Refurb vs Replace: Is a patch-up costing you more?

Local government public toilet facilities at places like parks, sporting facilities and other venues are vital pieces of community infrastructure that contribute to resident and ratepayer satisfaction, public health, and general area amenity.

But, with time and use, any public facility will, eventually, become run-down and start to look tired and old. It may have attracted significant, difficult-to-repair vandalism. It may no longer have the level of amenity that people expect as times and standards change, and technology evolves.

When this happens, modern council asset and facility managers are increasingly finding themselves faced with budget constraints and competing priorities.

Refurbishment of existing toilet blocks often feels like the only viable option. The reality is that in local government there is significant financial pressure to "make do" with aging public facilities and just go with a “touch up”.

But do these short-term fixes pay off when compared to strategic long-term planning? Let’s explore.

The Refurbishment Reality

Refurbishment involves retaining the basic structure while upgrading components, fixtures, and finishes. While this approach appears cost-effective initially, "kicking the can down the road" can result in mounting (costly) problems.

Common issues in old facilities include trying to remediate rust and vandalism damage. But limited accessibility that causes regulatory non-compliance is also a common feature of old toilet facilities and refurb-ing to fix these sorts of problems can prove difficult and expensive.

In fact, compliance with current standards, particularly with AS1428 accessibility requirements and National Construction Code provisions, often cannot be fully achieved within the constraints of existing structures. Thus, even with the best intentions, a refurbished facility may still deliver a compromised user experience simply due to the limitations of a dated layout, or inherent safety limitations in the original design.

The structural integrity of the facility also often remains unknown until works actually begin, leading to cost blowouts when unexpected damage is discovered.

As a result, facility and asset managers face significant uncertainty, and the real refurbishment cost often isn't entirely what managers see in the quote or tender.

Even after completion, refurbished facilities typically deliver a limited lifespan of about eight to ten years before requiring additional investment. Plus, warranties are typically limited or non-existent.

The Replacement Advantage

Comparatively, a knockdown-rebuild approach can provide both structural and financial certainty.

On the financial side, contracts typically operate on fixed prices with minimal variations, eliminating the bill shocks that can come with a refurbishment. Additionally, new facilities generally include substantial warranties — often up to 20 years on structural elements, providing budget certainty for long-term asset management.

A completely new construction also eliminates regulatory risks associated with partially compliant refurbished facilities: new constructions are designed for full compliance with current accessibility requirements and construction standards. User experience is dramatically improved through modern, clean, and safe designs that reflect contemporary expectations about public sanitation facilities.

A brand-new multipurpose toilet facility will also last longer maybe 30 to 40 years. This delivers greater long-term value despite the higher initial investment.

In fact, when you compare a useful life of 40 years for a new build, versus as little as five years for a rebuild, it becomes clear the sort of cost advantage a refurbishment would need to deliver to be economical. (We can confidently state that no refurbishment is ever going to be three times as inexpensive as a complete rebuild, much less eight times cheaper.

Community and Civic Value

Beyond the practical considerations, the decision between refurbishment and replacement carries significant implications for community perception. A new facility signals investment, care, and modern standards to residents and visitors alike. Safer, cleaner, and more accessible facilities generate greater community satisfaction while helping councils avoid public backlash from deteriorating infrastructure.

Public toilet facilities might seem utilitarian, but they represent a visible touchpoint between councils and communities. A toilet building isn't just a utility, it's a reflection of how you treat your community.

Rebuilding demonstrates commitment to quality infrastructure and can strengthen council reputation through visible infrastructure wins that community members interact with regularly.

Summing Up

While refurbishment may appear the pragmatic choice when facing immediate budget constraints, replacement often delivers superior long-term outcomes across multiple dimensions. By thoroughly evaluating both options against a comprehensive framework that includes structural certainty, compliance requirements, lifetime costs, and community impact, councils can make decisions that truly serve their communities.

The most successful asset managers look beyond immediate budget cycles to consider whole-of-life costs and strategic asset management principles. When a facility has reached a critical point of deterioration, investing in complete replacement rather than perpetual refurbishment can represent both financial wisdom and community leadership.

Rebuilding demonstrates commitment to quality infrastructure and can strengthen council reputation through visible infrastructure wins that community members interact with regularly.