Refurbishing the Houses of Parliament

lindsay

lindsay

Admin
Messages
8,060
Name
Lindsay
Edit My Images
Yes
BBC Online story

So it's going to cost between £3b and £61b to restore and refurbish parliament. What a glorious waste of taxpayers money. It's a Gothic monstrosity. Yes it should be preserved, it's a symbol of English history and arguably democracy, but not at any price. I say spend some money on a proper new modern debating chamber and offices - the Royal Mint that's going to become the Chinese Embassy would have been a good site. Here's a thought: sell the HoP to Trumpy for a new hotel, providing he retains the exterior and preserves it. That will pay for the new building.;):D:exit:
 
lindsay said:
BBC Online story

So it's going to cost between £3b and £61b to restore and refurbish parliament. What a glorious waste of taxpayers money. It's a Gothic monstrosity. Yes it should be preserved, it's a symbol of English history and arguably democracy, but not at any price. I say spend some money on a proper new modern debating chamber and offices - the Royal Mint that's going to become the Chinese Embassy would have been a good site. Here's a thought: sell the HoP to Trumpy for a new hotel, providing he retains the exterior and preserves it. That will pay for the new building.;):D:exit:
Click to expand...
Interesting ideas but surely the less we massage Trump's ego the better........but in regard to the old Royal Mint site, an interesting idea for all sorts of internal & external reasons :thinking:

The Chinese Embassy could perhaps be located at the Llantrisant site of the 'Royal Mint' or perhaps adjacent to the new Heathrow third runway.
 
Got to agree just another massive white elephant like Trident , silly fighters like F-35 the UK spending on crap is out of control.
 
Regardless of views we need a Parliament and it needs to suit the needs the users.

It is also a historic and important building - but I cant see why it needs to cost that much!
 
cambsno said:
Regardless of views we need a Parliament and it needs to suit the needs the users.

It is also a historic and important building - but I cant see why it needs to cost that much!
Click to expand...

because in the old fashioned British (salute the flag) it will be done to gold standard with historical England (more salutes) with original stone from a small family quarry on Sark, the gold leaf on the seats will be from a town in Peru......yadda yadda yadda........ The UK just doesn't understand the need to change.
 
lindsay said:
BBC Online story

So it's going to cost between £3b and £61b to restore and refurbish parliament. What a glorious waste of taxpayers money. It's a Gothic monstrosity. Yes it should be preserved, it's a symbol of English history and arguably democracy, but not at any price. I say spend some money on a proper new modern debating chamber and offices - the Royal Mint that's going to become the Chinese Embassy would have been a good site. Here's a thought: sell the HoP to Trumpy for a new hotel, providing he retains the exterior and preserves it. That will pay for the new building.;):D:exit:
Click to expand...
My bold:
..and gives Ukraine all the support it needs to win :)
 
I watched a news report that more or less explained the huge disparity in the lower and higher ends of the guestimate.

Let's assume a true figure (not allowing for inflation) of B£68, just as a starting point. Spread over many years, but still about £1,000 per person, or about £2,400 per household, that seems excessive to me.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I watched a news report that more or less explained the huge disparity in the lower and higher ends of the guestimate.

Let's assume a true figure (not allowing for inflation) of B£68, just as a starting point. Spread over many years, but still about £1,000 per person, or about £2,400 per household, that seems excessive to me.
Click to expand...

work out the numbers then on the silly F-35 Program....

The total projected cost for the UK's F-35 Lightning stealth fighter program has risen to an estimated £71 billion, covering procurement, development, and long-term sustainment. While the Ministry of Defence has already spent £11 billion on the program, individual F-35B aircraft costs have been cited around $115m–$122m (£88.8m–£90m+ based on various exchange rates).
 
cambsno said:
Regardless of views we need a Parliament and it needs to suit the needs the users.
Click to expand...
I would argue that we no longer need parliament at all.

We now have the technology for true direct democracy and we should be using it. Let the civil service identify what laws they think we need, then the citizens can vote for or against them. We could also vote out the old laws that no longer suit the majority. That's how a grown up democracy works and the Swiss have been using it for a long time.
cambsno said:
It is also a historic and important building...
Click to expand...
...and, in my opinion, a truly ugly one.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I would argue that we no longer need parliament at all.

We now have the technology for true direct democracy and we should be using it. Let the civil service identify what laws they think we need, then the citizens can vote for or against them. We could also vote out the old laws that no longer suit the majority. That's how a grown up democracy works and the Swiss have been using it for a long time.

...and, in my opinion, a truly ugly one.
Click to expand...
We don’t

We do not have a situation where every adult is able to access a direct voting system.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I would argue that we no longer need parliament at all.

We now have the technology for true direct democracy and we should be using it. Let the civil service identify what laws they think we need, then the citizens can vote for or against them. We could also vote out the old laws that no longer suit the majority. That's how a grown up democracy works and the Swiss have been using it for a long time.

...and, in my opinion, a truly ugly one.
Click to expand...
It was great when Prince Albert designed it, but that was a very long time ago
 
cambsno said:
It is also a historic and important building - but I cant see why it needs to cost that much!
Click to expand...
It's riddled with asbestos, it's everywhere.
 
How long before it's underwater too?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I would argue that we no longer need parliament at all.

We now have the technology for true direct democracy and we should be using it. Let the civil service identify what laws they think we need, then the citizens can vote for or against them. We could also vote out the old laws that no longer suit the majority. That's how a grown up democracy works and the Swiss have been using it for a long time.

...and, in my opinion, a truly ugly one.
Click to expand...

So the Swiss dont have a Government or PM?
 
The huge cost is to include high backhanders to those pulling the chains!
 
cambsno said:
Regardless of views we need a Parliament and it needs to suit the needs the users.

It is also a historic and important building - but I cant see why it needs to cost that much!
Click to expand...
I think a lot of the cost is because it's a listed building. I had a studio in one years ago. It was a nightmare. A pane of glass about 10 x 8 cost about £50 because it had to be a special float glass. You cant just paint anything, it has to be restored (add a few noughts to the cost).
That said that much cost suggests more, possible a bunker and security upgrades?
It would probably be a lot cheaper to build new.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I think a lot of the cost is because it's a listed building. I had a studio in one years ago. It was a nightmare. A pane of glass about 10 x 8 cost about £50 because it had to be a special float glass. You cant just paint anything, it has to be restored (add a few noughts to the cost).
That said that much cost suggests more, possible a bunker and security upgrades?
It would probably be a lot cheaper to build new.
Click to expand...
But the building would still need to be maintained and kept as its an historic building of value. What could be its use, museum?

The issue with new buildings (applies to houses too) is that they are so dull and boring, no character.
 
cambsno said:
But the building would still need to be maintained and kept as its an historic building of value.
Click to expand...
Or knocked down and replaced with council housing for London citizens?
 
The Scottish Parliament was supposed to cost £40 million, but then delusions of grandeur kicked in and it ramped up to over £400 million.

But £40 billion? :oops: :$ That's not just a few times more, that over 100 times more.

Perhaps another way of looking at it:
  • 400 million seconds is just under 13 years.
  • 40 billion seconds is over 1,260 years
I wonder how a public vote would go on it?


Edited to reflect correct price
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Knock down historic and iconic buildings???

Maybe we could bulldoze Stonehenge and knock down the Tower of London too?
Click to expand...
If they're in the way of ordinary citizens having somewhere decent to live? Yes. If they're going to cost money to maintain them that could be used to provide medical services for ordinary citizens? Yes. If they take resources away from good roads? Yes. I'm sure there are many other reasons not to waste money on them.

Perhaps those who want to keep these buildings could donate their disposable income, after they've paid their taxes, to an upkeep fund?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
If they're in the way of ordinary citizens having somewhere decent to live? Yes. If they're going to cost money to maintain them that could be used to provide medical services for ordinary citizens? Yes. If they take resources away from good roads? Yes. I'm sure there are many other reasons not to waste money on them.

Perhaps those who want to keep these buildings could donate their disposable income, after they've paid their taxes, to an upkeep fund?
Click to expand...

We have to keep our history and heritage.

We are not that full that we need to knock down buildings to build housing. If we were you knock down Spurs and Arsenal grounds and make them play at Wembley. We could knock down a large mansion and build flats if needed.
 
I used to feel strongly about heritage building preservation, but much less so now. How many Georgian stately homes do we need to see to get an idea of how the other half used to live; I had a listed cottage for 10 years in Bucks, it was lovely but utterly impractical for modern living really - low ceilings, huge inglenook fireplace taking up half of the living room, having to bend double to go up the curved staircase. I am influenced by what has happened in Hoong Kong: many historical colonial buildings have been knocked down to free up the scarce land, but they've retained just enough, and sympathetically restored the facades whilst building new interiors inside them.
A Gothic monstrosity like the HoP is not unique in the UK I believe; however it is a massive symbol of England so it can't really be destroyed, but I do think the facades could be repaired but everything inside replaced by a new building. Maybe.
 
Beyond economical repair , Knock it down , sell chunks to anyone who wants a piece of history , Then build a new HOP
You could use a Chinese contractor , Job done.
 
lindsay said:
BBC Online story

So it's going to cost between £3b and £61b to restore and refurbish parliament. What a glorious waste of taxpayers money. It's a Gothic monstrosity. Yes it should be preserved, it's a symbol of English history and arguably democracy, but not at any price. I say spend some money on a proper new modern debating chamber and offices - the Royal Mint that's going to become the Chinese Embassy would have been a good site. Here's a thought: sell the HoP to Trumpy for a new hotel, providing he retains the exterior and preserves it. That will pay for the new building.;):D:exit:
Click to expand...

According to the item that you have linked to it is 61 YEARS.
 
cambsno said:
We have to keep our history and heritage.
Click to expand...
That's what photography and video are for, perhaps even 3D computer models.

British history and heritage isn't a talking shop and subsidised private drinking club... or maybe it is, in which case, the sooner we dump it, the better!
 
lindsay said:
I used to feel strongly about heritage building preservation, but much less so now. How many Georgian stately homes do we need to see to get an idea of how the other half used to live; I had a listed cottage for 10 years in Bucks, it was lovely but utterly impractical for modern living really - low ceilings, huge inglenook fireplace taking up half of the living room, having to bend double to go up the curved staircase. I am influenced by what has happened in Hoong Kong: many historical colonial buildings have been knocked down to free up the scarce land, but they've retained just enough, and sympathetically restored the facades whilst building new interiors inside them.
A Gothic monstrosity like the HoP is not unique in the UK I believe; however it is a massive symbol of England so it can't really be destroyed, but I do think the facades could be repaired but everything inside replaced by a new building. Maybe.
Click to expand...

I am the same , we simply don't need so much history on show, it is just to expensive, the problem is its London the golden child, if it was anywhere else i feel this conversation wouldn't be happening. Also without this thread turning political projects like these are the reasons we are struggling to fund vital services.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's what photography and video are for, perhaps even 3D computer models.

British history and heritage isn't a talking shop and subsidised private drinking club... or maybe it is, in which case, the sooner we dump it, the better!
Click to expand...

Well in terms of houses, older ones are far better built than newer ones! I know the house I grew up in (built 1777) will still be around in 100 years time, mu current 20 year old house, not so sure!

Ok, so if old historic buildings should not be subsidised by the taxpayer then there should be no tax money spent on any heritage or arts... we could sell all the works of art we hold and knock down any buildings. We should not be spending on libraries, people can buy their own books and I never use them. Same to for all the money spent on LGBT stuff or anything for ethnic groups - people can pay for that themselves.

Can ditch this too - In early 2025, the government announced £67 million for ten critical culture projects, including the National Railway Museum in York and the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool. Along with any similar projects. UK Sport invests roughly £100 million annually, with a record £330 million for Olympic/Paralympic sports to secure medal success.

Local councils can stop putting Xmas trees and decs up too. They could also sell off all the village recs and open spaces to a company and raise money that way and have no ongoing cost associated with it.

Just think, we could then live in a grey state with uniform housing reminiscent of the old Eastern Block!!!
 
Apparently, £40 billion could built 300,000 social and affordable homes, which could potentially house over 1,000,000 people. Compared to the 8,000 people and MP's etc who work at the Houses of Parliament, it does seem rather asinine when considering we are constantly being told that we are in a housing crisis.

I say sell the Houses of Parliament to the Chinese and they could use it as their embassy. They've got the money to fix it up and it would probably take 60 weeks rather than the 60 years of procrastinating British contractors that we would tolerate.
 
To be fair Simon, we are not a bunch of misanthropes and heritage-haters. My personal opinion is simply that we don't need to cling on to everything at all costs. EG you don't need to own every Monet to have an appreciation of Impressionism as a movement nor even all of his work to appreciate his skill - some examples over his lifetime are sufficient, let other galleries have the rest. So for buildings, on ce you've got two or three examples of Regency, or Victorian mock-Gothic, you don't really need to preserve them all. In the case of the HoP there is a case as it is a representative example of more than just architecture. but it doesn't need to preserved as it were in aspic. Exopecially at such exorbitant cost and possibly over the lifetimes of several stonemasons.Keep the Thameside facade, and ditch the rest.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Perhaps those who want to keep these buildings could donate their disposable income, after they've paid their taxes, to an upkeep fund?
Click to expand...

What if the workshy want to keep these buildings? Or do they not get a voice... :p
 
lindsay said:
...there is a case as it is a representative example of more than just architecture. but it doesn't need to preserved as it were in aspic. Exopecially at such exorbitant cost and possibly over the lifetimes of several stonemasons.Keep the Thameside facade, and ditch the rest.
Click to expand...
I agree up to a point.

Perhaps one approach has already been suggested: sell it to a hotelier and make them preserve the outside while repurposing the inside - entirely at their own cost.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's what photography and video are for, perhaps even 3D computer models.

British history and heritage isn't a talking shop and subsidised private drinking club... or maybe it is, in which case, the sooner we dump it, the better!
Click to expand...
Can't see the point of Venice. Let it sink!

venetian-hotel-las-vegas-23646237-2750643861.jpg
 
Mr Bump said:
I am the same , we simply don't need so much history on show, it is just to expensive, the problem is its London the golden child, if it was anywhere else i feel this conversation wouldn't be happening. Also without this thread turning political projects like these are the reasons we are struggling to fund vital services.
Click to expand...
My bold:

.....and crucially, defence.
 
gman said:
The Scottish Parliament was supposed to cost £40 million, but then delusions of grandeur kicked in and it ramped up to over £400 million.

But £40 billion? :oops: :$ That's not just a few times more, that over 100 times more.

Perhaps another way of looking at it:
  • 400 million seconds is just under 13 years.
  • 40 billion seconds is over 1,260 years
I wonder how a public vote would go on it?


Edited to reflect correct price
Click to expand...
Standard SNP accounting, we build* 2 ferries for £?, others would have built a fleet for the same cost, and probably on time.

* Work in progress.
 
Turn the current Parliament building into a tourist attraction or what ever and build a new Parliament building in Middlesbrough along with 650 one bed flats. No more second homes.
 
tarric said:
Turn the current Parliament building into a tourist attraction or what ever and build a new Parliament building in Middlesbrough along with 650 one bed flats. No more second homes.
Click to expand...

Dont' forget the 848 from the House of Lords.

Dorms would be more than suitable, for the whole lot of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top