Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You never know with these things though do you? The 'Millennium Wheel' hardly got a warm reception during design, construction and opening - and yet there it still is - one of the most popular attractions in London. Sometimes you don't see it until after it's been sucked.


I'm ambivalent on the bridge itself, but if you take the general 'why?' argument to its logical conclusion - what other things are also superfluous to basic human requirements like shelter, heat and food? What else don't we 'need'? Well.. that would be 'most other things'. In which case, we shouldn't bother doing anything extraneous while other things need doing more.


Half of historic London that most people who live here and get to enjoy was built at a time when most of the population were washing in mud and eating their own faeces.

He got rid of the bendy buses, that's worth something IMO


On the other hand, looking forward to the new mayor's idea of making our commute more comfortable, less crowded and better by freezing fares ......yup, Labour economic know how shining though - reduce LT investment and make it cheaper to travel, that'll fix overcrowding *scratches head*


All a bunch of twats in my view...

As an 'attraction' it's one thing. My big issue is that once again (as with the gondola) Boris raided the TFL budget, claiming that it wasn't just a tourist attraction, or vanity project, but an important piece of transport infrastructure. But then Boris repeatedly gets away with outrageous untruths, lazy misjudgments and bad behavior.... basically because he's quite funny, has a well practice bumbling persona and floppy hair. It's maddening.


The London Eye was funded privately and wasn't built at the expense of desperately needed transport improvements.

You really think so Jeremy? Burning bridges with Cameron (who'll be gone) and Osbourne whose political capital is dropping, maybe but the Tory party? Many Tory MPs and the majority of their members like/love him.


I suspect our choice in 2020 will be Johnson or Corbyn....brilliant eh? I can't wait....

*Bob* - I agree people need beauty, as well as the basics. It would be a sad world if we lost orchestras, galleries, public parks etc. even if sometimes these things seem like fripperies in the face of housing shortages, the failing NHS and so on.


However, I think the Garden Bridge is a poor example even in this category. Our general part of London (SE) suffers from unmaintained public spaces, crumbling listed buildings and so on. The area where the garden bridge will be doesn't need further attractions. Why not make something beautiful in Plumstead, Catford or Penge?


Just a thought.

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Beauty? Attraction? The Gridge* is hideously ugly

> - like a couple of tupperware cake-stands.



That's a matter of taste. The intent was to build something beautiful for the edification of the masses, with this infrastructure justification bolted on. My comment was more general on the subject of public spending needing to address acute social need.

the garden bridge is being compared to the NY High Line - but the Peckham Coal Line would be a closer analogy, and that's not getting any Mayoral money. Boris may have got rid of bendy buses, but he replaced them with those ugly and pokey (have you ever gone upstairs on them?) fake Routemasters, also designed by the ubiquitous and over-rated Heatherwick


I will chiefly remember him as the man who caused my daily commute to work to double in length from one hour to two

The new Routemasters are small because they have to be. They are used on services that include roads that normal size double deckers cannot easily use. That is why bendy buses were tried, they are more maneuverable, but their length caused problems for other road users and they tended to end up bunched together. On some routes they were replaced by single deckers on others the new purpose designed Routemasters. So, not a vanity project, but required for s specific need.


I welcome the Garden Bridge. Yes, of course the money could be spent on other more worthy causes, but that is always the case whenever a new high profile development is mooted. No wobbly bridge, no London eye, no Tate Modern, no Globe Theatre, no Borough Market, no South Bank Centre.


The place would be dull and grey but terribly worthy.

RE new routemasters, it seems to me they've sacrificed window height on the top deck (which is what would make it feel nicer on the inside) in order to achieve the curvy roof (which looks nicer from the outside).. quite claustrophobic up top. You feel like you're in a tin can with a small window to look out of.

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The new Routemasters are small because they have

> to be. They are used on services that include

> roads that normal size double deckers cannot

> easily use. That is why bendy buses were tried,

> they are more maneuverable, but their length

> caused problems for other road users and they

> tended to end up bunched together. On some routes

> they were replaced by single deckers on others the

> new purpose designed Routemasters. So, not a

> vanity project, but required for s specific need.

>

> I welcome the Garden Bridge. Yes, of course the

> money could be spent on other more worthy causes,

> but that is always the case whenever a new high

> profile development is mooted. No wobbly bridge,

> no London eye, no Tate Modern, no Globe Theatre,

> no Borough Market, no South Bank Centre.

>

> The place would be dull and grey but terribly

> worthy.


The point is that the Tate Modern, the Globe theatre etc., weren't paid for by funds diverted out of tfl's budget. My objection is not with creating 'attractions', but Boris plundering the transport budget to do so.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...