Not once have you addressed the statement in the Atkins report that, even with the needs to repair and maintain the building, that it would need pulling down in 15-20 years anyway. You've also twice stated that the reported funds needed for this are exaggerated and wrong, yet made zero effort to support this with any evidence or report to counter Atkins' claims.
I think the reason you're banging your head because you're too emotionally invested in this to argue with any logic and reason, which is one reason you've resorted to repeating malicious and untrue claims about posters on here who have challenged you.
So I will put it another way; what reason was there in committing great costs to a tower that has no use nor purpose, when it inevitably would be demolished with two decades and done so at a price greater price than today?
Rev 01 Draft 09/08/2021
Rev 02 Draft Final for Client 13/08/2021
Rev 03 FINAL 27/08/2021 - Created using Foxit PhantomPDF Printer Version 10.1.4.3543 - 27/08/2021 at 13:02:46
Revision No.3 of the document shows (bearing in mind this has been prepared by a the company paid by the guy wanting to demolish the structure)
TITLE - 15 to 20 Year Life, No public access
Initial cost of an all singing all dancing repair, renovation, fixing up et etc £4.7m
Then a inspection repair allowance has been included of £325k every five years
(its stood for 65 years untouched and it in solid condition)
2026 - £325k
2029 - £325k
2034 - £325k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
£975,000* allowing for inflation this has been bumped up to £2m
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL £6.7m (£335k per year over 20 years) arts council funding had already been secured for a project on the site and heritage funding would have no doubt followed. NOT NHS MONEY AS CLAIMED
It's interesting that there is a separate column which reads
3 cycles of maintenance to extend the life by 15-20 years so on top of the all singing all dancing repair & renovation and on top of the inspection and repair allowance.. there has been a separate column which is somewhat redundant. I wouldn't be surprised to see in an earlier revision this showing the estimated costs of extending the life of the tower another 45-60 years.
PROJECTED End Cost for Demolition £2.5m allowing for inflation this cannot be included in a cost to save a protected grade 2 listed building
TOTAL £6.7m over 20 years
It COULD cost not would cost. Bearing in mind that £1m of tax payers money was spent on destroying our heritage asset 60 hours after the delisting.
There was no cost to keep the tower how it was at that moment in time saying the listing would have cost over £9m was misleading, no reference has been made to the value of the heritage asset i.e. how much it would cost to build a structure and what it's worth would have been to the local economy over a period of 20 years or even 45-60 years.
I personally think that £6.7m is on the steep end for the works that need to be carried out and other professionals have intimated the same. But lets have a look at the cost of some public works of art and have a guess at how long they are going to be arounds for..
The Vessel by Thomas Heatherwick (New York, New York) final cost is estimated at $200 million
ArcelorMittal Orbit by Anish Kapoor (London, England) $36 million
Cloud Gate by Anish Kapoor (Chicago, Illinois) $25 million
Balloon Flower (Red) by Jeff Koons (New York, New York) $25 million
Roden Crater by James Turrell (near Flagstaff, Arizona) between $15 million and $25 million
Maman by Louise Bourgeois (Bilbao, Spain) $10 million