Bizarre Bee, what are you saying? Are you not ashamed to put your name to this drivel? "The Garden Bridge will break new territory... a new, free public garden in the heart of urbanised London". Wow! A new garden!! Is that 'breaking new territory' because its new - unlike nearby 'old' Jubilee Gardens (2012) or 'old' Kensington Gardens (1728), or 'old' Camley St Gardens (1985) and all the other urban gardens inbetween in London which were built sometime before the Right Now? "2,500m² of brand new garden" for £175m? What are planting, caviar trees? "65 per cent of the capital costs to build it fundraised from the private sector" But your own figures show that you have only 35% (£65m out of £175m) of the capital costs pledged from the private sector! Doh!! "reducing pressure on Waterloo Station" - how? By creating a visitor attraction bringing 3m additional visitors to the area? Doh The "economic benefits will be- close to £500 million over 60 years" will be generated by 5% uplift in property prices in the area according to the Strategic Business Case,,, which is of course precisely what London needs now with an over-heated housing market... Not! Doh!!! "We must be bolder [than asking what problem it solves], go beyond simply function and seek out the ideas, opportunities and the inspiration it presents"? It's fine to go beyond simple function, but if you're proposing a BRIDGE it must at least pass muster on the simple functional level. Does a structure which connects unrelated spaces and closes at night and on occasional days and elicits long queues pass muster as a bridge? Finally, what is the "inspiration it presents"? The inspiration to every insider to hook up with a grinning chancer and try an audacious raid on the public realm and the public purse?
Eight questions which need to be answered to lift the fog of nefarious cronyism and illegality this project seems immersed within: 1) on what basis did Boris give TfL instruction to start working on this project at cost (£4m) in late 2012? At that point there was no strategic need for a bridge identified 2) on what basis did TfL commission Heatherwick - the designer of a specific scheme touted in 2012 to trigger (1) above - to undertake an options analysis in Feb 2013? There was still no strategic need identified 3) Why did TfL insist in May 2013 that the winning design team for the main contract - Arup - sub-contract Heatherwick as designer? 4) On what basis did George Osborne and Boris agree to provide £60m of public funds in Nov 2013? There was still no strategic business case - this wasn't published until May 2014. How did this meet the requirements of the Treasury Red Book? 5) The strategic business case argues that being privately funded the Garden Bridge is the best option: but it's not privately funded, since it was known by that time that the Treasury and TfL were putting in £60m of public funds. How is this rational and therefore how is it legal? 6) Why did English Heritage fail to notice that assessments had not been provided in the planning application of key protected views, and sign off on its acceptability 4 months before permission was granted, and 3 months before those additional damning images were finally provided? 7) On what basis has Boris agreed to hand over £40m by early Sept 2015 to the Garden Bridge Trust on a project with many risks unresolved including 46 planning conditions and no interest in the land required to build the bridge? 8) Given the exorbitant costs - 5 times the cost of the proposed bridge at 9 Elms/ Pimlico - why has TfL or Boris or George not required the GB proposal be tested for value and costs reduced where possible? 8) On what rational basis can Boris claim that this is a private project and yet commit £150m of public money to the maintenance for the next 125 years, on top of the £60m capital from the public purse?
Hurrah! Well said Ian. It is so disappointing that our body politic is in such bad shape that this nonsense greenwash bridge was actually taken seriously for 18 months and granted planning permission by supine local planning authorities in the face of Boris' brazen on-sided unstrategic championing of this folly. It is a testament to the paucity of this project and the anger it has generated that the campaign against it (tcos.org.uk) has only been going 8 months, but has had huge support (10,000 people have signed petitions - please sign! Thundering leaders in the FT and Observer, stories on BBC etc) and a serious impact on its deliverability. The Garden Bridge Trust claim they need to be on site this autumn and building in January, but (i) as a recently designated Asset of Community Value there is no chance that they will have the necessary interest in the land on the South Bank before next Easter, and possibly never; (ii) they have not raised any significant new funding over the past 9 months, despite all the hype and Boris' disgraceful recent decision to release £40m of public money to them by September, they are still £50m short; (iii) there are 46 conditions to be resolved, which at the earliest won't be resolved until December; (iv) the legality of Boris' promised underwriting of the annual running costs (worth £150m capitalised) may well be tested in the High Court - support the campaign and a legal challenge http://www.everyclick.com/tcos
The Right to Buy needs to be extended to hotel rooms, school places, seats on trains, political parties... oh, that last one's already been implemented
Comment on: Moxon brought in on Garden Bridge project
But why wasn't Heatherwick been novated to the contractor Bouygues/Cimolai? It's standard practise for a client to require the construction contractor to take on the original architect. Is it because Heatherwick isn't an architect?