http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,456824,00.html

Quote :

"Cost of Rebuilding U.N.'s Palace? A Billion Dollars Monday , November 24, 2008 By Joseph Abrams The U.N.'s Palace of Nations is falling apart. The Palais des Nations is the U.N.'s European headquarters, flanked by the Swiss Alps to the west and Lake Geneva to the east. Peacocks roam freely on the grounds of the pristine, 111-acre Ariana Park that surrounds it. But on the inside, the onetime home to the League of Nations is plagued by 70-year-old wiring, fire hazards and miles of rusty pipes that have flooded the archives repeatedly. Asbestos lines some of the walls, and the roof is in danger of caving in. The palace is in need of a major facelift. The tab: one billion dollars, says Director General Sergei Ordzhonikidze, who heads the U.N. Office at Geneva. But critics say it's not worth a cool billion to preserve a diplomatic palace. They say new offices could be built for less, and the money could be spent to heal the sick and feed the hungry. For $1 billion, a firm could build 407,244 square meters of office space in Geneva. That's one and a half times the size of the Empire State Building, and five times the size of the main building at the Palais des Nations. Based on 3,000 Swiss francs per square meter, a figure provided by Mario Botta Architetto, an architecture firm based in Switzerland, 407,244 square meters is two-and-a-half times the size of the entire Palais complex, which includes new wings and an underground garage. A comparable building in the U.S. would cost about $228 per square foot, according to Kermit Baker, chief economist for the American Institute of Architects. That translates into almost precisely the same amount of brand new office space — 407,469 square meters. Baker said those costs would cover construction only, and wouldn't pay for any expenses for design, buying land, brokering the deal or any changes in plans along the way, which are significant. But the difference is massive; keeping the Palais des Nations could cost more than double what it would take to build a new home from scratch. "We are extremely conscious that our mandate is not to do renovations for the pleasure of renovations. This is not our purpose," said Marie Heuze, chief spokeswoman for the U.N. Office at Geneva. Heuze said the buildings are a storehouse of history and stand as a symbol of international cooperation. Every year about 100,000 visitors come to the palace, where tours are led in 15 languages. Heuze told FOXNews.com that the director general's figure isn't on the U.N. budget yet and is an estimate that would have to be evaluated by a team of architects. Any major work on the Palais would likely come after the $1.9 billion renovation of the U.N.'s New York headquarters is complete. Yet relief groups expressed bewilderment at the scope of the suggested renovations. Non-governmental organizations said $1 billion represents more than twice the amount the U.S. government spends worldwide on child survival and maternal health aid. That $1 billion, relief groups said, is also larger than the entire humanitarian action appeal for all countries served by UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, which requested $850 million to address 39 humanitarian emergencies around the world in 2008. $1 billion could also go a long way to feed the hungry. Oxfam America reports on its Web site that "$1,000 brings potable water to 22 families in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia," and that "$20 buys enough maize to feed a family of four" there for six months — enough food and water to feed millions and flood the valley. Critics are up in arms about the U.N.'s possible billion-dollar plan. "This is entirely consistent with their spending habits worldwide for years," said Claudia Rosett, a U.N. watcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "For them to spend this kind of money, especially at a time when so many people are in economic distress, is outrageous." The U.N. said its plans may slow as a result of the world's economic downturn. "With the financial crisis, of course, it seems very frivolous to talk about the renovation of a building which is old and dates from before the Second World War," said Heuze. Renovations of massive scale may not be considered until 2009-2010, and they would have to be approved by a vote in the General Assembly — meaning all member nations would have a say in the expenditures. But changes have already started in Geneva. A massive meeting hall was unveiled last week by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, adorned with a $23 million art ceiling by the Spanish artist Miquel Barcelo. A number of other meeting rooms have been redone in recent years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally donated by foreign governments. "There is constantly some renovation work done in the Palais des Nations, but much more needs to be done," Heuze said. Director General Ordzhonikidze renovated his office this year, though the U.N. would not say how much the changes cost and did not specify whether a member state paid for the work. A spokeswoman said that his office was often overheated by the sun, and he had an air conditioner installed to cool it. Sitting behind his desk in the Palais in June, Ordzhonikidze addressed the level of decay at the palace in an interview with Reuters. "This door leads to a balcony. If you go out on the balcony, you see that everything is rusted. It's not nice," he said."

So...it's pretty, but would cost a TON to rebuild (most of which would be funded by the US). Instead, they should restore it as a historical museum (if anything), and build a new complex somewhere in Europe to replace the HQ in NYC. And then move the UN.

11/25/2008 1:25:18 AM

Quote :

"build a new complex somewhere in Europe to replace the HQ in NYC."

Why in the world would they do that when:

Quote :

"Any major work on the Palais would likely come after the $1.9 billion renovation of the U.N.'s New York headquarters is complete."

So really we're talking $2.9 billion in UN renovations

11/25/2008 1:44:02 AM

So we have Fox News complaining about the $1 billion needed to renovate the European HQ, but it is OK to spend TWICE that on the NY HQ? Where is the outrage there?

Yes, I know that all meetings of member nations are held in NY, not in Europe. But still, I am sure they use the offices in the European HQ and not just use it as a playground.

11/25/2008 5:47:16 AM

Quote :

"Heuze told FOXNews.com that the director general's figure isn't on the U.N. budget yet and is an estimate that would have to be evaluated by a team of architects. Any major work on the Palais would likely come after the $1.9 billion renovation of the U.N.'s New York headquarters is complete."

$1.9 billion to renovate that ugly building on the East River!? WTF??? There's no way that building even clost 1/2 that to build!

Utterly ridiculous.

11/25/2008 3:33:30 PM

From small-town churches, to global organizations, headquarters always tend to be too much, it seems.

11/25/2008 3:49:16 PM

The UN? Whats that?

11/25/2008 4:08:56 PM

FOXnews.

Did not read.

Fake-ass conservatism means criticizing the cost of everything while lining your own pockets for something else.


Landmark historical place? Why pay money to keep it up? I can criticize how you spend all your money, but please don't look at how i spend mine.

11/28/2008 8:37:17 AM

Quote :

"FOXnews. Did not read. Fake-ass conservatism means criticizing the cost of everything while lining your own pockets for something else. Landmark historical place? Why pay money to keep it up? I can criticize how you spend all your money, but please don't look at how i spend mine."

What? So because it's an article on FOXnews it can't have merit? Brilliant!

Your last line doesn't even make sense. Not sure what you are trying to say. But the US contributes a large fraction of the UN budget that goes to these sorts of projects, so US taxpayers have a right to complain if it is being wasted.

There was a controversy not long ago about using 25 millions dollars that was suppose to be used for aid relief was used instead on repairing a roof/ceiling in one room of the Palais, 25 millions dollars... yeah.

11/28/2008 10:00:44 AM

Quote :

"There was a controversy not long ago about using 25 millions dollars that was suppose to be used for aid relief was used instead on repairing a roof/ceiling in one room of the Palais, 25 millions dollars... yeah."

Quote :

"A massive meeting hall was unveiled last week by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, adorned with a $23 million art ceiling by the Spanish artist Miquel Barcelo. A number of other meeting rooms have been redone in recent years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally donated by foreign governments."

i'm surprised noone's posted the pictures of this ceiling yet, outraged disgust and put "art" in quotation marks

i saw it and was like lol

[Edited on November 28, 2008 at 10:43 AM. Reason : +]

11/28/2008 10:40:06 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spain-outraged-by-cost-of-art-for-un-1015853.html

There we go, couldn't remember the details of it...

So ~23 Million for this jewel... Part of that money allegedly coming from an aid fund, and Spain was evidently pissed about their money being used for it. Note The Independent is considered "left-leaning."

11/28/2008 10:51:28 AM

Quote :

"Fake-ass conservatism means criticizing the cost of everything while lining your own pockets for something else........I can criticize how you spend all your money, but please don't look at how i spend mine."

Which is why republicans not preoccupied with social bigotry, warmongering, or bible-thumping should make the wise choice and become libertarian.


[Edited on November 28, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2008 11:19:46 AM

Quote :

"Your last line doesn't even make sense. Not sure what you are trying to say. But the US contributes a large fraction of the UN budget that goes to these sorts of projects, so US taxpayers have a right to complain if it is being wasted. "

It's called sarcasm.



And furthermore - your definition of "waste" and mine are completely different. I have absolutely no issue with money being paid to maintain a historical landmark. Sure you can buy new offices for that price, but those offices won't be where the League of Nations met, and thus will be significantly less valuable to the world at large. Value is often expressed in terms beyond monetary investment.

Waste to me is placing a "peacekeeping force" in a war-torn region and then tying their hands by not letting them forcibly keep the peace, thereby saving lives.

All FOXnews does is try to stir the pot and create false contempt and outrage over things to deflect attention from much more pressing and important matters.

[Edited on November 28, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : that's why their coverage holds no water with me]

11/28/2008 1:14:23 PM

whew, we really should keep the building that housed the stupendously successful League of Nations. Really...

But really, explain why we should waste a billion dollars on an aging landmark. if it's that damned important, then they ought to be able to raise the funds privately to save it. otherwise, it's obvious that nobody else gives a damn about the place. let it rot. And people wonder why people in the US think the UN is a joke.

11/28/2008 2:03:27 PM

Your tax dollars go to the upkeep of several 200+ year old buildings.


Why should we pay to keep those up when we can just let them rot and build new ones, right? It's such a waste of money.

11/28/2008 2:08:33 PM

wow, I guess you are just trolling. The Palais des Nations was finished in... drumroll 1938, not exactly a 200+ year old building. Nothing important has ever happened there, it isn't historically significant, and I don't view it has much of a landmark, or if anything it is a landmark of failure. You could build a larger, nicer, more functional building for less money. Sorry, but 1 billion dollars could do a lot more good pretty much anywhere else. Hell, there are much more important buildings that are in need of attention than this place. Besides, the vast majority of the money is going to renovating and updating the building for use, not preserving it as a historical landmark.

And for some reason I am thinking the building could probably be updated for much less, call me crazy. This is just an example of bureaucratic waste, not really seeing a valid argument that it isn't.

11/28/2008 5:35:11 PM

Jesus Christ, you're so dense that you can't even understand sarcasm by simile.

11/28/2008 8:02:38 PM

Yea, so where is the simile? And if you call that sarcasm, well I feel for you. There was no simile, nor any perceptible sarcasm. Face it, you failed.

11/28/2008 11:30:44 PM

Ugh, I meant metaphor. I went for the alliteration without thinking.


Regardless, the sarcasm is quite palpable.


I'm drawing parallels between what we pay to maintain the White House and what is being paid to keep up the Palais des Nations.


If you want a better parallel, look no further than New Bern and Tryon Palace.


The point I'm trying to make is that there is absolutely no issue with trying to preserve a historical landmark. You may not consider it of historical importance, but I do. It must be worth something to history if there are daily tours of it.

If it can be fixed for less, fine, but my guess is that keeping the original design of the building requires more detailed - and as a result more expensive - work to be done.

11/29/2008 12:37:32 AM

but really, what is important about that place? Pretty much nothing. The LoN failed abysmally. Furthermore, I don't really see us blowing a billion at a time to renovate any other landmarks. Historical preservation is one thing. Renovating for continued use is another.

11/30/2008 9:51:44 PM