Morning:
8°c
Olympic aquatics centre bill trebles to £210m
Matthew Beard, Evening Standard30.01.08
The aquatics centre for the London Olympics has almost trebled in cost, the Evening Standard can reveal.
The Olympic Delivery Authority is due to sign contracts next month and the latest estimates are that the venue will cost at least £210million - a dramatic rise from the initial estimate of £75million.
Although much of the increase can be explained by VAT and inflation, ODA bosses are expected to confirm that, even when taking these into account, the project is much more expensive than originally assumed.
Costs have been forced up the expensive glass panels and other moulded components in the striking design by architect Zaha Hadid. The wave-shaped roof - expected to cost £60million alone - merges into a bridge which will form the stunning gateway to the Olympic park from Stratford station.
The 22,500-seat building will consist of two 50-metre pools and a diving pool.As part of the brief, contractors Balfour Beatty will be asked to convert the venue after the Games. This will involve dismantling all but 2,500 seats, forcing the venue to be shut for several months.
Olympics chiefs have likened the scheme to the Sydney Opera House in complexity and ambition, and insist that the extra cost will be vindicated because the centre will have a greater "iconic" allure than the main Olympic stadium.
A senior Government source said: "You could put a pool in a basic, boxlike building. But instead this venue will define the Olympic Park and be heralded around the world."
Balfour Beatty, which is a shareholder in the failed Tube maintenance firm Metronet, remained as the sole bidder for the project after rival companies Hochtief and Eiffel withdrew from the race late last year.
Once final negotiations between the ODA and the builder are concluded, contracts will be signed and the ODA plans to begin piling work on the site as early as May.
This will be a milestone for the Olympics, coming before the Beijing Games. The venue is due for completion in 2011.
Hadid's original double-wave design was rejected on cost grounds and she was ordered back to the drawing board by Olympics minister Tessa Jowell. Her changes include a much smaller roof.
It is thought that plans for a health and fitness suite within the venue have been changed. Instead the facilities will be included in the basement of an apartment block yet to be built several hundred yards from the centre.
Olympics chiefs are braced for criticism about rising costs once the budget for the pool is confirmed.Last year the Standard revealed that the cost of the 80,000-seat stadium had doubled from £250 million but the ODA attributed this entirely to the inclusion of VAT and converting to 2012 "outturn" costs.
Reader views (6)
I think this blog was very inspirational in my decsion to appeal against the London olympics
- Bob, caning town
Much of the increase can be put down to inflation and VAT?? Inflation is 2% (officially - obviously in the real world it's much. much higher)and inflation is 17%. The price increase is to the north of 200%. Someone's not doing their sums!
- Paul, London
Gee, how could anyone ever have foreseen this? When you begin to hear words such as "iconic allure" you know you're in for trouble.
- R M, London, UK
'A senior Government source said: "You could put a pool in a basic, boxlike building. But instead this venue will define the Olympic Park and be heralded around the world." ' Maybe so, but why wasn't this design the one that was originally quoted on?
It's becoming pretty obvious that the original propsal put to the Olympics committee was a little shy of the truth. London will obviously get to keep all of these venues so the people of London should pay for them. That said, they should also be given a vote on whether to pay the increased price or choose a cheaper alternative. Unless, of course, you're more than happy for Red Ken and his Nulabour chums to keep throwing your cash around as if it were their own.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster
Can someone please put this Olympics out of our misery. There are far more deserving causes and better uses of my tax than this vanity project for Ken Livingstone.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one
Architects and building contractors clearly believe that where a prestigious development is concerned, the scottish parliament principle will apply and government will press on irrespective of costs. The taxpayer will foot the bill and the chickens will not come home to roost until the next administration but one ; budgets just don't matter. What exactly are the project management qualifications of Messrs Coe and Jowell ? This is the financial management of the madhouse and will end in tears. How contractors must have been rubbing their hands when the Olympic golden goose was brought home. 'Out turn costs'? - Snake Oil !
- Peter Haldane, London
