Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Robert Neuschul's avatar

I've now read this through twice and I'm afraid that not only can I not remotely support the concept I also have to argue strongly against it.

1] The Thames Valley through London is not just a waterway, it's an airway as well as an ecology transit route that dramatically influences and alters the entire London environment and its wider ecology.

Just as building it in the first place did, so removing the old London bridge altered London's climate. Building new street bridges will almost certainly do the same.

Not least because putting a dam to airflow [the street-bridge] through the centre will impact soil temperatures which are already critically high and in grave need of reduction [see TfL subsoil heating issues amongst others].

There will be other environmental impacts, including changes to Thames water temperatures affecting the local fauna and flora. It would not be entirely unexpected if we once again saw the Thames freezing over in bad winters, or contrarily, water temeperatures rising unacceptably to impact all life forms in teh Thames..

But we can't know all that without first doing really really thorough environmental analysis and detailed modelling of all of the environmental impacts - not just at the waterway zone but right out to the further edges of the North and South downs.

Such analysis and modelling would cost monies: who's to pay for that, and _why_ should they pay for it? We've already wasted millions on the idiotic Garden Bridge.

2] London has a gross surfeit of floor space. It doesn't need more. It certainly doesn't need more high-priced rich spaces. What London needs is to figure out how to use what floor spaces it already has in a sensible efficient cost-effective manner to actually solve the needs of Londoners.

3] The assertion is made that London needs more bridges: and that's all it is. An assertion. Without evidence. Opinion without evidence is mostly worthless. So another case of analysis and data capture and modelling is required and that will once again cost more money to carry out: who is to pay for that and why _should_ they pay for it?

4] London already has far too many tourists. Whilst the revenues it attracts are almost certainly welcome by retailers and the service industries we really don't need yet another attraction.

Those of us who actually live and work in inner London would find our lives imeasurably improved if the numbers of tourists were actively cut by circa 50%, not increased by yet another attraction designed to capture the floating visitor's pounds.

On balance I find this to be another piece of polemic not all that much different to the original Garden Bridge concept. "Oh, we're different to the Garden Bridge, we won't waste your monies!, Honest Guv!"

It's an appeal based on emotion, not on any serious environmental or architectural merit and certainly not worthy of support. I'm disappointed.

1/10 for effort.

0/10 for sense and sensibility.

Must try harder.

Devin Saez's avatar

New concept to me- thanks for sharing these details. Any civic or community space here would surely shine too, great views and connection between boroughs.

No posts

Ready for more?