Reading Borough Council HQ Move, Why? Options

[x2lls]

Considering the austerity situation, isn't £60m an unjustified expenditure?

To quote, from BBC....

"The leader of the Lib Dems in Reading, Daisy Benson, supported the move to Plaza West.

But she said: "... The council must not sign a blank cheque. With public finances under huge pressure at the moment in Reading the council needs to keep a tight rein on costs for the civic relocation project to ensure that an extra burden is not placed on local taxpayers."
"

So, when does a blank cheque stop being a blank cheque?

[Roger T]

I remember moving. It cost maybe £1000, for a professional company. Took 2 days.

[On the edge]

Considering the austerity situation, isn't £60m an unjustified expenditure?

To quote, from BBC....

"The leader of the Lib Dems in Reading, Daisy Benson, supported the move to Plaza West.

But she said: "... The council must not sign a blank cheque. With public finances under huge pressure at the moment in Reading the council needs to keep a tight rein on costs for the civic relocation project to ensure that an extra burden is not placed on local taxpayers."
"

So, when does a blank cheque stop being a blank cheque?

Might seem so - but arguably its capital spend. Keynsian economists would argue now is exactly the right time to do such things. Was told a few years back that Reading does have a big vision - to make the place a vibrant 'euro city'. The station means its a transport hub and it now has a first class stadium / shopping centre. Tiogether with a good University. So, retain 'Victorian parts of city centre and the outer terraces, get rid of the Sixties concrete and replace with modern high stack lofts. Delivery is over a decade - but we end up with a real pull in Berkshire. Hope they make it.

[NWNREADER]

Reading can do as it wishes, I guess. Is the matter of the 'new' civic offices another example of big capital spends are sexy, whereas looking after the existing buildings (revenue) is boring? When were the old offices built? 1980? So after 32 years they want to replace at a cost of 60m.... How much maintenance cost over those 32 years would have kept the building in good order?

[Cognosco]

Reading can do as it wishes, I guess. Is the matter of the 'new' civic offices another example of big capital spends are sexy, whereas looking after the existing buildings (revenue) is boring? When were the old offices built? 1980? So after 32 years they want to replace at a cost of 60m.... How much maintenance cost over those 32 years would have kept the building in good order?

I see you miss the point? It is not about costs etc. that does not enter the equation it is about the Councillors and staff having the latest looking building. You must be seen to have the latest design of building for a modern council you know?

[On the edge]

The building is early 70's - not time expired and in very good order. Simply site needs redeveloping. There is a tangible benefit case which demonstrates the benefit the total vision will bring to the town and its inhabitants. This is one component and the replacement is likely to be much higher (i.e. Foster Wheeler replacement size). This is real 'brown field' redevelopment and as far as I can gather is likely to include a fair number of residential apartments. The move out is site clearence to enable the work. This certainly isn't a matter of giving RBC staff five star accommodation - they probably won't see much difference at work at least.

[JeffG]

The building is early 70's - not time expired and in very good order

"Time expired" is not an expression I had come across before I heard this discussed on the local news. And I'm sure they said it was. What does it mean anyway? Is it the same as a "use by" date on food, meaning that the building is in imminent danger of collapse?

Is time expiry the fault of modern building techniques, since there are quite a few 300-year-old buildings still standing (and lived in)?

[On the edge]

"Time expired" is not an expression I had come across before I heard this discussed on the local news. And I'm sure they said it was. What does it mean anyway? Is it the same as a "use by" date on food, meaning that the building is in imminent danger of collapse?

Is time expiry the fault of modern building techniques, since there are quite a few 300-year-old buildings still standing (and lived in)?

Sorry its simply jargon - comes from working too closely with certain breed of IT people trying to sell upgraded hardware. Trying to explain the preswent building is still adequate for its present use. I don't think it suffers from the issues some concrete clad buidlings suffer - where iron reinforcing rods rust. In economic terms it seems that a far higher utilisatiuon of the site can be achieved by replacing it. So the same site would hold a bigger office block and apartments.

[JeffG]

No, I don't think it's just you - I'm sure I heard the same expression in respect of this building quite recently somewhere else, probably the news.

[x2lls]

The fact is that (an estimated) £60m is being spent in a time of huge shortfalls in finances.
With services being cut and a councillor stating 'extra burden on taxpayers', which shows the acknowledgement of a tax burden already, the 'huge pressure on public finances', could be somewhat reduced by staying put! Where is the justification?

[JeffG]

How does this affect us?

[NWNREADER]

As I said earlier, wheat Reading do is a matter for them, but then again it is what Councils do, and we have one of our own. Councils are afflicted by a requirement to spend on capital projects, not to look after what they have. They also tend to get Govt grants (tax money) for capital projects, but nothing for repairs.....

[On the edge]

How does this affect us?

Absolutley nothing! I suspect we'd (or at least we should be) be quite uptight if Reading charge payers started having a tilt at West Berks. How we choose to run our local affairs is up to us.

The only element which may be of political interest is the centrally imposed housing allocation. Apparentkly Reading wants more - to support those high stacker lofts. However, our brightest and best rejected their proposal to take some of West Berkshire's allocation. We do all want to redevelop Watership Down don't we!

The other benefit for us, if Reading does make it - we'll have some great entertainment / shopping / cultural facilities just down the road.

[JeffG]

We do all want to redevelop Watership Down don't we!

Actually, Watership Down is quite safe. You mean Sandleford, I think.

[NWNREADER]

Actually, Watership Down is quite safe.

Unless Hampshire County Council or Basingstoke & Deane have a cunning plan.......