Chris Medland's comments
the completion organisers need to do more of the heavy lifting - let them research new practices and ideas on their clients behalf, form shortlists and have limited competitions where a real project is at stake - limit the entrants to 4 or 5 firms. My issue is with open competitions where 1000's of hours are wasted.
isn't this simply reflecting the increase in building costs being experienced across the sector rather than an increase in the output of new homes?
Ian is correct that this sort of design is not everyone's cup of tea and that's fine. Plenty of our typical domestic clients (extensions to Victorian homes etc.) would hate it, but occasionally people come along that are looking for something different - I really enjoy those occasions. Architecture, fashion, taste is all subjective - it is in the variety and debate that joy can be found. I would never set out to talk down anyone else's perspective but instead am open to enjoying the difference. In this climate of planning and cost inhibiters to any kind of new home that doesn't mimic a 1930's bungalow I will continue to celebrate small victories for what I feel is progressive design. all the best
it may be that as part of the winding up that they have actually destroyed all the documents... perhaps the GLA / TfL should be asking Arup and Heatherwick for copies?
clearly I disagree with the above views and would live there happily in a heartbeat, each to their own...
very nice - well done Murray, great to see another small practice blossom
The key here is the fact that it was transport funding, not tourism funding - it was money assigned in the public purse for projects with a proven cost:benefit ratio, proposals tested by going through consultations and voted on by our elected representatives before being adopted in the London Plan, Borough Council Plans and the TfL transport plan.
I am going stick my neck here again... when the decision was made by the then Mayor to give £30m of transport funding to the garden bridge this was the entire amount that TfL had at their disposal for any bridges anywhere in London. The only pedestrian bridge at that point that is adopted policy in both the London Plan and the local Borough Plans, and had planning consent already in place and was has a proven cost:benefit ratio independently verified by 2 separate studies undertaken by TfL and Wandsworth council was the Diamond Jubilee Bridge. This bridge could have been completed and open with change to spare at that time for less than the £30 assigned to the Garden Bridge.
looking at this and the Heatherwick scheme in NY published last week - they are similar in many ways. A new tall building 'style' of triple storey elevation proportions and games thereon, a frame, and glass infill seems to be en-vogue. The problem is the glass - we all know the issues we can expect in terms of heating and overheating so a shift away from such vast amounts and less reliance on air conditioning would be sensible.
very nicely done