Scottish Parliament

rathbone · Post by **rathbone** » 09 Sep 2004, 10:34

Hopefully Lord Fatty Fraser's report will also point out that the original design was changed considerably after the contract was entered into. Did anyone else go to the visitor exhibition which they had at the back of the building site? It was interesting to compare the initial proposals with what actually was built. Morales original design (which was what the Scottish Parliament chose after all) was added to and added to as MSP's demanded this that and the other that they hadn't thought of in the first place. A bit like going into the shop for a scooter and coming out with a formula one Ferrari. Having said that, I like the building. It respects the buildings around it while having a personality of its own, unlike that ersatz baronial hotel they built at the other end of the Canongate at Niddry street.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 09 Sep 2004, 15:03

Porty

There will be full guided tours which will cost money or you can do your own tour, so there is a choice for everyone.

ras · Post by **ras** » 09 Sep 2004, 15:43

New to the porty site, but think I have got the gist of this topic.

General concensus seems to be great building, pity about the occupants..

..personally I think it is a disgrace that such an important building (architecturally) is wasted on them. My hope is that someone of some stature in politics will come along soon and relieve us of this parochial mentality that Scottish politics currently has. Otherwise the building should be handed over to a more worthy cause - an art college /architecture school perhaps.

I believe the massive cost and time overruns generally can be attributed to the occupants changing thier mind. Apparently we are in to the 10's of thousands of changes since going on site.

If I was cynical I would suggest that there has been a deliberate ploy from some the occupants to ensure a cost/time overrun to gain political ground.
However I don't think they are clever enough.

Looking forward to getting my tour of what [u]will[/u] be an iconic building for Scotland even if the politicians are a laughing stock.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 17 Sep 2004, 20:58

Has anyone visited yet?

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 17 Sep 2004, 21:34

Sandra wrote:Has anyone visited yet?

I was there on Tuesday, v impressed with the inside - although there's still an alarming amount of workmen running about, maybe shouldn't really be open just yet. Outside is starting to grow on me, some bits more than others.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Sep 2004, 22:35

Read in the Indy [or maybe the Hootsmon] that the building of the houses of parliament in London, England was something like 14 years late, 700% over budget and both architects dead before it was finished.

Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose!

Post by **wangi** » 17 Sep 2004, 23:03

Must have been the Independant - nothing like that could have some out of the Scotsman!

ras · Post by **ras** » 21 Sep 2004, 17:36

..... also the new offices for our westminster chums built a couple of years ago cost a similar figure to our new parliament, but no-one batted an eyelid.

.... admittedly they did get a new underground station as well.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2004, 21:33

ras wrote:........ admittedly they did get a new underground station as well.

Hmmm, that would add a bit to the cost.

I can't believe this poll is so close or can I?

ras · Post by **ras** » 22 Sep 2004, 09:11

agreed the underground added a chunk to the cost, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they spent hundreds of millions of pounds on some offices

if you remove the Ã‚Â£100m plus wasted by the politicians at holyrood, then I'm sure you would find that the westminster offices cost a similar amount to our entire parliament

i'm not justifying the final cost, but the comparison is worth making

I'm not sure which way I should vote either -
I think if we are going to have a prestigous building you have to spend the money, so in that respect I don't think the building is a waste of money nor too expensive. (Lets face it, it is our parliament not just any old office block). However I do think the overuns and abortive costs are a disgrace and a 'waste of money' and therefore result in the building being too expensive.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 22 Sep 2004, 14:50

Has anyone visited yet?

I went along on Monday

Exterior - an attempt to disguise the lack of a coherent form through desparate over decoration. Without the ridiculous water pistol/hairdryer motif and the wooden poles there is nothing to distinguish it, as photographs from various angles show. Most buildings of architectural merit have an immediate visual impact, this has none

Interior - Tardis in reverse, suprisingly small, gloomy entrance. The famous reception desk is underwhelming to say the least. The debating chamber looks nice, like a gleaming new language lab, but seems too grand for what is basically a layer of local government.

It fails as an architectural acheivement in my opinion, Its certainly no bargain, but just remember that Scottish Enterprise disperses that amount up the wall every year, which I find even more of a mystery

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2004, 14:59

xxxx wrote:
It fails as an architectural acheivement in my opinion, Its certainly no bargain, but just remember that Scottish Enterprise disperses that amount up the wall every year, which I find even more of a mystery

Two wrongs don't make a right.

ras · Post by **ras** » 22 Sep 2004, 16:15

quote XXXX

"Exterior - an attempt to disguise the lack of a coherent form"

I think you may find that is part of the Architectural language of Miralles.

quote XXXX

"tardis in reverse" ......... debating chamber "too grand"

So it's a tardis inside a tardis in reverse? Can't wait to have a look round.

If the building doesn't live up to the hype some of the blame will have to lie with the current team not interpreting what Miralles originally designed, and / or the dilution of the original concept due to the ever changing goal posts.

I'm waiting until all the landscaping elements are complete before taking a trip round. The original concept relied heavily on the landscape so it would seem unfair to make judgements on the 'final' building before all the elements are complete.

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 22 Sep 2004, 16:18

Two wrongs dont make a right

I wouldn't suggest that for a moment, its just one is over (apart from the no doubt ludicrous maintenance costs) is over while the other continues year in,year out.

tardis in reverse

Dr Who's time machine was notable for being larger on the inside than the oustside. My first impression of the interior was that it was gloomy and pokey for such a hulking building

Architectural language of Miralles

I'm not sure what this means but I'll assume you're saying that's his style. If so, I don't think it has produced a building of any particular distinction.

If the building doesn't live up to the hype some of the blame will have to lie with the current team not interpreting what Miralles originally designed

What concerns people is what we're stuck with, not the original vision. I don't think you can defend the actual building on the grounds that it was supposed to be different/better than it is.

Sandra · Post by **Sandra** » 22 Sep 2004, 22:20

xxxx

Cannot belive that reception desk is worth Ã‚Â£88k...... it doesn't even look good

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 22 Sep 2004, 22:49

xxxx wrote: I went along on Monday

Did you buy a nice English sandwich while you were there, under that great Scottish banner?!

xxxx · Post by **xxxx** » 23 Sep 2004, 09:50

I missed that I'm afraid, no doubt part of crafty jack's efforts to drop the tartan and shortbread image that dogs the semi-independent region of Jockistan

ras · Post by **ras** » 23 Sep 2004, 10:12

xxxx

I'm not defending the building - as I haven't seen the complete article - I just feel that if the building does not live up to expectations, that may be because of the price tag, and the price tag is so high because of political cock-ups (plus not a little project manager cock-up).

The original Miralles design - which to be honest I would have rather seen built - I understand could have been built for a fraction of the current.

Whilst I do hope the building will still be iconic, I do have a fear that it may have been diluted. The disgrace is that despite Fraser pointing the finger at others, in the long term Miralles will be considered responsible for the price tag rather than the politicians and project managers, who should be strung up.

A reception desk at Ã‚Â£88K. Who commissioned / agreed to that? Another politician/project manager bright idea?

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 23 Sep 2004, 10:20

ras wrote:A reception desk at Ã‚Â£88K. Who commissioned / agreed to that? Another politician/project manager bright idea?

I thought that idea that was actually scrapped because of the protest at the cost, and the Duke of Buccleuch offered them a nice large 18th. century one from his family?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 23 Sep 2004, 12:07

In answer to RAS - I don't think that Miralles will be blamed for ever more for the cost of the Parliament building. I think it will be Donald Dewar(who is now no longer here to defend himself, and in fact, I personally thought Donald Dewar was a man of honesty and principle - still do). However, never a mention unfortunately, of that little toad, (being kind) David Steele's involvement and subsequent fist ministers - The Scottish Executive were not competent enough to cope with a project on this scale - open ended contracts? if these guy's were in Private Industry their feet would not touch - The Scotsman named and shamed them - but what will happen - diddly squat - they will still keep their positions/salaries/pensions. - Another Whitewash then - I opt for yes - however, I don't think that Top Civil Servants (even the glaringly incompotent ones that make up the Scottish Executive) can be booted out - The top Civil Servant in Downing Street who took the Country into an illegal war - we can't get rid of him 'yet'.

ras · Post by **ras** » 23 Sep 2004, 13:07

gemini

You can bet that any blame dished out will not lie with those who should take it.

I just hope that once it is finished people stop banging on about how much it cost. The discussion about the style of the building and the cost need to be separated and whoever wasted the Ã‚Â£150m+ taken to account. Fine, if people think the building is rubbish say 'it is rubbish', (I may think it's rubbish) but I think it needs to be judged on it's own merits, not on a fictional price tag.

p.s. just noticed that my previous posting was caught by the profanity filter. I agree with wangi **** is better than drivel.
'silly little schoolboy-up'. Come on get a grip. The words amended began with 'c' - male hen!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 23 Sep 2004, 14:54

Yes Its Rubbish/Awful/Ugly and a complete waste of Public Money!

ras · Post by **ras** » 23 Sep 2004, 16:58

hoorah

Post by **wangi** » 24 Sep 2004, 16:18

Some nice detail pics of the parliament in this gallery: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCen ... /index.htm

Post by **wangi** » 02 Oct 2004, 21:16

I took a lot of shots today - inside, outside, and from the Crags of the parliament building:

http://www.pbase.com/wangi/parliament

Hell's Cat · Post by **Hell's Cat** » 03 Oct 2004, 23:10

A complete waste of public money.

I think it's a piece of c****p. I would rather the taxpayers money had been spent on improving our roads, more houseing for the homeless, better pubic transport (bring back the station at Portobello!), anything but that monstrosity. It just doesn't fit in historic Edinburgh. Why didn't the people of Scotland get chance to choose from a short list where their Parliment was going to be and how it would look. It's our money after all!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 03 Oct 2004, 23:14

Hell's Cat wrote:better pubic transport

Hell's Cat · Post by **Hell's Cat** » 03 Oct 2004, 23:17

OOPS! You know what i mean, must be the wine causing interferance from the brain to the fingers. Sorry!

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 03 Oct 2004, 23:17

Porty wrote:
Hell's Cat wrote:better pubic transport

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Oct 2004, 10:03

Methinks Hells Cat was tired and emotional last night.

ras · Post by **ras** » 04 Oct 2004, 15:24

I'm at risk of banging on about the price, but I got this breakdown of the figures which I hadn't seen before.

site, demolition & archaeology Ã‚Â£5.7m
fit-out Ã‚Â£19.5m
current construction commitment Ã‚Â£247.8m - inclusive of abortive costs
fees (capped sum) Ã‚Â£50.3m
site organisation Ã‚Â£17.5m
VAT Ã‚Â£43.4m
construction reserve Ã‚Â£16.5m
estimated VAT on reserve Ã‚Â£2.9m
Muster room transfer Ã‚Â£0.5m
Land purchase Ã‚Â£0.3m
Construction works Ã‚Â£10.5m
Fees (incl site management) Ã‚Â£1.9m
Construction reserve Ã‚Â£2.0m
VAT Ã‚Â£2.4m

Total Ã‚Â£421.2m

After the Ã‚Â£250m construction cost - of which a huge chunk has been wasted - the figures that jumped out to me were the Fees and VAT. Almost Ã‚Â£100m on fees and VAT that were presumably worked out on the final construction figure, before deducting the abortive costs. Why are we paying almost Ã‚Â£50m VAT? In fact why are we paying any VAT at all.
Then there is the Ã‚Â£17.6m figure for works to, and then the move from their original abode.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Oct 2004, 16:43

Marya wrote:ras wrote:
Why are we paying almost Ã‚Â£50m VAT? In fact why are we paying any VAT at all.
I agree ras.I thought that VAT wasn't payable on new builds?

The owner can choose whether they want to claim VAT back or not? If they do then the future rental income is Vatable. The fact we are paying VAT is neither here nor there. its basically the Govt paying money to itself and it makes accounting easier.

However, the good news for you is that for many types of work to your house there is no vat payable as you live in a listed building. This fact is currently saving me a small fortune.

Anyway, why don't you just get on with the tea?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 04 Oct 2004, 17:28

Porty wrote:However, the good news for you is that for many types of work to your house there is no vat payable as you live in a listed building. This fact is currently saving me a small fortune.

I wasn't aware of this. Can you give us some examples of work that would not incur VAT? Replacement windows? Loft conversion? Are we talking 'B' listed?

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 04 Oct 2004, 17:44

Whilst pretending to work , I sauntered by the Parliament today and I have to say I think it looks smashing. Well worth the VAT.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 04 Oct 2004, 17:45

Of course a TRUE peoples parliament would not be having its opening ceremony clashing with the GIANT of a match at Hampden...

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Scottish Parliament

Too expensive? Waste of money?