Joanna Lumley's London Garden Bridge - cyclists banned!

tangled_metal

This has the backing of Boris to the tune of £30m the same from the Government but the scheme will ban bikes,

If this ever gets built I want to be the first person to ride a Boris bike across it!

Just google it to see how ridiculous it is. Guardian is writing bits online about it for fun, positively loads of articles, blogs and comment pieces on it.

But in case you are not interested here is the summary. Lumley (the national treasure actress and campaigner apparently = she's an old actress who appeared in a lot of stuff that brings warm and fuzzies to older people) had a dream about a garden bridge memorial to Princess Diana. Cue £3.5m in feasibility money and a TfL £30m (nice one Boris!) later they have a design that has passed the planning stage at both borough councils at each end. Westminster council has put the proviso that TfL must agree to underwrite the maintenance costs of £3.5m per year. Yep that is right, Londoners are paying for a vanity project for Joanna Lumley, a poncey architect and Boris. Mind you that is their problem due to the wonderful level of extra democracy London has. Except for the fact that some money is coming from the state coffers (was it a matching £30m??).#

No offence but that £60m could really help elsewhere. Why not put it towards some flood defences somewhere or towards helping out food banks or perhaps some wealth generation project? Perhaps the North could get some of this spare cash? I mean what a ridiculous idea? Is there any country on the planet with a city like London that has a garden bridge? London is not the wealthiest city so if it is not done say in New York or singapore City then why?

cookeeemonster

in addition it's a private venture with private security guards and you have no public right of way beeyatch - £60 million of public money and £3.5 million of public money per year or not.

And why is it there? Why not further down the river where it might actually rejuvenate an area? I do realise of course that the heart of central london has no tourists currently whatsoevercantbebotheredtoeventakethepissnow....

qube

Haha... These folk live on a different planet.

She can feck right off with her programmes about cats.

Manky auld pussy.

elbowloh

Not only that, it's also going to be closed at weekends occasionally for corporate events and also closed overnight EVERY night! What's the point of a bridge that's closed at night? Oh, another thing, if a group of more than 8 people want to cross the bridge, they're supposed to apply for permission in advance!

This is not a public right of way and as such should not be built nor given public funding.

cookeeemonster

one further thing - if this was a private only venture it would be turned down flat - it's destroying some protected views apparently.

Luckily some public money has been coughed up to get around this inconvienient rule...

elbowloh

CookeeeMonster wrote:

one further thing - if this was a private only venture it would be turned down flat - it's destroying some protected views apparently.

Luckily some public money has been coughed up to get around this inconvienient rule...

and about 50 trees isn't it?

asprilla

I think it will be nice.

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

London is not the wealthiest city so if it is not done say in New York or singapore City then why?

It has been done in New York. London is just copying - but very badly. The difference is that in New York they created the garden from a disused high level railway line that ran through the centre of Manhattan. A terrific and very environmentally friendly idea. London, on the other hand, kind of spectacularly misses the point..........

Of course, there isn't really a suitable equivalent of the high line in London though there are places in cities in the UK where such a project could work (my own home of Leeds would be a good example with two places you could do this). But they aren't London so it won't happen.

vermin

Just put a few more planters around Barbican/London Wall. Job done.

Now send that money up to the 'Northern Powerhouse', pronto. Patronising, much?

Manc33

Its not what you know, its who you know. We live in a spineless country I'm afraid. A perfect example of this is when eBay forced UK users to use Paypal with absolutely no way around it - we are the only country in the world that allowed such a thing! Everywhere else they say "p*ss off" but not here.

People complain about stuff like this but it obviously got approval eventually by people in the public, for it to be even going ahead, its the people that are the problem, not the Government - they will just do as much as they can get away with 100% of the time. We have to somehow regulate them enough not to, but we don't, witness the Paypal thing. At least we did say no to those I.D. cards - after the Government had asked us seventeen times, yep - seventeen. Thats how many times you have to tell the Government no before they understand it.

rick_chasey

Don't see why the whole no-cycling in nice garden is such a big deal?

You wouldn't go cycling around chatsworth house would you?

captain_chaos

Rolf F wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

London is not the wealthiest city so if it is not done say in New York or singapore City then why?

It has been done in New York. London is just copying - but very badly. The difference is that in New York they created the garden from a disused high level railway line that ran through the centre of Manhattan. A terrific and very environmentally friendly idea. London, on the other hand, kind of spectacularly misses the point..........

Of course, there isn't really a suitable equivalent of the high line in London though there are places in cities in the UK where such a project could work (my own home of Leeds would be a good example with two places you could do this). But they aren't London so it won't happen.

Yes I have been in that park. It's a really creative use of space and was well used when we were there - we had to queue in some spots at 7pm in the evening

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Don't see why the whole no-cycling in nice garden is such a big deal?

You wouldn't go cycling around chatsworth house would you?

Quite. It would be pretty crap if cycling was allowed.

itboffin

Asprilla wrote:

I think it will be nice.

+1 plus and she would get "it" oh yeah, smoking granny #1

yes i'm also old

oh and it works for that little place NYC

qube

I've seen loads of bridges with weeds growing out of them all over the UK. Won't they suffice?

rick_chasey

Qube wrote:

I've seen loads of bridges with weeds growing out of them all over the UK. Won't they suffice?

This reminds me of a quote I heard in the office yesterday.

'Why would I want to go to the Louvre? It's just loads of pictures of jesus, then a massive queue to look at some bird who's not event fit, and then more pictures of jesus'.

rolf_f

itboffin wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I think it will be nice.

+1 plus and she would get "it" oh yeah, smoking granny #1

yes i'm also old

oh and it works for that little place NYC

C'mon ITB - the High Line is 1.5 miles long. You could at least have posted a different bit of it than the bit I posted!

awavey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Don't see why the whole no-cycling in nice garden is such a big deal?

You wouldn't go cycling around chatsworth house would you?

absolutely, really dont give a hoot that cycling is banned on it, if she wants to build some personal garden bridge over the thames, let her do it, its the chunk of public cash going to help build it and fund it indefinitely that grinds my gears.

Wheelspinner

awavey wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Don't see why the whole no-cycling in nice garden is such a big deal?

You wouldn't go cycling around chatsworth house would you?

absolutely, really dont give a hoot that cycling is banned on it, if she wants to build some personal garden bridge over the thames, let her do it, its the chunk of public cash going to help build it and fund it indefinitely that grinds my gears.

As opposed to the chunks of public cash used to build and maintain cycling-specific infrastructure, that all those non-cyclists have no need for yet still contribute towards?

Why is this any different?

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

This reminds me of a quote I heard in the office yesterday.

'Why would I want to go to the Louvre? It's just loads of pictures of jesus, then a massive queue to look at some bird who's not event fit, and then more pictures of jesus'.

That's depressing. But then not surprising...

rick_chasey

Had a bit of existential soul searching after that one.

Southgate

There's so little proper cycling infrastructure in London (and elsewhere), that to ban cycling on this publicly-funded bridge surely goes against the spirit of central and local government policy. In and of itself this bridge is not very important to me personally, but banning cycling sends out all the wrong messages.

tangled_metal

The cycling bit is only about this being bridge, whilst no cars is a given why not make it so there is careful cycle route through? That is only secondary to the money being spent and the uselessness of it, imho of course.

The NYC one is planted on an existing rail line I assume that was decomissioned. That makes sense and would be a lot cheaper to build. It is not a new build bridge across a major UK River that is not needed for any transport reasons. It is a huge vanity project started as a private enterprise. It got a little bit of support from TfL (from Boris) in the form of £3+million. At that point I gather it became a public/private enterprise and now is likely to be a public enterprise with just enough private investment to stop it being actully owned by the state or the councils. That means access is on the company's terms only. Perhaps money making by charging a large entrance. It might look a good idea but it can be changed/subverted by the private company.

£175m build costs on bridge, the two lots of £60 million was only a feeder injection to get the design and other things ready like planning permission.

qube

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This reminds me of a quote I heard in the office yesterday.

'Why would I want to go to the Louvre? It's just loads of pictures of jesus, then a massive queue to look at some bird who's not event fit, and then more pictures of jesus'.

That's depressing. But then not surprising...

Brian Sewell has a chum!!

rolf_f

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

This reminds me of a quote I heard in the office yesterday.'Why would I want to go to the Louvre? It's just loads of pictures of jesus, then a massive queue to look at some bird who's not event fit, and then more pictures of jesus'.

That's depressing. But then not surprising...

To be fair, it's not an inaccurate description of the specific gallery that houses the Mona Lisa. There are vastly more enjoyable high art experiences to be had elsewhere in the Louvre.

okgo

Good.

Not everything that gets built has to be about the poxy bicycle.

Anyway it will bear enough linn my office with south bank without walking 200m to my right for Waterloo Bridge

pblakeney

okgo wrote:

Good.

Not everything that gets built has to be about the poxy bicycle.

Anyway it will bear enough linn my office with south bank without walking 200m to my right for Waterloo Bridge

That must be a very high end system that you are looking at.
http://www.linn.co.uk

Stevo_666

okgo wrote:

Good.

Not everything that gets built has to be about the poxy bicycle.

^^^
This.

It's not like there are any less bridges than before. No big deal really.

okgo

PBlakeney wrote:

okgo wrote:

Good.

Not everything that gets built has to be about the poxy bicycle.

Anyway it will bear enough linn my office with south bank without walking 200m to my right for Waterloo Bridge

That must be a very high end system that you are looking at.
http://www.linn.co.uk

Damn autocorrect!

peat

Tangled Metal wrote:

The cycling bit is only about this being bridge, whilst no cars is a given why not make it so there is careful cycle route through?

Because some berk will create a Strava segment.

tangled_metal

Peat wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

The cycling bit is only about this being bridge, whilst no cars is a given why not make it so there is careful cycle route through?

Because some berk will create a Strava segment.

SO let's just get Strava to remove the segments aspect of their app instead!!!! Stop the setting up of segments completely so you'll hopefully get fewer idiots racing each other either at the same time or on their own via a virtual system.

Of course I'm not serious. BTW is there some form of Strava moderation of these segments kind of like Forums have moderators? Regular users of Strava with the power to delete segments if they know them to be or have been told they are dangerous?

Although I don't use Strava so that wouldn't bother me. If I was on it I can guarantee I;d never make a segment leaderboard. Even if I set up my own segment I can guarante that I'll be knocked off in a few days.