New Embassy in London: $1 billion. Wasting taxpayer money: Priceless

[Hacp]

A New Fort, er, Embassy, for London


The proposed building — a bland glass cube clad in an overly elaborate, quiltlike scrim — is not inelegant by the standards of other recent American Embassies, but it has all the glamour of a corporate office block. It makes you wonder if the architects had somehow mistaken the critic Reyner Banham’s famous dismissal of the embassy’s 1960 predecessor on Grosvenor Square — “monumental in bulk, frilly in detail” — as something to strive for.

The design was chosen after a yearlong competition following the department’s decision to relocate the embassy from its address in central London to an isolated light-industry zone south of the Thames River — a project that is expected to cost a billion dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/arts/design/24embassy.html?hp


TLDR: - building would cost about $1 billion "in the ballpark of the most expensive embassies we have built."

Nothing more to say than outrageous waste of taxpayer money. Good job stimulating the British economy Obama.

 

[soccerballtux]

I prefer the "Robbing Your Children: PRICELESS" line to yours, personally.

 

[bruceb]

I agree, it is a waste of our tax dollars. We do not need a new embassy in London or anywhere else. Not only the cost of building it, but what about the land and taxes that would go to England (if embassies pay taxes) ? ?

 

[nick1985]

They just cant stop wasting money

 

[CycloWizard]

Where's that animated gif of Obama Photoshopped into the rap video shelling out dollar bills when you need it?

 

[K1052]

This is another part of upgrades to US embassies worldwide that has been going on through Clinton's and G. W. Bush's administrations. A lot of the older embassies are considered vulnerable to the kinds of terrorism that the US has been seeing in the past couple decades (examples include Kenya and Nairobi).

 

[Noobtastic]

This is another part of upgrades to US embassies worldwide that has been going on through Clinton's and G. W. Bush's administrations. A lot of the older embassies are considered vulnerable to the kinds of terrorism that the US has been seeing in the past couple decades (examples include Kenya and Nairobi).

England is not Iraq.

the American embassy in Iraq constructions cost ~1.2 billion, and that is specifically built to withstand mortars, rockets, suicide bombings, etc...

 

[Hacp]

This is another part of upgrades to US embassies worldwide that has been going on through Clinton's and G. W. Bush's administrations. A lot of the older embassies are considered vulnerable to the kinds of terrorism that the US has been seeing in the past couple decades (examples include Kenya and Nairobi).

With the information network we have today, we could probably scatter all the workers around London and have no central embassy but a network of spread out offices. Then the terrorists won't know who to attack. If they bomb one area, they'll probably take out 5-6 workers at most. Not a big deal. Its much cheaper than building a 1 billion dollar embassy.

 

[K1052]

England is not Iraq.

the American embassy in Iraq constructions cost ~1.2 billion, and that is specifically built to withstand mortars, rockets, suicide bombings, etc...

I think the new one in Beijing cost about half this but I'll bet cheap labor and the Chinese government did us some favors. They could probably shave some money off this with a little more conventional concept but there is probably stuff mandated by the Brits for new construction like this.

Checking out the Google Street View for the existing embassy I can understand the security concern.

 

[Hacp]

I think the new one in Beijing cost about half this but I'll bet cheap labor and the Chinese government did us some favors. They could probably shave some money off this with a little more conventional concept but there is probably stuff mandated by the Brits for new construction like this.

Checking out the Google Street View for the existing embassy I can understand the security concern.

If you're so happy and supportive about the government taking your money to pay for an extravagant embassy in a foreign country, the IRS takes check, cash, and credit.

 

[K1052]

If you're so happy and supportive about the government taking your money to pay for an extravagant embassy in a foreign country, the IRS takes check, cash, and credit.

I know pesky things like facts can derail a perfectly nice rhetoric fueled anti-Obama thread but lets try to behave like adults.

 

[jpeyton]

Looks pretty sweet to me. The cost of everything, from property to materials to labor, is much higher in London. $1 billion sounds about right.

 

[Farang]

The sale of the old embassy covers the cost of the new embassy. The Bush administration was behind this in October 2008.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...rotection-open-design/story?id=9924441&page=2

 

[nick1985]

Looks pretty sweet to me. The cost of everything, from property to materials to labor, is much higher in London. $1 billion sounds about right.

Its higher because the dollar is worth jack shit because of our inflation

 

[Hacp]

The sale of the old embassy covers the cost of the new embassy. The Bush administration was behind this in October 2008.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...rotection-open-design/story?id=9924441&page=2

So you sell the old embassy just to build a new one? No, you buy some old apartment and convert THAT into your new embassy. Put a fresh coat of paint, install a few fences and hire two or three security guards and you're done.1 billion is hard earned taxpayer money gone to the dumps.

 

[fallout man]

I'm actually rather impressed that Obama came into office, and within a span of one month:

-made the decision to evaluate the London embassy for security
-set up a committee
-completed the assessment
-debated the recommendations of the assessment
-bought land in London
-started a design contest for the new project
-set up a committee for that


That's a lot to get done in a month. It must be his sweet community organizer skills... or it could be that this project was already in the works.

IT IS A MYSTERY!

 

[K1052]

So you sell the old embassy just to build a new one? No, you buy some old apartment and convert THAT into your new embassy. Put a fresh coat of paint, install a few fences and hire two or three security guards and you're done.1 billion is hard earned taxpayer money gone to the dumps.

Yes, because (for at least the 3rd time) the current one has totally inadequate physical security because of how/when it was built and the area it is in.

 

[Farang]

So you sell the old embassy just to build a new one? No, you buy some old apartment and convert THAT into your new embassy. Put a fresh coat of paint, install a few fences and hire two or three security guards and you're done.1 billion is hard earned taxpayer money gone to the dumps.

Yes, you sell the old embassy and use the proceeds to acquire a complex more suitable to your needs, at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Sounds win-win to me.

You're wrong on this one. You took the wrong angle because the article you read did not tell you all the facts. Time to move on.

 

[her209]

Its higher because the dollar is worth jack shit because of our inflation

O RLY?

 

[jpeyton]

The sale of the old embassy covers the cost of the new embassy. The Bush administration was behind this in October 2008.
http://abcnews.go.com/International...rotection-open-design/story?id=9924441&page=2

hack just got Al Capwned.

 

[Hacp]

Yes, you sell the old embassy and use the proceeds to acquire a complex more suitable to your needs, at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Sounds win-win to me.

You're wrong on this one. You took the wrong angle because the article you read did not tell you all the facts. Time to move on.

No, all the facts are there. The fact is they're building a new embassy for 1 billion dollars. Heck, even the mets stadium in NY wasn't projected to cost as much.

 

[K1052]

No, all the facts are there. The fact is they're building a new embassy for 1 billion dollars. Heck, even the mets stadium in NY wasn't projected to cost as much.

Apples to oranges comparison.

 

[Farang]

No, all the facts are there. The fact is they're building a new embassy for 1 billion dollars. Heck, even the mets stadium in NY wasn't projected to cost as much.

True, the Mets stadium in NY wasn't projected to cost as much as a lot of things, including the United States government headquarters in the United Kingdom. Not really sure what that has to do with anything.

The fact is they are making over $1 billion dollars from selling their centrally located embassy in London. Using your method of looking at only one side of the issue, we can say for sure that the government is stopping its free spending ways and beginning to turn a healthy profit. I mean, they just made a billion dollars.

 

[CallMeJoe]

England is not Iraq.
the American embassy in Iraq constructions cost ~1.2 billion, and that is specifically built to withstand mortars, rockets, suicide bombings, etc...

It's not as though there were any history of Islamic terrorist bombings in London...

 

[Hacp]

True, the Mets stadium in NY wasn't projected to cost as much as a lot of things, including the United States government headquarters in the United Kingdom. Not really sure what that has to do with anything.

The fact is they are making over $1 billion dollars from selling their centrally located embassy in London. Using your method of looking at only one side of the issue, we can say for sure that the government is stopping its free spending ways and beginning to turn a healthy profit. I mean, they just made a billion dollars.

The government didn't make anything. That billion is taxpayer money.