Crumbling Westminster = £3bn +. What should we do ? Poll..

[BlackLabel]

If we do build another one we should stay clear of the people who built the Scottish one.

Scotsman said:

SPIRALLING maintenance costs mean it “would make much more sense” to tear down Holyrood and redevelop it within two decades, a leading architectural expert claims.

Questions are being asked about the Scottish Parliament’s long-term viability after figures revealed the repair bill for the building has now topped an average of £141,000 per month.

Since its inception in 2004, taxpayers have shelled out £11 million for maintenance costs – surpassing the original estimates for actually constructing the seat of power in Edinburgh.

Shortly before Donald Dewar first announced “there shall be a Scottish Parliament”, a government white paper stated the project could cost as little as £10m. But building Holyrood became a scandal, with constant delays and spiralling costs.

Now there are concerns about the parliament’s lifespan following the fivefold increase in maintenance costs in a decade.

Architectural writer David Black, who penned a 2003 book about the troubled Holyrood project, said: “It undoubtedly has a host of problems which aren’t going away. Maintenance costs will inevitably increase, to a point where it would make much more economic sense to tear it down and redevelop the site, possibly around 2020.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/cheaper-to-tear-down-scottish-parliament-by-2020-1-3265721

[AJS-]

My clever joke answer:

Stop employing ridiculously expensive consultants and experts to do everything like this. Looking here the most expensive building in the world is the impressive Marina Sands complex in Singapore, with 3 linked towers and over 2500 rooms, which cost $4.7 billion, or about £3bn including buying the land. How on earth can they arrive at such a ridiculous number to restore a stone building?

[anonymous-user]

Hmmm. £3B eh? That must be almost £500M worth of work then?

[rpguk]

I don't know. The idea of Parliament moving to a modern style parliament fills me with dread - as cynical as I am politicians in general. We enjoy a very well functioning democracy here in Britain. It does have some archaic foibles but the fundamentals are sound.

I'd be interested to know more about the £3bn cost. The work must be done properly as it's a stunning building but I think there is a point of diminishing returns in aiming for 'perfection'. Is there going to be an overrun in costs (we've all heard stories of listed old buildings being money pits).

If the work is that major it's going to need to be done with Parliament being held elsewhere. I'm sure security concerns would force this anyway.

The offices in Portcullis House would still be fine so I guess you'd want to have a temporary venue somewhere close by. I think something basic would send a good message. I think the security aspect would be the difficult part with any temporary venue. Perhaps rent a tower somewhere?

[iphonedyou]

AJS- said:

My clever joke answer:

Stop employing ridiculously expensive consultants and experts to do everything like this. Looking here the most expensive building in the world is the impressive Marina Sands complex in Singapore, with 3 linked towers and over 2500 rooms, which cost $4.7 billion, or about £3bn including buying the land. How on earth can they arrive at such a ridiculous number to restore a stone building?

Speaking as a QS on a large heritage project - you can't begin to imagine. Restoration can be much more expensive than building new.

[Du1point8]

iphonedyou said:

AJS- said:

My clever joke answer:

Stop employing ridiculously expensive consultants and experts to do everything like this. Looking here the most expensive building in the world is the impressive Marina Sands complex in Singapore, with 3 linked towers and over 2500 rooms, which cost $4.7 billion, or about £3bn including buying the land. How on earth can they arrive at such a ridiculous number to restore a stone building?

Speaking as a QS on a large heritage project - you can't begin to imagine. Restoration can be much more expensive than building new.

Im assuming it needs at least 100 people to survey the kind of sandstone, then another 100 to work out the colour needed, the next 50 are advising 1 person on how to talk and negotiate with the quarry who extracts that sandstone, the list goes on...

Not forgetting the heritage people coming round and advising on it whilst being all paid £2000 per day in fees.

[andymadmak]

Build a new one - but not in London. Somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield would be ideal. Closer to Scotland, (for that integrated nation feel) and on all the major transport links so fewer MPs feel like they need a second taxpayer funded home.

Westminster is a lovely building, and should be preserved for the nation. If you want to keep some politics there then let the "English" assembly (to be created) use one of the chambers.
Whilst the new one is being built perhaps we could bunk everyone up at the Hollyrood site? Might make for some lively debates!!!

[iphonedyou]

Du1point8 said:

Im assuming it needs at least 100 people to survey the kind of sandstone, then another 100 to work out the colour needed, the next 50 are advising 1 person on how to talk and negotiate with the quarry who extracts that sandstone, the list goes on...

Not forgetting the heritage people coming round and advising on it whilst being all paid £2000 per day in fees.

No.

[Chris Type R]

andymadmak said:

Build a new one - but not in London. Somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield would be ideal. Closer to Scotland, (for that integrated nation feel) and on all the major transport links so fewer MPs feel like they need a second taxpayer funded home.

Westminster is a lovely building, and should be preserved for the nation. If you want to keep some politics there then let the "English" assembly (to be created) use one of the chambers.
Whilst the new one is being built perhaps we could bunk everyone up at the Hollyrood site? Might make for some lively debates!!!

this, although my idea was to base it temporarily in an industrial park in Milton Keynes somewhere.

[Tyre Tread]

Chris Type R said:

andymadmak said:

Build a new one - but not in London. Somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield would be ideal. Closer to Scotland, (for that integrated nation feel) and on all the major transport links so fewer MPs feel like they need a second taxpayer funded home.

Westminster is a lovely building, and should be preserved for the nation. If you want to keep some politics there then let the "English" assembly (to be created) use one of the chambers.
Whilst the new one is being built perhaps we could bunk everyone up at the Hollyrood site? Might make for some lively debates!!!

this, although my idea was to base it temporarily in an industrial park in Milton Keynes somewhere.

Nah, Birmingahm or Leicester sould be much better innit?

[LucreLout]

Setup video conferencing and send the MPs back to their constituency homes while modernisation is carried out. No second hone allowances during this time.
Open Westminster to tourists for the life of the next parliament to fund the restoration.
If it is determined that efficiency gains accrue to having the palace over the cost of running the VC, then build a new parliament in Leeds. If its more cost effective to leave MPs in their constituencies, do that, and lease office space in the modernised palace.

[Digga]

Chris Type R said:

this, although my idea was to base it temporarily in an industrial park in Milton Keynes somewhere.

FYI, build costs for industrial are IIRC, around £100 per sq. ft for 8 metre eaves height.

Westminster Palace cost £2m to build in 1840 and, in true public sector flagship style was more than twice budgeted cost. And now it's falling down.

[Mermaid]

Getragdogleg said:

Tyre Tread said:

I'm sure the contract to perform the renovations will be given to a French company by order of ze EU

Or a Chinese company with little or no experience of building will be sold the site and they will turn it into luxury flats.

Sub contract the job to Brussels.

[vonuber]

I wonder if that includes restoration of the river wall.
I know the Elizabeth Tower is moving and will require stabilisation at some point.
3Bn is a lot, I would be interesting to see the list of what it covers. I suspect that this is an initial worst case estimate based on a quite a few assumptions.

[iphonedyou]

vonuber said:

I wonder if that includes restoration of the river wall.
I know the Elizabeth Tower is moving and will require stabilisation at some point.
3Bn is a lot, I would be interesting to see the list of what it covers. I suspect that this is an initial worst case estimate based on a quite a few assumptions.

Will likely essentially be one huge provisional sum.

[vonuber]

iphonedyou said:

Will likely essentially be one huge provisional sum.

Yep, probably based on a stage 1 or 2 level of detail, if that.

[Otispunkmeyer]

iphonedyou said:

AJS- said:

My clever joke answer:

Stop employing ridiculously expensive consultants and experts to do everything like this. Looking here the most expensive building in the world is the impressive Marina Sands complex in Singapore, with 3 linked towers and over 2500 rooms, which cost $4.7 billion, or about £3bn including buying the land. How on earth can they arrive at such a ridiculous number to restore a stone building?

Speaking as a QS on a large heritage project - you can't begin to imagine. Restoration can be much more expensive than building new.

Didn't the tiler they interviewed on Newsnight mention the little floor tiles he was replacing cost about £75 each? Crazy money, but then they aren't just some tiles are they. Its bespoke. Repairing stonework also costs a fortune, its a skilled job, there are probably few who can do it and its tortuously slow going.

[CamMoreRon]

iphonedyou said:

CamMoreRon said:

Leave the buildings and open them up to the public, but move parliament to a new building. One without oak walls and robes and morris dancing and other traditionalist junk. I bet a change to a more modern & relevant environment would get rid of the boorish and tribal behaviour pretty quickly.. honestly, watching any commons debate is like being at a duck market. No wonder they never come up with any sensible ideas.

Great. You've arrived. Not got that chip seen to yet, then, given that oak panelling now irritates you.

Hey buddy! How's it going?

I'm not irritated by it, I just think that kind of imposing traditionalist stuff has a certain effect on people's behaviour.

[Yazar]

Tyre Tread said:

Chris Type R said:

andymadmak said:

Build a new one - but not in London. Somewhere like Leeds or Sheffield would be ideal. Closer to Scotland, (for that integrated nation feel) and on all the major transport links so fewer MPs feel like they need a second taxpayer funded home.

Westminster is a lovely building, and should be preserved for the nation. If you want to keep some politics there then let the "English" assembly (to be created) use one of the chambers.
Whilst the new one is being built perhaps we could bunk everyone up at the Hollyrood site? Might make for some lively debates!!!

this, although my idea was to base it temporarily in an industrial park in Milton Keynes somewhere.

Nah, Birmingahm or Leicester sould be much better innit?

+1 to out of London, somewhere in the North- might as well use that HS2 if they are going to build it. London has a Mayor to look and can look after itself fine.

[gruffalo]

CamMoreRon said:

Leave the buildings and open them up to the public, but move parliament to a new building. One without oak walls and robes and morris dancing and other traditionalist junk. I bet a change to a more modern & relevant environment would get rid of the boorish and tribal behaviour pretty quickly.. honestly, watching any commons debate is like being at a duck market. No wonder they never come up with any sensible ideas.

Some where like Brussels?