The United States Embassy in London has gone on sale with a £90m price tag.

The building, in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, is being marketed as an ideal venue for a five-star hotel.

It is part of a global sell-off of US embassies, residences and diplomatic premises as staff are moved to locations with increased security.

An embassy spokeswoman said they were "pursuing alternatives... to provide a modern secure facility for this important mission".

Military history

The New Statesman has reported the US is moving its embassy to a property in Isleworth, west London, or Greenwich in south London.

Any new premises will have to meet strict safety requirements brought in after the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and tightened after the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

Those that do not, or cannot be upgraded, with the exception of about 150 "culturally significant" properties and others given special waivers, must be abandoned by US diplomats.

The 133,300 sq ft property has 939 years left on the 999-year lease.

General Dwight Eisenhower is said to have worked there in the 1940s while planning the invasion of North Africa in World War II.

Eh? I haven't heard a peep about this. The alt tag on the BBC's website says the building closed last month. WTF? That can't be right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6610419.stm

Who's going to volunteer to let them know they need to research a bit more thoroughly? I mean, come on, BBC -- like the US Embassy would close COMPLETELY without having a place to move to?

Ooh, more inaccuracies:

"General Dwight Eisenhower is said to have worked there [the Embassy] in the 1940s while planning the invasion of North Africa in World War II." (BBC newsitem)

Now, I knows me some London architecture and I knew this had to be wrong. I mean, there was no way that building predated about 1955, so how could Eisenhower have worked there during WWII? So I decided to look on the Embassy website (as our hapless correspondent might have had he/she done some fact checking) and there is a very good little potted history of the Embassy there: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rcambldg.html And indeed, the building was designed by Eero Saarinen (who designed an ice hockey rink in my hometown, of all things) and completed in 1960. Eisenhower was indeed in Grosvenor Square during the war, but he was at one of the old Embassy buildings, 1 Grosvenor Square. I see what the writer was aiming at -- Eisenhower worked at the Embassy during the war -- but it was not the current embassy. Should have been clearer...

Hmmm...I really should do some real work...

I just reported it too. Told them they were pathetic.

Ooh, more inaccuracies:

"General Dwight Eisenhower is said to have worked there [the Embassy] in the 1940s while planning the invasion of North Africa in World War II." (BBC newsitem)

Now, I knows me some London architecture and I knew this had to be wrong. I mean, there was no way that building predated about 1955, so how could Eisenhower have worked there during WWII? So I decided to look on the Embassy website (as our hapless correspondent might have had he/she done some fact checking) and there is a very good little potted history of the Embassy there: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rcambldg.html And indeed, the building was designed by Eero Saarinen (who designed an ice hockey rink in my hometown, of all things) and completed in 1960. Eisenhower was indeed in Grosvenor Square during the war, but he was at one of the old Embassy buildings, 1 Grosvenor Square. I see what the writer was aiming at -- Eisenhower worked at the Embassy during the war -- but it was not the current embassy. Should have been clearer...

Hmmm...I really should do some real work...

I just reported it too. Told them they were pathetic.

How do you report inaccuracies to BBC?

(I've seen serious miscalculations in their series on India automobile industry--just one of a plethora of places)

Thats funny, you can tell your boss isn't there!

Via the 'contact us' link at the bottom of almost every page.

Is it able to take a book (say about the size of "Gray's Anatomy") of volume?

Eh? I haven't heard a peep about this. The alt tag on the BBC's website says the building closed last month. WTF? That can't be right.

Well, the FT got it right:

Financial Times -- 2 May 2007
by Jim Pickard

"US Embassy could fetch £300m, property experts predict

"The US Embassy in Mayfair could fetch more than £300m if and when it went on the market, property experts predicted yesterday.

"The building is in Grosvenor Square, in the heart of one of London's most expensive areas. As such it is likely to attact a ferocious bidding war from UK property companies, Middle Eastern money, Irish investors and others.

"The US government insisted yesterday that no decision had been made to sell, saying that 'no options have been ruled in or out'. Given its plum spot, the building might sell for well ahead of the £90m figure reported yesterday by the BBC.

"Chelsea Barracks was recently bought by Qatari Diar and CPC Group for close to £1bn -- more than four times the initial price sought by the Ministry of Defence.

"One agent said yesterday: '£90m would only be £700 per sq ft, while many residential buildings in the area are fetching three times that.'

"The embassy is one of America's biggest, employing 750 staff. Recognisable from the aluminium eagle on its roof, the nine-storey building was built in the late 1950s and opened in 1960.

"Given its age, the successful buyer is likely to knock down the premises and replace them with more glamorous, modern buildings. It would be expected to submit plans for a larger scheme than the existing 133,300 sq ft building.

"The embassy has 939 years remaining on a 999-year lease from Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster's private property company. It is understood the US is considering moving the operation to another part of London, but has not yet made a firm decision.

"The embassy has had increased security in recent years, aprticularly since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

"Experts said its departure could increase the value of homes and offices in the surrounding streets of Mayfair as residents would then be less concerned about the threat of a terrorist strike.

"Rumours of the US embassy's departure first broke in February, when the US government said any decision was still in the early stages. It said it was 'assessing various property management options, among which are the continued possession of its current premises or relocation'...."

Glad someone takes the time to research! A lot of the confusion seems to come from the fact that the Embassy is indeed selling off its Navy Annex in the square, which closed last month. Even some of the articles which note this correctly, appear to confuse it with the Embassy -- the AP newswire used by some publications say the Annex is 133,300 sq ft and has 939 years left on the lease, but these are figures applicable to the Embassy itself. (See the story here: http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...010328/-1/State)

Torygraph gets it wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nembassy02.xml And no surprise that the Sun does too: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007200192,00.html Wow! So does Sky News: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1263525,00.html

Does ANYBODY do fact-checking anymore???

(PS -- I have decided this is MUCH more fun than doing my proper job! )

Oooh, I've got to mark this thread so my man can have a look. He swears by the BBC and it's 'sterling rep', I started to believe it too. Mwa-ha-ha! Inaccuracies a-go-go!