Questa è pura follia quando 72 milioni di euro saranno spesi per il rinnovamento di una vecchia sala da nuoto. (1) Non capisco perché sia sotto la protezione dell’antichità, è solo una sala da nuoto 🤨.
Per fare un confronto, il costo stimato di una sala da nuoto molto più grande a Lappeenranta è di 33 milioni di euro. (2)
72 Million for small swimming hall
byu/Wonderful-Ask-5053 inFinland
di Wonderful-Ask-5053
3 commenti
Renovating is often more expensive than building new, and specially protected buildings. None of this is in any way surprising. The costs explode when you need to number, track and barcode everything down to the window sills.
Only actual thing that comes to mind that could have been done is maybe taking better care of it and do more maintenance so that such a big overhaul would not be needed, but that would need more yearly steady budget and that’s impossible because what is long-term thinking.
No comment of it’s museum status, I don’t know about that swimming hall enough to say anything.
Issue is not that it is a swimming hall, nor the fact that it is important architectural legasy. Issue is that public entities are bound by law to follow certain principles for tendering eg. construction projects. The purpose of the law is to reduce costs, but in reality it is incereasing them. It is basically freeway to print money for the tender winning company.
The issue with Tapiola is that the concrete in the building doesn’t meet modern standards. It is simply not suitable for a humid environment like a swimming hall.
Also, a lot of the structure is not made in a way that fits the purpose.
Taking down the entire building and building a new one looking (almost) like the old one would be much cheaper and better.