The London Assembly wasted too much time on the origin/procurement of the project when there were serious critical questions that still haven't been aired yet e.g. forensic evidence which could have nailed Boris down to what exactly was decided and when. Len had little control of the situation and let Boris waffle on incessantly and as for Caroline Pidgeon's question of "how would you have done things differently?"! What a waste of valuable questioning time! And voluntarily giving more oxygen to one of the vilest machiavellian politicians of our time to blast the current hot and cold mayor of
Tuckett & CSCB never had the right to use this public right of way, public land and open green space for a private commercial venture. It was not in their gift yet they shafted the community and blocked any communication throughout the whole affair. They are desperately trying to absolve (greenwash?) themselves of all blame by attacking the GBT who are themselves, just as treacherous. Shame on Iain Tuckett and Scott Rice for even daring to state they are there to build social housing when they are now trying to sublease yet another plot of community land to Abba's 'Mamma Mia The Party' - a restaurant party venue right in the heart of a social/cooperative housing community.
Andrew Wood still doesn't get it does he? Let's spell it out again - it's in the wrong location. It's not needed here. We don't have the cash for it. Even the fabulously rich 'generous' people 'gifting'(!) it to London haven't dug into their own pockets for what they are bullying us all all to have.
Don't be ridiculous - we don't "need" it.
The Victorians created some howlers too but we've come a long way sinc then so let's keep it to the 21st century and concentrate on what we need present day i.e. not the garden bridge.
Lord Davies referring to "normal democratic means by which local development decisions are made" is a joke. Most Bishop's Ward residents oppose the bridge as do many Lambeth constituents. Secret meetings between Lambeth officers, Lib Peck and Jack Hopkins does not constitute 'normal democratic' processes.
The GBT trustees 'only interest' has been a game of brinkmanship i.e. to ramraid this vanity project forward at all costs.
A project as crooked as this should not be allowed to continue. There is no point in carrying on with something so bent as if to say we can 'learn lessons from it' otherwise the lesson learned is that brinksmanship can work and that chumocracy wotks. We need a hard GBr-exit now before more money is wasted.
Yes a shame people went to all that effort but when something isn't gonna work for whatever reason, it ought to be stopped. The bigger shame would be to plough on ref: sunk cost fallacy. Let's hope London's Garden Bridge follows suit.
The "myriad of truths, half truths and straight out lies' making up 'the background noise" surely comes from the Garden Bridge Trust themselves?
Thames Baths "preferred location is now along the South Bank"? This is one of the very genuine reasons why people are objecting to the Garden Bridge i.e. it would bring more overcrowding to an area already bursting with tourists. How about putting it where it's (more) needed? The South Bank already has over 25 attractions within a 2 mile stretch of the Thames and 26 million visitors each year.
More needs to be done to spread the load and divert attention from the overloaded playground of zone 1 (which is just as much a residential area as well), to areas that need regenerating and revitalising along the river and or better still, beyond. Look at how successful the King's Cross Pond Club is; let's be innovative in ways that transform our grey/brown sites rather than cluttering up the Thames.