CONFIDENTIAL isn't a fan of the proposed 'glass link' on Library Walk. 

The arguments against are here.

An update was made here.

Today we learn that the work to build a ramp, put in the glass features, and the steel canopy will cost in the region of £3.5m. That's without the commemorative gates at the Mount Street end of Library Walk.

If they didn't put the 'glass link' in then £3.5m would be saved. 

The council are keen to stress that this figure is contained within the £150m plus costs of the whole Town Hall Extension and Central Library project. 

But that means if they didn't put the 'glass link' in then £3.5m would be saved. That's a very, very tidy sum.

Indeed the cost of £3.5m is hard to believe for this extra feature. 

The council have released a further rationale for the project today. This comes from the boss.

Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, said: "The transformation of Central Library and the Town Hall Extension is preserving both buildings for future generations while enabling them to deliver radically improved services.

"One crucial aspect of this is the vision of the two buildings as a single complex, with services more integrated across them. Not withstanding the outstanding architectural merits of the Town Hall extension, it has always suffered from a clearly defined entrance, leading to thousands of residents wandering around looking for the way in.

"It is estimated that up to a million visitors a year will cross between the buildings once they have re-opened and we need to make this movement as quick and simple as possible for them."

Confidential thinks the current entrances should remain the only ones. That huge new passage beneath Library Walk - as originally envisaged - should be given time to carry the burden of the extra visitors. We like Library Walk as it is. We think saving £3.5m is also a good idea.

Maybe the money could be diverted into something that is imaginative and beautiful - perhaps turning the disused Castlefield Viaduct into a Promenade Plantee?

By the way that biased report from HOK we dissected in the original article cost £8,400.

You can follow Jonathan Schofield on Twitter here @JonathSchofield