2012 Olympic Stadium 77% Over Original Cost

Cost of 2012 Olympic Stadium Increases By 77% Over Original Figure

canadianpress.google.com

LONDON - The cost of building the main Olympic stadium for the 2012 London Games has increased by 77 per cent over the figure listed during the British capital's winning bid.

The final budget for the 80,000-seat arena is 496 million pounds (C$985.5 million), almost double the 280-million-pound figure (C$556.4 million) cited in London's bid documents in 2005.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Removed excessive copy/paste over the 500 character limit.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Remember how over budget the Denver International Airport was?

canadianpress.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



Mod Note: Starting A New Thread – Please Review This Link

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Jbird]

reply to post by anhinga



OK Ill bite
Whats your line of thinking here then, are suggesting theyre going to build some sort of underground base or something?
That would be one big larf as half the site is a swamp. I used to catch tadpoles and newts over there when I was a kid.

Like any other government led project, it has been a potential feeding frenzy from the outset for lucrative deals and all that public money.
I expect the final costs will be massive but the government and those in control of the project will use fuzzy math and flowery accounting practices to hide / justify the massive overspend, as they always do

To be honest, this is nothing more than a prestige and money making scheme for a select few. Time for another round of large G&T's at the lodge I think

77% over-budget? I was at the '76 Montreal Olympics as a cycle-wrench for Stan Szozda... and a couple of Canadian fellas - what a party! The main stadium went 400% over-budget (not including accrued interest). I think it was just paid-off this year... Boy-Howdy, some of these projects get out of control.

Cheers,

Vic

Ain't it funny how contracts go to the lowest bidder, even though that contractor can NEVER get the project done at that price?

Why bother giving a job to the lowest bidder when that bid does not reflect the actual cost of what it will take to do the job?

A lot of times the reason that the contractor is the lowest bidder is because they missed things on the plan and so it isn't included on the estimate, but they don't really care, as long as they get the contract, they'll just bill them for it later.

Better off going with the company with the best reputation with quality work, getting the job done close to the price that they estimated, and getting a job done on time.

[edit on 14/10/07 by Keyhole]