In reality, cladding is one of the early decisions that shapes cost, performance, and how the building operates long term.
When it’s deferred, the project is already working within fixed geometry, structure, and budget assumptions. The flexibility to make a clean, efficient choice is reduced.
That was one of the clearest takeaways from our recent webinar with Judah Simpkin from Paneltec. The projects that run cleanly don’t treat the façade as a finish. They resolve it early, while there’s still room to move.
The ones that don’t tend to pay for it later.
Why this matters more than people think
There’s a common assumption that cladding is just a surface decision. Something you can swap in or out depending on budget.
That’s not how it plays out in reality.
As Judah put it:
“Instead of just looking just for the cladding, we’re looking at the overall system from the framing out.”
That includes:
- fire performance
- junction detailing
- buildability
- how it interacts with the rest of the structure
By the time you’re in consent or heading toward tender, those things are already locked in or difficult to change.
Leave it late, and it starts showing up everywhere else. In consent. In pricing. In how the job actually runs on site.
What actually goes wrong when it’s left too late
It usually starts with a concept that carries just enough façade detail to move forward. The complexity doesn’t show up until later, when the job is already committed.
Shop drawings. Junctions. Fire requirements. Install methodology.
That’s when things can slow down.
-
RFIs start stacking up
-
Installers are pricing unknowns
-
Details get resolved on site instead of on paper
And this is the part most people underestimate:
The material is not where most of the façade cost sits but installation is.
Judah broke it down clearly in the webinar. Materials might be 20–30% of the façade cost. The rest is installation.
So if the detail isn’t resolved early, installers are forced to:
-
add contingency
-
or price inconsistently
Either way, you lose control of cost.
Why “we’ll figure it out later” doesn’t work anymore
Historically, you could get away with a bit of ambiguity, that’s changed.
The shift is toward full system accountability. Not just what the panel is, but how the entire façade performs.
You see it in:
-
fire requirements
-
council expectations
-
insurance behaviour
What the better projects do differently
They don’t wait, but instead they bring façade thinking forward into the early design phase and treat it as part of the core system, rather than a finish.
Practically, that means:
- engaging a façade specialist during concept
- resolving key details alongside the architect
- developing proper shop-level thinking before tender
A key point from the webinar was how this works in practice.
It doesn’t extend the programme. It allows the façade to be worked through alongside the main design, instead of being pushed to the end.
While the architect progresses the broader design, the façade system is resolved in parallel.
That creates:
- clearer consent documentation
-
fewer RFIs
-
more accurate pricing
-
And most importantly, fewer surprises.
The cost mistake most people make
This is where a lot of projects go off track. People compare façade options based on square metre rate. That’s the wrong lens.
A lower-cost material can easily become the more expensive option over time.
Judah gave a simple but real example.
Painted fibre cement:
-
cheaper upfront
-
but requires repainting
-
requires access
-
shows wear
Versus a pre-finished system:
-
higher upfront cost
-
minimal maintenance
-
consistent appearance over time
The difference shows up later.
As he put it:
You see buildings that looked great for two years, then they fade, chalk, and the brand starts to look tired.
It’s not just maintenance. It changes how the building presents over time, which has a direct impact on how it’s perceived.
Where this shows up in a real project
Take something like an entrance canopy, it might be a small part of the building and easy to value-engineer, But it’s also one of the most visible parts.
If you save money there using a system that requires repainting or ongoing maintenance, you’re committing to repeated disruption and cost.
If you resolve it properly upfront, you avoid that entirely.
The upfront saving often doesn’t justify the long-term outcome.
The four questions you should be asking early
If you’re in early design and these haven’t been answered clearly yet, you’re not ready to lock anything in:
-
How does this façade system perform long-term?
-
What does it mean for consent and compliance?
-
What risks does it introduce during construction?
-
What does it cost over the life of the building, not just upfront?
Most issues show up because they weren’t answered early enough.
The bottom line
Façade decisions aren’t a finishing touch, but a structural decision that affects:
-
cost certainty
-
programme
-
compliance
-
long-term performance
Leave them late, and you push complexity into construction where it’s hardest and most expensive to solve.
Resolve them early, and you remove a significant portion of project risk.
If you’re working through a project and want to sense-check your façade approach, get in touch. We can talk through your options early and help you understand the cost, consent, and build implications before anything gets locked in.
