The idea of bridge attracted massive public support, as evidenced by many independent opinion pools, but not from Mr Angry professionals who thought they could do a better job. The final estimated cost was known because a contract was let. Let'shear more details about the telephone call, and why the offer wasn't worth a meeting. The dead-horse flogging continues; meanwhile, the originators of the Rotherhithe Park bridge idea are excluded from involvement with the project. Once you start attacking ideas, there is little point in creative people trying to come up with them. That is the legacy of the bitter and unpleasant criticism of the garden bridge: the antis aren't really interested in the money or the procurement, they just want to attack people whose ideas are not identical to their own. See much of the above.
Peabody should give Proctor & Matthews a side contract to report on the maintenance of design quality throughout the contract, so that client and public get what they thought they would get when planning permission was granted. Judging by the weasel words of the contractor, the change of architect has nothing to do with an ambition to make the design better. P&M have been very diplomatic, but have every right not merely to be disappointed, but to be bloody furious.
Most of the funding (more than £100m) would have come from private donations; the trust managed to raise an additional £3m even in its last year of operations, despite the antis. Incidentally, how about an inquiry into why the mayor would not have a meeting to discuss the offer by a philanthropist to pay off most of the public investment in the project as a donation? I fear the headbangers don't know the half of it. For clarity, I had no connection to the trust or its fundraising, and did not attend any of its dinners or other fund-raising events. I do like ideas for London.
The way to get the money back was to build the bridge and monetise what would have been one of the most popular tourist attractions in London. There would have been huge profit generation over the next few decades, the money used to help with projects like Crossrail 2, in addition to repair and maintenance of the bridge. Angry headbanging is a waste of time, and as I repeat, money has only been wasted because we got nothing for it. We should have built it. C'est tout.
Why keep flogging a dead horse? The real scandal was a political decision to kill the project, thereby wasting large amounts of taxpayer money, since we have nothing to show for it. That is the Mayor's legacy -- London can't make it. Far more worrying currently is what happened with Crossrail -- and thus the decision of TfL to sell its magnificent heritage building.