Miralles' Scottish Parliament

[Richard Haut]

some images of the Scottish Parliament building (designed by the late Enrico Miralles, and being completed by RMJM - Robert Matthew Johnson-Marshall & Partners):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/magazine_the_new_scottish_parliament/html/1.stm

I think that the Scots will eventually be delighted by the building - eventually ..... because of the massive cost over-runs. A £10m to £40m building that was then going to cost £90m. The cost so far has reached £431m. and appears to be increasing.

We can all understand that a unique design may add to the cost (hence the £90m. figure) and we might have to accept that there would need to be some flexibility even in that figure. However over-runs of this dimension, and the frequency with which they happen in large UK projects, indicate serious problems of financial control - and that involves people other than architects.

[lewiseca]

Hi Richard,
I've been round the site a couple of times with college (not allowed anymore, something to do with terrorism) and i think it will be a great building in the end. there are some obvious flaws which may be a result of Miralles not being able to see it through. there's a complete tabloid witch hunt in edinburgh, there was even an enquiry a few months back to see why it was costing so much. But the enquiry didn't come up with much and just added to the cost.
Haven't you got a different system in France originating from when the pompidou centre was built? do you think that would have worked here?

[Richard Haut]

the problem appears to be the frequency with which these massive over-runs occur. It is not a matter of which system is best if the systems which already exist fail to function.

the question is not how the over-runs occur, but why they are allowed to continue so long.

this project was tricky, innovative - and then hit with the tragedy of the death of Miralles. However, having experienced and capable firms like RMJM and DL&E connected with the project mean that one has to look deeper for the root causes.

I discussed the figures with a specialist in financial compliance (and with no connection with construction - and I just put the figures down, without saying what the project was). The response was simple "this project should have been stopped long ago".

Now, that does not mean that the project would have been abandoned, nor even that construction had to stop. It is the spending that has to be halted while the systems (which most certainly do exist) are enforced.

"Controls are not optional but fundamental to the running of any public body" - Robert Black, Auditor-General.

Many countries have projects which run over budgets (France included), but they try and learn from what happens. And in Britain ? these excesses of spending happen too frequently - from the Dome to PFI's. Those who decide to set up and travel on gravy trains should remember that they have no control over their destination - they are just along for the ride. Those that suffer are the public (who own the money) and the decent professionals who try to deal with the low-lifes.

It was the American investment guru Warren Buffett who pointed the way when he said that what is needed is a "return to common sense".

Ironic, considering that there is a school of philosophy called "Scottish Common Sense".

[lewiseca]

What would you say the root cause is then? and who are the 'low lifes' responsible in this case do you think?

[Richard Haut]

are you serious ? if you are in Britain, do you really need to ask ?

[lewiseca]

fraid so

[Richard Haut]

you have answered your own question.

if people are not interested enough to see even part of what is going on, then those with the power can do whatever they like for themselves or their buddies.

the good professionals are fighting a rear-guard action with no support.

[P.C.]

Hi

I looked at the pictures when this tread started , and got the sense that a lot of hands on decision would leave a very confused ending ,I think a lot of details seem very inspiring almost to much and it is sad that what carry the expertations only bring the useal trouble . Now for an uneducated guess about the spendings I alway\s was in doubt if now all realy blame the spendings, what you earn by chosing what you expect to mirror your values, here a lot of experimenting in various directions most cirtainly would show a lot of quality a lot of detail ,that cost.
Now I think different, as I think the quality and detail will pay off better in a new technology a more clear lead thru the pyramide and food chain of architecture ,but without a vision about the new jobs and a true revolution in construction the volumes will just grow more expensive ,the more detail and quality, as you need the old crafts not the new ones and as you quote the glossy surfaces and steel beam lattrice ,seem to atract just as much expenses ----- maby there are a very simple reson ,that this fantastic piece of art became expensive for one reson and the other architecture grown from emty boxed structure less visions ,simply don't make the spark for those new jobs.
I still like to ask mr. Richard Haut, if the grow in expenses isn't just how things is expected to grow in this food chain ,and if the claim is realy serious , if a new aproach isn't the only way to make the first real revolution in architecture, --------- wouldn't it be much more efficient when the single building element replace 20 different special steel profiles, isn't it the old calcus and rigid Lego thinking that make the new steel and glass monsters expensive when a complicated process is not replaced by a much simpler , one that acturly fit the computer but produce a building frame that do not fit within the rigid codes.