daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture

Architecture news and discussions on all buildings types and urban spaces
» Classic Architecture | European Classic Architecture and Landscapes | Public Space | Shopping Architecture | Design & Lifestyle | Urban Renewal and Redevelopment



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 3rd, 2007, 10:43 PM   #21
TalB
Refugee
 
TalB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 7,537
Likes (Received): 78

I wouldn't be surprised if the government owned skyscrapers are the most expensive.
__________________
I respected your views, so I expect you do to the same.
TalB no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 7th, 2007, 05:31 PM   #22
PresidentBjork
In the bog.
 
PresidentBjork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,863
Likes (Received): 3360

Quote:
Originally Posted by the spliff fairy View Post
another public project:

Crossrail estimated at $32 billion in 2005, and will only be running in 10 years time. To put this in perspective the Victoria line (13 miles and 16 stations) was built in 4 years between 1968-1972 and is used by 160 million passengers a year, and cost a tenth of the price at todays inflation.
In contrast to upgrade a single escalator on that line in the 1990s took 6 years of construction work (and 6 years of walking up the neverending steps for the daily commuters). To 'upgrade' Victoria station itself will cost $1.2 billion, just one of all the central stations proposed for modernisation and refurbishment on the network.
- This isn't so surprising, the Victoria Line was built using many existing stations, adjusted to accommodate another line. On top of this due to poor government financing large parts of it were left unfinished. Of course upgrades are expensive, but they need to be to repair an ailing system that was for so long starved of funds. The proposed cross rail system will be built to far higher standards and safety regulations, and because it needs to link into the national system the tunnels have to be almost twice as large as normal deep level tunnels. On top of this it will be mostly privately financed with some public money to make the initial investment. There's no way of getting around the fact that a lot of money is needed to modernize and expand systems like this to ease congestion and to have a public transport network to be proud of.

This may be overly simplistic but, wouldn't bigger = more expensive in terms of skyscrapers, especially if they need to earthquake proofed or built with reinforced concrete insted of steel.
__________________
💩
PresidentBjork no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu