Chris Medland's comments
is any of this, or the other suspected actions in terms of funding, illegal?
if you ask a serious question you should allow time to receive a serious answer.
Good points made.
As tweeted by one-world design architects on July 29th 'With new media & immediate detailed info the days of PR machines and possibly contrived polls/ surveys are over'.
I still contest that for at least £64,000,000 of our money we should have a public right of way - if not why not? The GBT simply don't answer.
the way it lands on a straight sided base is really unconfortable
good. beautiful drawings too... not a sketch up man with cap in sight
I have every confidence it will... thanks
Duncan - please see my note above yours.
More info on our facebook page etc but in short the space for the landing of the bridge has been left at the request of wandsworth and the S106 agreement has Barratt installing the piles....
The proposal is to be built immediately adjacent to the new pedestrian and cycle river crossing (on the same site), The Diamond Jubilee Bridge- it will become a gateway building for Battersea. For a full update on the positive steps forward made by this and others developments please refer to our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/oneworlddesign/posts/901672479924221:0
Both Ken and the Director from Arup are misunderstanding what some peoples objections are - its not about design - its much more important, its about democracy, openness and who owns the right to privatise a public space.
Why doesn't the bridge have a public right of way? There is no reason to close it at night - lots of public London streets have trees and flower beds that need maintenance and the city is served by the best police force on the planet. Public rights of way can be temporarily closed under licence for 'private' fundraising events. There is no real need to stop cyclist either. The combination of the highway code, law of the land and common sense will do the job it does elsewhere on places like the Thames path that at times are only 2m wide and are shared spaces (with pedestrian priority)
The whole thing is tail wagging dog that's why people don't like it - it has the feeling of an occupation of the space, a private invasion of the river rather than a welcome guest at the party on Thames. Yes you can build a bridge over our river, yes you can put some nice trees on it, and yes you can even have private events on it occasionally - but when we say you can (through normal council applications process) and we can use it all day and all night within the laws of the land.