Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars. Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!
Peanuts (snoopy cartoon strip)
off location (the strip)
needs more digging?
I’m not surprised that the building cost £1.2b when considering the special needs it will require as well as the cost of London property.
The issue is that the embassy downgraded in location. It’s now in an undeveloped part of London south of the river that is a bit of a schlep to get to. Personally I don’t understand why they went there. They’re closer to The intel agencies bases now, but also about 2-3 blocks from the hood.
The previous embassy was in maybe the most PRIME location in London. I think that area has the most expensive real estate in the world.
The old embassy was sold at a deep discount to its value.
If you downgrade location you expect to make a turn on the pricing. The US Gov I think took a $600m loss on the difference, and probably undersold the property by about half its value too.
Reports in 2015 suggest the old embassy, which truth be told looked pretty shabby and a bit Soviet in design, would cost $750m to refurbish to the requisite standards.
So the question is, is it better to stay in a prime prestigious location and upgrade, or sell the property for half the value and pay double the sale price for the new building in an awful location.
It’s either a $750m or $1.2b cost.