• UK: MPs approve plan to leave Houses of Parliament for six years from 2025
    10 replies, posted
[t]https://i.imgur.com/3WguRQe.jpg[/t] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/31/mps-set-to-leave-houses-of-parliament-for-35bn-restoration[/url] [quote]Parliament is expected to relocate away from its historic site at the Palace of Westminster in the next decade after MPs decided that the risk of a major fire was so great that a total refurbishment costing at least £3.5bn was necessary. MPs voted by 236 to 220 to support an amendment that saw Conservative and Labour members come together to support a full programme of works that is likely to result in the Commons relocating to a venue in Whitehall from the middle of the next decade. They backed an amendment from the Labour MP Meg Hillier and rejected two motions in the name of leader of the Commons, Andrea Leadsom. Neither of those motions would have committed MPs and peers to moving off site. It would be the first time either house had moved out of the Victorian palace since the Commons chamber was destroyed by a bomb in 1941. Under the plan, the Commons and Lords would move off site in 2025 for an estimated six years. The Commons would move to Richmond House, on nearby Whitehall, and the Lords would relocate to the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The Lords will have to vote on the proposals before they are confirmed, but the upper house is expected to follow the Commons’ lead.[/quote] Very narrow vote, glad to finally see a decision on this though. The longer they delay, the more taxpayer money has to spent on the repairs. The Leadsom plan was to form a commission to decide what should be done, which is redundant because there has already been a big inquiry which concluded that it would easiest and cheapest for them to move out. The alternative was to spend billions extra on the repairs and it would literally take three decades to complete, all so that MPs weren't inconvenienced.
It's about time they came up with a decision.
It should have been done years ago -- better late than never, I suppose.
3.5 billion to refurbish? Thats insane.
[QUOTE=Shirky;53100465]3.5 billion to refurbish? Thats insane.[/QUOTE] They probably need to raze everything besides the facade and then raise it back up again, pun intended.
[QUOTE=Stopper;53100492]They probably need to raze everything besides the facade and then raise it back up again, pun intended.[/QUOTE] Off topic but there's a funny story about the White House renovations done by Harry Truman, he wouldn't let a bulldozer go through the outer shell of the building so they had to disassemble and reassemble the bulldozer to get it in and out of the area :v:
[QUOTE=Shirky;53100465]3.5 billion to refurbish? Thats insane.[/QUOTE] historical renovations are horrendous, historical renovations on important buildings are worse, historical renovations of important buildings that also have to be cutting edge functional are the even worse. 3.5Bn is probably a low ball, there's no getting around it though the place is falling apart [editline]1st February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=TheBorealis;53100582]Off topic but there's a funny story about the White House renovations done by Harry Truman, he wouldn't let a bulldozer go through the outer shell of the building so they had to disassemble and reassemble the bulldozer to get it in and out of the area :v:[/QUOTE] no they wanted to take down the front doors which had been there since it was rebuilt, so they had to dismantle it, move it through the doors
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53100582]Off topic but there's a funny story about the White House renovations done by Harry Truman, he wouldn't let a bulldozer go through the outer shell of the building so they had to disassemble and reassemble the bulldozer to get it in and out of the area :v:[/QUOTE] It wasn't exactly arbitrary though, and I don't even know if it was his decision. But the goal became to rebuild the white house without messing with the exterior, and obviously ramming a bulldozer through hurts that.
Before I read the post, I didn't realise that parliament [b]isn't[/b] extent in terms of term limits. That'd be ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Shirky;53100465]3.5 billion to refurbish? Thats insane.[/QUOTE] The older the building, the more work there is to be done. I just wonder if they'll start going into the building foundation and start digging up artifacts. That'd be cool.
I hope they don't gut & "modernize" the interior. Lot of that going around our historic buildings in the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.