A monument to the great British tradition of follys.... the difference with this one is that it is to be built in a public space rather than a landowner's private estate, and it will despoil one of the great views of London, as well as being paid for by money conned from the public purse, on unpurchased public land. It is these travesties which make it so unpalatable to many of us.
There is certainly more to this than has been published so far. FoI is showing how significant decisions are made without public consultation on a 'mates' basis. This is more of a 'divide' than a 'bridge'
Correction....'brainlesschild of Joanna Lumley'
Paul, making the procurement process transparent, saving magnificent views of the city, providing river crossings where they are needed by the people of London, are certainly not 'miserablist' and it is no doubt that because we have seen the excellent design standards set by the Millenium Bridge and many of the buildings in the Olympic Park that we are opposed to the lumpen offering by Thomas Heatherwick, a designer who has previously shown higher standards.
The article is saying that VAT requirements should be waived, a toll charged to pay maintenance costs and anyone who says they don't like it is a moaner and should shut up because it's a lovely bridge !! ? Is Paul Finch in thrall to Thomas, Boris, Joanna or all three?
In addition to the opaque process of procurement, the proposed bridge is unnecessary, it's ugly, it spoils great views, and takes great chunks of the riverbanks. The best that can be said about it is that it has a foolish English eccentricity about it ..... ah a river, let's put a garden across it and call it a bridge.
So Justin, would that be same if you set fire to your house and took your family outside, would you have saved their lives?!