RandomComment wrote:But something strange about the quantum of space and financing.
The article is saying this scheme is £10 million cheaper than F&Ps: so £100 not £110 million, or 9% cheaper. But it involves 25% fewer apartments (300 not 400) and 30,000 square feet less office space.
Even if the 30,000 square feet could only command £15 a square foot, that would £450,000 a year. At a 7% yield (quite a bit above prime), that would be £6.5 million capital value. And then the capital value of apartments, even if they had to be affordably rented would surely be worth more than £35,000 each!
So there is something strange here... either the cost figures are wrong. The apartment numbers / office space figures wrong. OR.. they would have chosen a scheme which represents worse value for money for the taxpayer. That would indicate something dodgy going on in the background.
Does noone else find this interesting? I guess the most obvious thing is a mistake by WalesOnline. But taken at face value it would be evidence of massive incompetence and/or corruption.
I know for a lot of people here, the focus is on the buildings themselves. But the wider context of them has gotta be important too... no?