Neither should it be forgotten that the landmark that Mayor Johnson was trying to get built was utterly pointless - a costly concrete monstrosity that would have trashed its location and overloaded an area already heaving with tourists.
Comment on: Olympic Stadium should be torn down, says expert
It is however sutable for other sports. I was at the England vs New Zealand rugby league test last year and it was ideal. Unlike the Wembley and Twickenham behemoths it had a human feel. Much cosier and nothing wrong with the sight lines.
Comment on: Is the Garden Bridge dead in the water?
I suspect Richard Rogers unconcern for the detail stretches to the construction itself. Were he to examine the plans submitted to the local authorities rather than the fantasy illustrations provided by the PR department and reproduced uncritically by every media outlet running the story he’d find a huge concrete structure clad in copper bling topped with feeble saplings and shrubs. And moreover a structure that requires the destruction of a glorious avenue of mature trees that offers more environmental benefits than the bridge ever can. Rogers' argument that great works warrant great expenditure has merit but banal works that destroy and impoverish should not be financed by the public purse.
"....it will be a tourist and visitor magnet."
Fine, then put it where it will be an amenity gain not, as in its present location, an amenity loss.
This is just one of the many contradictions in the project that the apologists skirt over – and rather than engaging with the arguments they tend instead to attack the objectors. It’s much easier to shout “procurement bore” than explain eg why a magnificent avenue of mature Planes should be destroyed or how creating congestion at Temple station helps commuters. Or how you can have “a place of quiet contemplation” overrun by tourists.
"used by the public and tourists alike"
For some reason Richard Rogers and the rest of the Bridgerati also keep peddling the irrationality that it can be both a tourist magnet and a pleasant way of crossing the Thames. (see his latest letter in ES and his Observer article) Have these people never walked across Westminster Bridge or beside the Eye, or anywhere in London for that matter? Has Lord Rogers's professionalism succumbed to wishful thinking?