Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Garden Bridge attempts to appease concerns with updated imagery


The backers of the Thomas Heatherwick-designed Garden Bridge across the Thames have revealed updated visuals of the proposed link to allay fears it could block protected views

The new report prepared by Transport for London (TfL) for the Garden Bridge Trust responds to concerns raised by the City of London in August and includes two new photomontages.

The views attempt to counter the claims that the £175million, tree-lined bridge would ‘have a major impact on views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the City from the South Bank and Waterloo Bridge’, and could ‘significantly alter’ a key vista of Monument.affect the visibility of key landmarks.  

A spokesperson for TfL said: ‘The Garden Bridge Trust has spent the summer addressing comments received during the planning consultation and undertaking further engagement with local residents. Lambeth and Westminster have sought some additional information to help prepare their committee reports, which the Trust is currently providing. There remains significant support for the bridge.’

The planning committee is set to make a decision on the bridge later this year.


Readers' comments (5)

  • chris Dyson

    This is a beautiful and wonderful thing we must build such things and not carp at them they represent the very best of our times and highly sustainable.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anyone proposing to plant trees in any city should be actively encouraged no matter where the trees are to be planted , nature does not need us , we need it !

    John Meagher FRIAI RIBA

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We could secure a lot of the amazon rain forest for £175m. We could plant a new forest in the west country, Wales or Scotland where land values allow. We could provide renewable energy to 1000's of people forever for this budget- we could power a town, we could build at least 6 other pedestrian bridges and pedestrianise waterloo bridge Please do not hold this up as a value for money sustainability project - it in no way is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Editor,

    If true, the figure published above and in NCE (12.06.2014) of £175m for a new pedestrian crossing of the River Thames is staggering and the question of value for money is inescapable, particularly if public funds are involved. Whilst investment in improved public transport links across the river is to be applauded, this figure is around seven times that of the London Millennium Bridge and, in purely transport terms, there is much better value to be gained in supporting multiple upgraded and new river crossings in a variety of locations, including the footbridge proposed between Pimlico and Nine Elms (estimated by TfL to cost £40m) and the Gallions Reach bridge. The garden component of the project is much harder to value – the designers themselves acknowledge that London is already one of the greenest cities of its size in the world – with the beautiful Inner and Middle Temple Gardens only minutes away to the north and the community-focussed Bernie Spain Gardens to the south. The new elevated views from Waterloo Bridge do not show the extent to which the new bridge will obstruct views from the (green) public embankments on both sides of the River Thames. In striving to creating a “new kind of public space”, have those behind the garden bridge lost the plot?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Martin Knights points are very well put. Placing infrastructure investment alternatively in other areas along the riverside with multiple upgrades and new crossings would contribute more to public benefit. And do so without detriment to the existing amenity and iconic views.
    The central fallacy is the concentrated focus on public investment at the Southbank. This is now misplaced. The same issue underlines proposals to the Queen Elizabeth Hall. The post war ‘Festival of Britain’ vision for opening up this area into a cultural hub for Londoners has been successful. Its now time to move on. As the city has grown, we should engage a new wider vision for Londoners spreading more and better cultural and public amenity to other riverside locations.
    As Martin Knight points out the cost of this project is exorbitant, and probably sufficient to establish both a new crossing and new cultural hub. Then add to this the QEH costs. Why not for example invest at Nine Elms?
    London has many parks but only one river, so lets make more of this unique asset. This proposal is short of vision, nothing but a vanity project and with the power of populist visualisations - usurping logic and reason.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more