Palace Of Westminster

MegaSteve said:
I'd be in favour of knocking it down apart from 'Big Ben' or the Elizabeth Tower as its now named...
Click to expand...
There is no need to demolish it the refurbishment cost is to bring it up to modern office standard , but just to make it safe for tourists would be a fraction of that.
Build a new parliamentary chamber somewhere cheaper say Birmingham that is central to the country.
But MPs are very good at spending taxpayers cash.
 
clubchamp98 said:
There is no need to demolish it the refurbishment cost is to bring it up to modern office standard , but just to make it safe for tourists would be a fraction of that.
Build a new parliamentary chamber somewhere cheaper say Birmingham that is central to the country.
But MPs are very good at spending taxpayers cash.
Click to expand...


...you want the "politicos" to go to BIRMINGHAM? Crikey... good luck with that, They only go outside the M25 to fight their election campaigns!
 
So we demolish anything thats old and might need upkeep?
St Andrews would be so much better as an American stadium course, the Battle of Britain flight would make good matches.....
History needs to be kept, without it we are nothing and have no reference.
 
PhilTheFragger said:
So I guess that in 100 years when the Scottish Parliament building needs renovating that you will not be willing to have your taxes pay for it (Not that any of us will be around) The Building at Holyrood cost £414 million was miles over budget and years behind schedule. It may or may not become an iconic building over that time architecturally and may or may not be worth saving.

Westminster however, is a World Heritage site, like Edinburgh, so you have to preserve what is there as it is our history, that is why it is more expensive. deal with it.

costing far less than the HS2 debacle
Click to expand...

How much does London contribute towards Holyrood compared to Edinburgh contributing towards Westminster.
[answers on a postcard please]
 
Bunkermagnet said:
So we demolish anything thats old and might need upkeep?
St Andrews would be so much better as an American stadium course, the Battle of Britain flight would make good matches.....
History needs to be kept, without it we are nothing and have no reference.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned demolishing.

And to use your golfing analogy.....why are Musselburgh and Prestwick not Open venues any more ?
 
It needs fixing but do both houses really need to be in a building like that, not fit for purpose, and according to some, a major disaster waiting to happen. Why not build a new purpose build Parliament building, and repair Westminster and recoup the money as a tourist venture
 
HomerJSimpson said:
It needs fixing but do both houses really need to be in a building like that, not fit for purpose, and according to some, a major disaster waiting to happen. Why not build a new purpose build Parliament building, and repair Westminster and recoup the money as a tourist venture
Click to expand...

I feel that my plan for a Preston Parliament, set in the heart of the Union, is gaining momentum.:whoo:
 
IanM said:
...you want the "politicos" to go to BIRMINGHAM? Crikey... good luck with that, They only go outside the M25 to fight their election campaigns!
Click to expand...
Most MPs are not from London they are from all over the UK .
It would cut a lot of travel for someone from say Newcastle.
Land is much cheaper outside London.
 
As much as it is an old building, it does need updating at great expense. There is no way I would want to move to a new parliament building in or out of London that looks like the "student digs" parliament north of the border.

As per most other major projects, the time scale and more importantly costs will not be met.
 
Tashyboy said:
As much as it is an old building, it does need updating at great expense. There is no way I would want to move to a new parliament building in or out of London that looks like the "student digs" parliament north of the border.

As per most other major projects, the time scale and more importantly costs will not be met.
Click to expand...

Have a big "like" Tashy
 
Hobbit said:
Is it not part of the Crown Estates, which returned over £200 million surplus last year?

Bearing in mind it was burnt down and rebuilt 200 years ago, maybe its due another insurance job?
Click to expand...

It is not part of Crown Estates.

It is 'owned by the monarch in right of the crown'! I believe the difference is that things in the Crown Estate's portfolio could be potentially (if unlikely) be sold, while the likes of Palace of Westminster cannot!

And a correction of an error in the OP...It's NOT made of sandstone - though the Limestone used (both original and replacement) is a sandy colour! The 'problem' with the stonework was apparently due to poor quality control of the original Anston stone used.
 
Foxholer said:
It is not part of Crown Estates.

It is 'owned by the monarch in right of the crown'! I believe the difference is that things in the Crown Estate's portfolio could be potentially (if unlikely) be sold, while the likes of Palace of Westminster cannot!

And a correction of an error in the OP...It's NOT made of sandstone - though the Limestone used (both original and replacement) is a sandy colour! The 'problem' with the stonework was apparently due to poor quality control of the original Anston stone used.
Click to expand...

I knew it was an inferior stone, I just guessed at sandstone.....a bit like the guess of £3.9 Billion. I thought I'd better pop that back in in case anyone forgets.
Why not build the new one in breeze block and then just put a cladding round to look like the old Westminster?
 
Crazyface said:
I knew it was an inferior stone, I just guessed at sandstone.....a bit like the guess of £3.9 Billion. I thought I'd better pop that back in in case anyone forgets.
Why not build the new one in breeze block and then just put a cladding round to look like the old Westminster?
Click to expand...

You missed the gist of my post!

It wasn't an inferior stone! But the (dodgy) quality control of the quarried stone meant that some (lots) of the blocks were 'not up to the standard that they should have been'!

If it's a 'true British' symbol that's needed, then Pebble-dashing might well have been the 'best' approach!! :rolleyes: Or maybe Fish's contacts could have put a bid in! In fact, the majority (perhaps even all) the stonework issues may have been put right! It'd the rest of the infrastructure - including having to deal with the stonework and sculptured exterior - that seems to be the major problem/cost! As a World Heritage site, I can imagine the hoops that need to be gone through to do any work! And as the building that contains the 2 houses of the government, if not the executive branch, I can imagine the amount of disruption involved!

Perhaps they should rent the 'vacant' spare EU assembly building in Strasbourg (or Brussels) for the duration! :whistle:
 
Foxholer said:
You missed the gist of my post!

It wasn't an inferior stone! But the (dodgy) quality control of the quarried stone meant that some (lots) of the blocks were 'not up to the standard that they should have been'!

If it's a 'true British' symbol that's needed, then Pebble-dashing might well have been the 'best' approach!! :rolleyes: Or maybe Fish's contacts could have put a bid in! In fact, the majority (perhaps even all) the stonework issues may have been put right! It'd the rest of the infrastructure - including having to deal with the stonework and sculptured exterior - that seems to be the major problem/cost! As a World Heritage site, I can imagine the hoops that need to be gone through to do any work! And as the building that contains the 2 houses of the government, if not the executive branch, I can imagine the amount of disruption involved!

Perhaps they should rent the 'vacant' spare EU assembly building in Strasbourg (or Brussels) for the duration! :whistle:
Click to expand...
Very interesting Mr Google's Friend :whistle:
 
Crazyface said:
I knew it was an inferior stone, I just guessed at sandstone.....a bit like the guess of £3.9 Billion. I thought I'd better pop that back in in case anyone forgets.
Why not build the new one in breeze block and then just put a cladding round to look like the old Westminster?
Click to expand...

Probably built by foreign workers.

An ancestor of my wife's designed and built a massive wood and canvas painted extention to the Abbey for the wedding of one of the royals.
[Teddy7 I think]. It looked really impressive
He was a great one for keeping plans so perhaps the Windsor museum could look them up and modernise for the MP's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top