Scottish Parliament BuildingThe Guardian's Jonathan Glancey pays homage to catalonian architect Miralles for the Scottish Parliament building which will, he says, be a masterpiece. "When completed, some time next year, it will be the finest new building in Scotland for many years. And, it needs to be completed to be seen. This is a rich, complex and crafted design, as much landscape as architecture, a building that will connect the city centre emotionally and physically to the hills beyond, expressing Edinburgh's embodiment of Scotland's political and cultural will." Describing the Scottish Parliament building, Glancey says "Dewar wanted something special, and Miralles and his wife, Benedetta Tagliabue, made sure he got it. Working with Scottish practice RMJM and engineers Ove Arup, Miralles developed the design of a building and landscape (the two will be inseparable) that take their cues from sources as diverse as upturned boats along the Scottish coastline to the delicate flower paintings of Charles Rennie Mackintosh. In fact, if you can imagine the new parliament building as a successful amalgamation of the work of Scotland's architect-hero, Mackintosh, and Catalonia's architect-saint-in-the-making, Antoni Gaudi, shot through with the originality and sensitivity of Miralles, you will have at least some idea of what to expect."
Visitor Feedback
Our Scottish Parliament building , costing some £400 million [perhaps eventually some £550 million?? Who knows??] is exceptionally good valuie at between £1 million and 2 million or even perhaps 3 million pounds per room?? Cheers Ian Stewart MSc,. BSc. C Eng MICE[ and not particullarly amused] Posted by: Ian Stewart at November 9, 2003 06:31 PMWhen are the scots going to stop 'gurning' about their new parliament, we have waited 300 years to rebuild this function into our nation!! You only build this once and as a nationalist & architect, I for one will be damned if we're gonna have some kind of big 'cooncil' corporate office block, which is what would have happened if the opposing MSP's had got a hold of this. Instead EMBT/RMJM have produced what can only be described as a masterpiece, a truely compelling modern building full of complexity, memory & identity..... if only the country could live up to it....instead we find ourselves living up to irvine welsh's description of 'shitey scotland'.....wingeing about price, when we should be celebrating creativity - looking to blame when we should be inspired. Have faith...... we could have waged 10 illegal wars for the price of this building & had change left over to bail out our fishing fleets....!!! Bruce Newlands, Moray Yep, pretty much agree with Bruce entirely - apart from the bit about illegal wars... Posted by: Paul at December 4, 2003 01:45 AMI for one, disagree with Bruce entirely. Well Bruce as an architect you will probably be aware of a properly planned/bill of quantities/scheduled project. In the eyes of many this is not such a project, the difference in cost from the design stage to the build stage is incredible and unacceptable. I don't know if this project used the standard Civil Engineering Conditions of Contract, but in my experience there is a clause (14 I think) which requires a plan to be submitted of the build phase with clauses for penalties for deviating from this plan, looks like this was taken out. Had they said it is going to cost £400 million at the outset would it still have gone ahead? what do you think? Posted by: Mike Quinn at December 4, 2003 01:00 PMLet's not forget that the building has tripled in size and MSP's have constantly changed their demands throughout. Anyone connected with the contruction industry knows the golden rule is to fix your performance specification at the earliest possible stage or pay dearly for it. The numerous AI's apparently still appearing on a daily basis show that at least some of the blame for the increase must surely lie at the feet of the client. Today we heard that a "potentially illegal" practice of accepting the 4th lowest tender broke strict tendering guidelines. As I understand it, if you state your intentions as far as procurement procedures go, at the outset, you are not duty bound to accept the lowest tender. In fact, it is not uncommon for public sector bodies to use a scoring matrix which takes into account quality as well as cost when procuring tenders. Today's revelation is reported in the media as "a decision that would cost taxpaters at least £2 million" Again, those in the know are wise enough to understand that the lowest tender does not necessarily mean the lowest final account. Indeed that decision may well be saving the taxpayer millions. On the apparent "tenfold" increase in cost, I would suggest that even constructing a building with the most basic specifications to accommodate the needs of the Scottish Parliament would exceed £40 million. Anyone who actually believed the initial (media led) estimates, was fooling themselves. Clearly, people also fail to understand that "construction cost" does not mean "actual cost" The misinformation and scapegoating which is published in the press on a daily basis only serves to heighten the already outraged canny Scots. The sooner people understand there is no single party to blame for the escalating cost and that procuring a landmark building to be proud of inevitably costs money, the better. Posted by: Faloolah at December 4, 2003 10:58 PM |