The luvvies bridge

bianchimoon

It's a strange world we live in, public amenities closing left right and centre and the most important thing some people can think,of to spend money on is a bridge across the Thames that is neither needed or possibly wanted by the man on the street. A case of let them eat cake?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nna-lumley

letap73

The cost appear to be the same for providing adequate flood defenses for Leeds:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... d-defences

rick_chasey

Presumably if Borris is the guy who needs to be lobbied it's paid out of the local London pot so it's not really to do with Leeds or Lancashire.

But yes, sentiment is right; inconsistency in the gov't austerity and concerns about some of their motives.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Presumably if Borris is the guy who needs to be lobbied it's paid out of the local London pot so it's not really to do with Leeds or Lancashire.

But yes, sentiment is right; inconsistency in the gov't austerity and concerns about some of their motives.

Osbourne has promised 30m from the treasury, so is to do with Lancashire, Leeds and every other uk resident, not that, that means a jot, it's just plain 'daft' but what else do we expect?

veronese68

I really hope they don't build that bridge.

sungod

bianchimoon wrote:

Osbourne has promised 30m from the treasury, so is to do with Lancashire, Leeds and every other uk resident, not that, that means a jot, it's just plain 'daft' but what else do we expect?

given that london pays far more tax per capita than the rest of the uk, it'd make much more sense to ask why london's money is being used to prop up lancashire, leeds and every other uk resident

the real issue is that this pretentious nonsense of a bridge is even being contemplated given the dire conditions of much of london's infrastructure and the sorry plight of those who are definitely not on the winning side of the ever widening wealth gap

bianchimoon

Just out of interest I've started a uk petition on the parliament site, if any of you feel at all inclined I need 5 supporters to make it go live, just to see how far this can go, if you feel like helping pm me cheers

letap73

sungod wrote:

given that london pays far more tax per capita than the rest of the uk, it'd make much more sense to ask why london's money is being used to prop up lancashire, leeds and every other uk resident

the real issue is that this pretentious nonsense of a bridge is even being contemplated given the dire conditions of much of london's infrastructure and the sorry plight of those who are definitely not on the winning side of the ever widening wealth gap

So assuming you are talking about general taxation in your first sentence, London as it contibutes more in taxation should receive a more proportionate amount of expenditure. In your second sentence you imply that expenditure should go to eleviate the poor in London. But then I am fairly certain that the good people of lancashire, Leeds and every other non London Uk resident would argue that they pay far more tax per capita than the poor in London.

The estimated cost to the Uk economy due to the recent flooding was £5 billion without mentioning the personal cost and the potential of lives being lost.

Stevo_666

If they're going to build a bridge across the Thames at least put a bloody road on it.

letap73

This is just as bad:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... mon-rattle

rolf_f

sungod wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Osbourne has promised 30m from the treasury, so is to do with Lancashire, Leeds and every other uk resident, not that, that means a jot, it's just plain 'daft' but what else do we expect?

given that london pays far more tax per capita than the rest of the uk, it'd make much more sense to ask why london's money is being used to prop up lancashire, leeds and every other uk resident

Amazingly enough, we are all part of the same country and, as we know from all the "road tax" arguments, trying to argue for a tax system based on who uses what doesn't tend to lead to happy conclusions. It's not about who subsidises who but what is actually needed. I think that most people would argue that London has lots of stuff already and doesn't 'need' any more; least of all a bridge with flowers on it. It's fine as it is. It has great facilities, great public transport, great museums etc - the same can't be said for many other places. At a time when facilities in, for example, the hypothetical Northern Powerhouse are being hacked left right and centre, it seems hard to see that this is even remotely a correct priority. Joanna Lumley has a lot to answer for.........

veronese68

As a man who has lived in London nearly all his life I have to agree with Rolf. PM Bianchimoon and sign the petition.

bianchimoon

Veronese68 wrote:

As a man who has lived in London nearly all his life I have to agree with Rolf. PM Bianchimoon and sign the petition.

Thanks veronese, i have the required 5,

5 people have supported your petition so far. We’re checking your petition to make sure it meets the petition standards. If it does, we’ll publish it. This usually takes a week or less.

since saturday, one has now appeared on that site, so if you feel inclined please sign
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/119185 - cheers

bianchimoon

George Osborne avoided official channels and Department for Transport oversight to offer the London mayor, Boris Johnson, funding for the garden bridge scheme, parliament’s spending watchdog has found, warning the project may not have been approved if the normal processes had been followed.

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... nels-mayor
even more corrupt!!

The bridge’s annual running costs are estimated at £2.8m, a sum the trust aims to raise through donations and the corporate events that will close the bridge for 12 nights a year. However, Johnson announced in June that he would guarantee this sum from public money in perpetuity.

philcubed

I wrote to the caring George Osborne to offer to test the concept by placing a pot plant on the Millennium Bridge and shouting at people who looked at it, but he wasn't interested. Too busy helping his family wallpaper business avoid paying any tax, then he was going to spend some time wondering why the country's finances aren't improving.
Have signed the petition.

Bobbinogs

Yepp, we are up to 313. It could take a while before this one gets to Parliament. Any chance of Donald Trump saying something about it??

secretsam

stick it on Facebook and get everyone to Tweet it and that - simples!

And don't get me started on that cnut Osborne

Pross

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious with these things though. Does central London need another footbridge as a simple piece of infrastructure? From my experience I'd say no as you never have to walk more than a few hundred metres to find a crossing point. However, from what I've seen it looks more like they are creating a new open space or 'linear park' as well as a link to a new development so they don't appear to be just trying to build another bridge. Creating a sense of place is important for any urban area - towns and cities would be dreary places if they were all about function. It looks like the intention is to create something similar, to, albeit a much smaller scale, the New York High Line which is one of my favourite places in that city and which I believe has been hugely successful. London is a pretty democratic place these days and if the residents don't want a mayor 'wasting' their taxes on something like this then they can easily vote for a different one next time around.

awavey

Pross wrote:

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious with these things though. Does central London need another footbridge as a simple piece of infrastructure? From my experience I'd say no as you never have to walk more than a few hundred metres to find a crossing point. However, from what I've seen it looks more like they are creating a new open space or 'linear park' as well as a link to a new development so they don't appear to be just trying to build another bridge. Creating a sense of place is important for any urban area - towns and cities would be dreary places if they were all about function. It looks like the intention is to create something similar, to, albeit a much smaller scale, the New York High Line which is one of my favourite places in that city and which I believe has been hugely successful. London is a pretty democratic place these days and if the residents don't want a mayor 'wasting' their taxes on something like this then they can easily vote for a different one next time around.

undoubtedly, but the High Line wasnt something new they had to build from scratch as such, it was revitalising an existing structure/space that had fallen into disuse and was something that could easily be turned into a green space in a very urban environment, and they dont, I believe,hire it out for canapes and champagne evenings, but maybe Im wrong on that

for this bridge, well you can argue whether London needs a new bridge or not,but it probably doesnt need a new restricted use bridge, and certainly not one thats only possible to be built with generous public money backing, and unless they cover it with greenhouses, and so its less of a bridge and more of a structure with a river view, absolutely nothing worthwhile is going to grow on it, because everything will be wind scorched by that infernal constant wind along the Thames and the fact you wont be able to retain enough moisture in the planting.

pblakeney

awavey wrote:

...and they dont, I believe,hire it out for canapes and champagne evenings, but maybe Im wrong on that.....

They do have glitzy functions on it.
I'd imagine that there is a charge for the electricity at least.

rolf_f

awavey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious with these things though. Does central London need another footbridge as a simple piece of infrastructure? From my experience I'd say no as you never have to walk more than a few hundred metres to find a crossing point. However, from what I've seen it looks more like they are creating a new open space or 'linear park' as well as a link to a new development so they don't appear to be just trying to build another bridge. Creating a sense of place is important for any urban area - towns and cities would be dreary places if they were all about function. It looks like the intention is to create something similar, to, albeit a much smaller scale, the New York High Line which is one of my favourite places in that city and which I believe has been hugely successful. London is a pretty democratic place these days and if the residents don't want a mayor 'wasting' their taxes on something like this then they can easily vote for a different one next time around.

undoubtedly, but the High Line wasnt something new they had to build from scratch as such, it was revitalising an existing structure/space that had fallen into disuse and was something that could easily be turned into a green space in a very urban environment, and they dont, I believe,hire it out for canapes and champagne evenings, but maybe Im wrong on that

Yes, the High Line was a genius idea for an existing abandoned space which was an environmentally friendly and economical way of increasing green space. The pot plant bridge is an environmentally disastrous and hugely expensive way of creating a very contrived green space. Yes, more greenery is great but, again, London is well supplied with green. Try finding a scrap of green space in central Leeds. One small park in a Georgian square is about it but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to ask for a hugely expensive engineering project covered with begonias. Does anyone really think that London is "a dreary place that is all about function"? If such a bridge can be justified, the one definite truth (IMO) is that there are more needful places to put it than London.

bianchimoon

Rolf F wrote:

awavey wrote:

Pross wrote:

Sometimes you have to look beyond the obvious with these things though. Does central London need another footbridge as a simple piece of infrastructure? From my experience I'd say no as you never have to walk more than a few hundred metres to find a crossing point. However, from what I've seen it looks more like they are creating a new open space or 'linear park' as well as a link to a new development so they don't appear to be just trying to build another bridge. Creating a sense of place is important for any urban area - towns and cities would be dreary places if they were all about function. It looks like the intention is to create something similar, to, albeit a much smaller scale, the New York High Line which is one of my favourite places in that city and which I believe has been hugely successful. London is a pretty democratic place these days and if the residents don't want a mayor 'wasting' their taxes on something like this then they can easily vote for a different one next time around.

undoubtedly, but the High Line wasnt something new they had to build from scratch as such, it was revitalising an existing structure/space that had fallen into disuse and was something that could easily be turned into a green space in a very urban environment, and they dont, I believe,hire it out for canapes and champagne evenings, but maybe Im wrong on that

Yes, the High Line was a genius idea for an existing abandoned space which was an environmentally friendly and economical way of increasing green space. The pot plant bridge is an environmentally disastrous and hugely expensive way of creating a very contrived green space. Yes, more greenery is great but, again, London is well supplied with green. Try finding a scrap of green space in central Leeds. One small park in a Georgian square is about it but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to ask for a hugely expensive engineering project covered with begonias. Does anyone really think that London is "a dreary place that is all about function"? If such a bridge can be justified, the one definite truth (IMO) is that there are more needful places to put it than London.

Couldn't agree more Rolf. Even the MP's on both sides of the bridge one con one lab are against the idea.The Conservative mp even said, if it's to encourage more tourism there are far more worthy places up/down stream to put the bridge.
A friend I was out riding with Sunday said it was good idea as it would bring more tourists into London. I tried to explain that the area it was being put in probably has more tourists per sq meters than anywhere else on the planet, not sure he got it
Pross, i don't think you've gone beyond the obvious, Johnson is out soon, but he has committed public money and agreed to fund it in perpetuity. It is not just a pretty bridge with flowers on, the issues with funding, environment, the tender processetc. Museums and galleries up and down the UK are being forced to shut for want of far less money than will cost to run per annum let alone build. No it's plain daft!

tangled_metal

The garden bridge has been stopped! Charity concedes defeat. Comments along the lines of sad day London unable to deliver such an exciting project being said. Sorry it's not very exciting just a daft idea.

Shame it took £37 million to find out that it's a daft idea that London doesn't need / want. Sadiq Khan has done one good thing!

lostboysaint

About time!

bianchimoon

Sense prevails... at a cost! Joanne Lumley, Boris Johnson and George Osborne should be made to answer to this

dabber

I understand that Hodge says that £37.4m of public money on pre-construction work has been spent. Plus the government agreed to underwrite a further £9m for cancellation costs. Total to the tax payer of £46.4m.

It would be interesting to see what exactly the £37.4 m has been squandered away on.

surrey_commuter

bianchimoon wrote:

Sense prevails... at a cost! Joanne Lumley, Boris Johnson and George Osborne should be made to answer to this

Lumley is a believer so has nothing to answer

Boris is a charlatan and needs to explain his relationship with interested parties. He and Osborne should have the threat of Jail hanging over them.

and cameron seems to have a case to answer.

And whilst we are about it let's bang up Andrew Boff for having no shame

Andrew Boff, Conservative London Assembly member, said Mr Khan had wasted £9m in taxpayers' money as he could have scrapped the project as early as May of last year.

laurentian

£37 million on "pre-construction work" for a bridge?? That's either an awful lot of drawings or an awfully big back hander . . .

cougie

Bet Boris's pals are involved with the companies that took the 37m. Fingers in pies.

mr_goo

laurentian wrote:

£37 million on "pre-construction work" for a bridge?? That's either an awful lot of drawings or an awfully big back hander . . .

I'm involved in construction industry, dealing with architects and engineers. I'm pretty sure that as it was only in design phase and pre planning there is no way that consultancy and legal fees would have racked up £37m on pre construction. It must have gone to some very unscrupulous parties...... back handers all round.

bianchimoon

i seem to remember the british architects assoc, were up in arms about the design tender process, and how a relatively unqualified designer got 100% in the tender process, and just happened to be a friend of 'someone'
http://littleatoms.com/society/londons- ... t-go-ahead