Scottish Parliement Takes the Stirling 2005 Prize

[escotregen]

Great to see the Scottish Parliament taking the Stirling Prize tonight. It was especially good to hear unabashed defence of investing big sums of money on a quality public building - instead of the more usual British habit of inadaquate sums wasted on mediocrity.

I heard Piers Gough at the Friday Masterclass in the Glasgow Radisson on his great pioneering work on the New Gorbals success story and I heard him tonight on the Stirling programme stoutly defending the cost of the Scottish Parliament in terms of what we got for the money. He pointed out that compared to the money spend 'on the likes of Iraq' it was a mere cheque. On the programme the Parliament really came in for a lot of praise and admiration.

Not bad for a building I don't like Great news for Edinburgh.

[Apollo]

Funny, none of the little ordinary people interviewed in the street, who ultimately paid for it, seemed to like it, but no doubt any controversial views were edited out.

[thecatsmother]

Quality, eh? ooops!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4766552.stm

[PlasticDel]

The beam then hung swinging over the seats of Conservative MSPs.

Nahahahahaha!!!

Sorry, that is so inconsiderate of me. Some of those MSPs or the VIPs who sit in the gallery behind them could've been seriously hurt.

Great that'll be more negative press for the building. More reason for people to greet and gurn about it.

[smartie]

A travisty from start to finish....... well done donald dewar, bet hes pissin himself......

[Apollo]

Well, there's a surprise... negative publicity, greetin' and glumness about that building.

I guess no one will be held responsible for this appalling failure in a new building, and the cost of the repairs and structural examinations and safety checks will be borne by the public purse, again.

It really was more luck than anything that no-one was killed or injured. 12 foot wooden beams are far from light, especialy if dropped from roof height. Imagine the calls for public enquiries and accountability that would heard of something similar happened in a school.

[Roxburgh]

First rule of politics. Accountability is always applied to others.

[AlanM]

12 foot wooden beams are far from light, especialy if dropped from roof height.

<pedant mode>height doesn't have an effect on weight</pedant mode>

[escotregen]

Oh Aye! a certain type of Scotsman will now be well content... they will be braying "it's all a disaster, were all doomed, that's whit they get's for trying something... quick let's find someone to blame, we'll call it 'being held to account'"

Whew, it was a near thing though, with all those international competitions it was winning, and a steadily growing public acceptance! But not to worry, we can settle back into the doom and gloom comfort blanket again.

There again I never did like it

[Roxburgh]

Some will like it and some won't. That is the nature of our appreciation of art, architecture, etc.

The problem is that it is the other things that affect our appreciation of the building. In particular, the feeling that the public were taken for a ride on this one being told it would cost £40 million and it ending up around the £400 million mark.

So a lot of people want it to have problems because they feel they have been cheated. Wierd contradictory logic but that is how it works.

[AlanM]

Some will like it and some won't. That is the nature of our appreciation of art, architecture, etc.

The problem is that it is the other things that affect our appreciation of the building. In particular, the feeling that the public were taken for a ride on this one being told it would cost £40 million and it ending up around the £400 million mark.

So a lot of people want it to have problems because they feel they have been cheated. Wierd contradictory logic but that is how it works.

The £40million rears its head yet again

That figure was never for that building, the £40million was for a Glass Box(tm) extension to St Andrews House.

[Apollo]

Link?

According to the BBC's reports of the time, £40 million was the original budget maximum in 1997 reportshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2864479.stm

July 1997: Rough estimate of £10m to £40m
December 1997: £50m for construction of Holyrood building
January 1998: Total costs, including VAT, fees and fitments, is £90m
May 1999: Total revised to £109m
January 2000: Speculation that costs have risen to £230m
March 2000: Report confirms top cost is £230m, but with savings could be £190m
April 2000: Corporate body firms up costs at £195m
December 2001: New cost stands at £260m, resulting from increase in contingency funds
October 2002: Increase to £295m, largely due to added bomb proofing
December 2002: New figure of £325m caused by ongoing delays

From April 17, 1999: Devolution Minister Henry McLeish said: "Electronic voting... ...Technology is just one aspect of a new Parliament building which, it is estimated, will cost about £50m, and is being designed by Spanish architect Enric Miralles." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotl ... 306872.stm

"When a new Scottish Parliament building was originally suggested by the then Secretary of State for Scotland Donald Dewar, the estimated cost stood at £40m." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1705877.stm

However, the real problem was: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2997826.stm

Scottish National Party leader John Swinney said the presiding officer's letter was confirmation of Labour's "worst kept secret".

He said: "The disastrous open-ended contracts signed in 1999 mean it has been open season for the Holyrood contractors."

[Ally Doll]

I agree with what Apollo mentioned, I think that the contracts were the main mistake. A good chunk of the money went to consultants and the like, rather than bricks, mortar and builder's wages. They also should have put in particluar clauses which penalise contractors if the work goes over time schedule. Delays were also caused by the need to make the design bomb proof.

The Welsh Assembly was done (relatively) cheaply, but has no facilities inside - BBC guide - I guess offices must be elsewhere or in an existing building.

I've said it before - I love the Parliament building and can recommend a tour for those who haven't been (or ask your MSP to take you round and you'll see other bits like offices).

[Apollo]

I should add I'm not 'having a pop' here, just that I still remember hearing of the first announcement that the old building had been deemed unsuitable for the new Scottish Parliament, and that a new one was to be built for around £40 m.

To say I burst out laughing then would probably be an understatement (crying at the though of my tax contribution going awry would be more likely) so I tended to pay attention to any news items that cropped up, until it became a waste of time, and couldn't recolect any mention of a Glass House(tm) extension, or anyone claiming that that's what the quote was for during any reports of the enquiry, which I would imagine any politician worth their salt would have been only to keen to latch on to, and use to rubbish the media reports of overspend.

Did the £40 m Glass House(tm) extension to St Andrews House make it to completion?

[Ally Doll]

Did the £40 m Glass House(tm) extension to St Andrews House make it to completion?

I do remember seeing plans for extensions to the Royal High School, but Dewar was having none of that. I read somewhere that the building wasn't really suitable for modification anyway, aspects like disabled access weren't going to be up to scratch in an old building.