account for60 to 70 percent, even 80 percent of the total cost of construction.Buildings such as mediumrise office and apartment buildings(5～10 stories)occupy the median position on a cost scale at about 25 percent for structure. Low and shortspan buildings for merce and housing, say, of three or four stories and with spans of some 20 or 30 ft and simple erection requirements, will yield structural costs of 15～20 percent of total building cost.Specialperformance buildings, such as laboratories and hospitals, represent another category. They can require long spans and a more than average portion of the total costs will be allocated to services (., 30～50 percent), with about 20 percent going for the purely structural costs. Tall office building (15 stories or more) and/or longspan buildings (say, 50 to 60 ft) can require a higher percentage for structural costs (about 30to 35percent of the total construction costs), with about 30 to 40 percent allocated to services.In my case, these percentages are typical and can be considered as a measure of average efficiency in design of buildings. For example, if a low, shortspan and no monumental building were to be bid at 30 percent for the structure alone, one could assume that the structural design may be paratively uneconomical. On the other hand, the architect should be aware of the confusing fact that economical bids depend on the practical ability of both the designer and the contractor to interpret the design and construction requirements so that a low bid will ensue. Progress in structural design is often limited more by the designer’s or contractor’ slack of experience, imaginati