The Houses of Parliament is a UNESCO World Heritage site that's falling to bits. It currently costs us £1.5 million a week just to keep the lights on. The estimate for refurbishing it is the £15bn if the MPs move out, up to £40bn if they stay put. Should it be restored to its 19th Century glory or should we get Norman Foster in to build a modern Bundestag style home for our MPs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
An architect friend has seen the scope document - which are the very specific deliverables for large scale construction projects written to avoid the "what about the car park? / Err...what car park?" moments.
She said that there are currently so many gaps in what's required that nobody will touch the project. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This will be another government procurement fiasco.
It’s impossible anyway for any government to think much beyond the next election cycle. I don’t suppose Labour will be too worried about where its fifteen MP’s will be sitting a few days a week after 2029.
Parliament is becoming pretty pointless. As with the Tories before them, the Labour government just spends its days dealing with whatever government failure/media fire is happening each day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This will be another government procurement fiasco.
It’s impossible anyway for any government to think much beyond the next election cycle. I don’t suppose Labour will be too worried about where its fifteen MP’s will be sitting a few days a week after 2029.
Parliament is becoming pretty pointless. As with the Tories before them, the Labour government just spends its days dealing with whatever government failure/media fire is happening each day."
I think you have hit the nail on the head. "Why should I get the heat for spending the money if I'm not going to be around for the ribbon cutting?". Which is why successive governments have kicked that can down the road for the last 40 years. But sooner or later it will have to be addressed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As a working building it is an anachronism. Hugely inefficient and designed for a completely different time it has no place in a modern governmental structure. It needs to be replaced by something suited for now.
It won’t ever get torn down because if it’s historical significance and will just become a huge money pit until it is left to slowly rot. Parliament will have to move to some other location but the cost of that will be another money pit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It won’t ever get torn down because if it’s historical significance and will just become a huge money pit until it is left to slowly rot.
"
Exactly this and because of what it is an alternative use is highly unlikely both in terms of functionality and cultural significance
Economically unviable to repair and a change of use would undermine its significance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As a working building it is an anachronism. Hugely inefficient and designed for a completely different time it has no place in a modern governmental structure. It needs to be replaced by something suited for now.
It won’t ever get torn down because if it’s historical significance and will just become a huge money pit until it is left to slowly rot. Parliament will have to move to some other location but the cost of that will be another money pit.
"
Maybe the existing Parliament could be turned into some kind of Diversity and Sl*very Museum to educate young people about Britain’s historic crimes. Would be a fitting end.
Meanwhile the new Parliament could be based in a modern building in Bradford to keep MP’s in touch with modern Britain. Would be much cheaper and MP’s could be housed in a modern purpose built accommodation block outside of town. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 4 weeks ago
|
New building. Being emotionally attached to a building that is just a black hole for taxpayers money is not smart. Probably needs to be in London unfortunately, being the capital and all that, but in one of the East London slums rather than SW1.
If the Greens get in they could maybe repurpose one of the prisons they plan on closing.
But before a new building is commissioned, we need to make some decisions about the 2nd chamber. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Would be much cheaper and MP’s could be housed in a modern purpose built accommodation block outside of town."
Maybe one of the soon to be vacant asylum hotels, and will save the taxpayer a fortune on MP’s second home allowances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 4 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
"The Houses of Parliament is a UNESCO World Heritage site that's falling to bits. It currently costs us £1.5 million a week just to keep the lights on. The estimate for refurbishing it is the £15bn if the MPs move out, up to £40bn if they stay put. Should it be restored to its 19th Century glory or should we get Norman Foster in to build a modern Bundestag style home for our MPs?"
knock it down movie the jobs around England and build on the land maybe they might have a chance of hitting there house building target.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""East London slums" 🤣🤣🤣🤣. We've now gone full Oliver Twist, have we?"
As a Tower Hamlets resident for most of my life, I can honestly say that it is – mostly ‐ a slum.
Yes, we've got a few nice parts and some gleaming office blocks, but scratch the surface of the fancy architecture and you still find a shithole. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
