The government has appointed a PR company to "counteract inaccurate stories" in the press about Portcullis House. As the media campaign begins, Building asks members of the public what they think of the £250m MPs' building.
The government has appointed public relations consultancy Tideway Communications its media troubleshooter for the Portcullis House project. The spin-doctors have been appointed to head off the bad news stories that have plagued the controversial £250m new MPs building at Westminster in recent months.
A spokesperson for the Parliamentary Works Directorate confirmed: "There are a lot of good stories to be told about its design, the engineering and the innovations. We felt we needed help to counteract some of the inaccurate stories that have appeared in the press."
The directorate selected Mortlake-based Tideway at the beginning of July after interviewing three firms recommended to it by media relations consultant John Stonborough.
The appointment pre-empts the topping out on Wednesday of the Sir Michael Hopkins & Partners-designed building.
The first salvo in the government's PR campaign was fired last Thursday by Sydney Chapman MP, chairman of the Accommodation and Works Select Committee that commissions financial and physical progress reports on projects in the parliamentary estate.
In a statement, Chapman set out a justification of the design choices and inflated cost of the project. He insisted that the £250m project, commissioned in 1992 with a budget of £165m, was "currently ahead of time and within budget". In a breakdown of the cost increase, he attributed £56m to inflation in the construction industry to 2001, £9m to the 11-month delay in handing over the site by London Underground, and £20m to "approved additional costs". These included using bronze as a cladding material to extend the life of the building, electronic door locks, internal security measures and the inclusion of the parliamentary data and video network, increased health and safety and new fire regulations.
Fit-out of the building started at the beginning of June. Pipes are being installed for the underfloor heating system. Plant and air-handling units will be installed in the roof, which will be sealed by the end of August.
The project is due to be completed in summer 2000.
While the debate about cost simmers away, the focus of the public's attention is now Sir Michael Hopkins and Partners' controversial design.
What the people think?
Standing opposite the Houses of Parliament, on one of the most prominent sites in the world, Portcullis House is bound to stimulate public debate, not least about how it looks. Building last week asked passers-by on Westminster Bridge what impact this major new public building would have on the London skyline. I don’t think it fits, really. I don’t like the colour of it either. It’s very black, isn’t it? It doesn’t fit in with all the perpendicular of the Houses of Parliament. I’m not sure what the structures on top are meant to be. They’re rather ugly as well. I’m sure it’s brilliant inside, but it’s a bit of an eyesore really Kevin Smallbone, 50, civil servant It’s lovely. It’s very nice. It fits in. It’s a link between the Gothic style of the Houses of Parliament and the more traditional styles to the other side. I am one of the very few people who do like it, but I do, very much John Watts, 23, Labour Party researcher It’s too modern to go with all the other buildings around it. It just doesn’t blend in. On its own, as a building, it’s fine – it’s just not right for that particular spot. If it had something to marry it in with the red brickwork of the other buildings, it would be better Pat Taylor, 36, legal secretary It looks a bit like a power station, quite industrial. It’s OK, though I’m not sure about the things on top Sam, 32, administrator It’s in character with the old ones. It’s quite good. The vertical lines match the old Houses of Parliament, and the roof as well. It could do with a bit more gold in it Rob Paling, 27, systems programmer It doesn’t blend in very well. Too dark. It’s probably very nice inside, though Geoff Jones, age “state secret”, retired I rather like it. It complements the whole setting very well. It doesn’t contrast too heavily. It’s modern, but not that modern-looking. The black is a bit overpowering, but I couldn’t possibly suggest how [the architect] could have done it better Ghassan El Jabche, 40, accountant It doesn’t really go with the Houses of Parliament or the buildings to the right. In terms of colour, it doesn’t fit in. I suppose all the windows do. The roof’s OK because it echoes the roofs of the buildings to the right, but the colour stands out too much Lizzie Grey, 23, TV researcher I work over the river in St Thomas’ Hospital and I can tell you that at least half a dozen people there think it’s terrible. It looks so dull. Is that the finished roof? It’s so dark. Everything else all around it is so much lighter Jill Harris, 60, medical secretary I think it’s really ugly. I’m not sure if it’s finished yet. I keep waiting for it to get more aesthetic-looking and match some of the other buildings a little bit. It’s so dark. Do we really have to have all those smokestacks up there? I think somewhere out of London, it would probably be very nice. I don’t think it’s really very nice to look at here Mina Giles, 40s, PA I think it’s absolutely magnificent, actually. I think it’s very innovative, imaginative and surprisingly in-keeping with its context. The colour scheme is quite understated, the roof is extremely modern, quite futuristic, but it just fits. It’s an absolutely sensational building Colin Brasier, 31, royal correspondent, Sky Television I’m not greatly impressed with it. The windows and the lower half are all right. It’s just the roof and all those chimneys seem ugly and heavy Gwen Jones, 46, draughtsperson
