Chris Medland's comments
Its a beautiful piece of craftsmanship, a hide tide mark in workspace design, the epitome of corporate architecture. For £1,300,000,000 that is how it should be. Foster were the right architects for this project and have proven that with the right budget and their approach this kind of building can be built in the UK. However.... As with so many great buildings in history they represent the epoch in which they were created. This building represents, in my view, a soon to be outdated mode of hard nosed corporate power and is in essence the very best of how things used to be done. Starting from first principles today, with the same budget, would any large business with a long term eye on Global Warming and sustainability, staff working and lifestyle changes, advancing communications technology and long term energy security do this again? I don't believe so and am excited to see, post Google and Apple HQ, where these types are issues take us - maybe not as far as Bourneville but perhaps a few more steps towards it.
Agree with Simon. Yes Kahn has been a bit flip-floppy but that was probably genuine uncertainty as what would be the best thing to do with the utter mess that Johnson left him. Ultimately this shower sits with Johnson personally, his deputy mayor, the garden bridge trustees and (a reluctant inclusion) Heatherwick. God help our economy if imminent events lead to BJ's installation as PM.
very nice. hope planning consent is granted
It may be fun for a weekend getaway in the forest or mountains but I do wonder what long term health implications there are for anyone living in such small spaces for the long term.
I agree with Robert above... the residential/ hotel block design is no more at this stage than a poor massing diagram absent of vision. Completely out of character for such an eminent practice.
looks great - look forward to visiting one day
Clearly my view is arguably myopic due to by my 7 yearlong obsession with the delivery of another bridge further upstream (long story that doesn’t make it into the press) but this debacle has reached peak annoyance now particularly as it turns out that the £20m loan much lauded as a great deal for the tax payer was in fact utter hogwash and absolutely zero is actually a loan that is repayable. Utterly ridiculous situation.
so am I right in thinking that the trustees of a charity asked the government to take the cost risk for them on their sole project, the whole purpose of the charity, so that they would not carry any financial risk personally if the venture came crashing down? Directors and trustees insurance is available commercially, and is in fact (I believe) a legal obligation but instead of this/as well as this they wanted the treasury to back them..... and the treasury said yes?
Next time I take out car insurance or PI for that matter I will ask the treasury to cover my excess and see what answer I get....
Dear Paul - it is not the Mayor who has landed us with this bill. As the AJ's great research shows, all other issues aside (need, location, procurement, environmental damage etc.), it was the decision of the trustees in January 2016 to sign a construction contract that had huge cancellation costs when they had not even established a legal right to build on the land. This decision is noted clearly in the publically available minutes and despite all the risks to our money they proceeded regardless. Do you agree that it is important that when spending (and applying for) millions of pounds of public money that an organisation must act with due care and diligence?
arguably, in reference to his point about suffering a loss as a result of the Trustees actions, the good people of Battersea & Fulham (and anybody passing through) have suffered a direct loss that is measurable....