Thames Garden Bridge pilings and a couple of other observations
Jul 8th, 2015, 04:37 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames Garden Bridge pilings and a couple of other observations
I couldn't convince either my husband or our daughter to be excited about the new Garden Bridge over the Thames, so I'll try here. May we all someday walk over it!
https://www.gardenbridge.london/
A few weeks ago we three toured King's College London, where she'll be doing grad studies for the next year. The Garden Bridge is to be built pretty much at the foot of KCL and Somerset house, between Blackfriar's and Waterloo It is to be a pedestrian bridge planted with, if the pamphlet is to be believed, gardens, and will be closed occasionally for private events. They appear to be raising funds for it still. I'd send them a pound or two just to be part of it.
On June 15, walking near the Temple tube stop, I could see the bright red apparatus on the near bank, driving pilings. July 1, from the terrace of the National Theatre, we could see the pile driver out midriver, doing its pile-driving thing.
https://www.gardenbridge.london/
A few weeks ago we three toured King's College London, where she'll be doing grad studies for the next year. The Garden Bridge is to be built pretty much at the foot of KCL and Somerset house, between Blackfriar's and Waterloo It is to be a pedestrian bridge planted with, if the pamphlet is to be believed, gardens, and will be closed occasionally for private events. They appear to be raising funds for it still. I'd send them a pound or two just to be part of it.
On June 15, walking near the Temple tube stop, I could see the bright red apparatus on the near bank, driving pilings. July 1, from the terrace of the National Theatre, we could see the pile driver out midriver, doing its pile-driving thing.
Jul 8th, 2015, 06:07 PM
#3
Joanna Lumley first suggested this bridge maybe 15± years ago and I've been hearing bits and bobs for a decade. Finally a couple of years ago it seemed to get traction.
Between it linking Somerset House and the south bank and the Millennium Br connecting St Paul's and the Tate/Globe there will be a terrific circular walk.
Between it linking Somerset House and the south bank and the Millennium Br connecting St Paul's and the Tate/Globe there will be a terrific circular walk.
Jul 8th, 2015, 08:36 PM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone really is spending money on real construction work for this pointless vanity project, they're either criminals or almost as self-deluding as the publicity-seekers behind it.
Even the propaganda from the Garden Bridge Trust (https://www.gardenbridge.london/news...er-summer-2015) claims design work will start only this autumn. Right now, the project's been rejected by the London Assembly (the democratic body to which Johnson is supposed to be accountable) and is being made legally impossible by the local authority on the south bank the bridge is supposed to be landing in.
I've no idea what the piledriver was doing. But it certainly wasn't starting to build this crony-inspired white elephant.
The public opinion backlash is only just beginning. The idea of building a corporate entertainment centre, likely to be closed whenever JP Morgan wants to party, in the middle of the Thames is so offensive only imbecile actors like Lumley and Johnson could delude themselves for a second it'll go through.
And only self-centred American tourists could believe anyone gives a flying fart about "a terrific circular walk" in a city that panders far too much to visitors already.
Send them your donations. You'll keep a bunch of designers gainfully away from doing any real work. But the democratic process will ensure the project will remain a pretty picture.
Even the propaganda from the Garden Bridge Trust (https://www.gardenbridge.london/news...er-summer-2015) claims design work will start only this autumn. Right now, the project's been rejected by the London Assembly (the democratic body to which Johnson is supposed to be accountable) and is being made legally impossible by the local authority on the south bank the bridge is supposed to be landing in.
I've no idea what the piledriver was doing. But it certainly wasn't starting to build this crony-inspired white elephant.
The public opinion backlash is only just beginning. The idea of building a corporate entertainment centre, likely to be closed whenever JP Morgan wants to party, in the middle of the Thames is so offensive only imbecile actors like Lumley and Johnson could delude themselves for a second it'll go through.
And only self-centred American tourists could believe anyone gives a flying fart about "a terrific circular walk" in a city that panders far too much to visitors already.
Send them your donations. You'll keep a bunch of designers gainfully away from doing any real work. But the democratic process will ensure the project will remain a pretty picture.
Jul 8th, 2015, 11:54 PM
#9
The bridge in its present form, position and financial backing makes no sense.
Development of the bicycle superhighways makes far more sense, if you saw the queues when the tube went on strike a few days ago you just know there needs to be an alternative. If you look at the pollution levels in London especially at times of high inversion you just know you need to get away from diesel (for cars and buses). So much to do in London and putting in a fancy bridge is nowhere near the top of the list.
For those who like Apps, you may find this useful during your next visit
http://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/Default.aspx
Development of the bicycle superhighways makes far more sense, if you saw the queues when the tube went on strike a few days ago you just know there needs to be an alternative. If you look at the pollution levels in London especially at times of high inversion you just know you need to get away from diesel (for cars and buses). So much to do in London and putting in a fancy bridge is nowhere near the top of the list.
For those who like Apps, you may find this useful during your next visit
http://www.londonair.org.uk/LondonAir/Default.aspx
Jul 9th, 2015, 12:49 AM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Access seems to be pretty limited. Tourist groups of more than eight will need special permission
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-arent-welcome
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...-arent-welcome
Jul 9th, 2015, 07:05 AM
#11
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, sorry to hear it is such an ill-conceived idea. The plans make it look so lovely and sculptural, like big, organic, leaf-like planters. Having such a park that did not take up land space seemed like a wonderful concept. Central Park over water. I did wonder how expensive maintenance would be.
Jul 9th, 2015, 08:10 AM
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm. I sense a subtle undercurrent of disapproval.
Well, sure, if it comes down to bicycle superhighways vs the bridge, I'd send my 1-2 £ to the bike project any day. (In gratitude for London's pandering to me.) I thought that excellent project was going forward, and would certainly be excited to ride a bike on it. I always have the impression that London's dripping with money for whatever it wants, so thank you for correcting that naive notion.
I would be interested to hear in what ways, besides this demon bridge, London bends over backwards for selfish tourists. Don't mention the Eye, which I have always found a little annoying but which must surely pay for itself.
Well, sure, if it comes down to bicycle superhighways vs the bridge, I'd send my 1-2 £ to the bike project any day. (In gratitude for London's pandering to me.) I thought that excellent project was going forward, and would certainly be excited to ride a bike on it. I always have the impression that London's dripping with money for whatever it wants, so thank you for correcting that naive notion.
I would be interested to hear in what ways, besides this demon bridge, London bends over backwards for selfish tourists. Don't mention the Eye, which I have always found a little annoying but which must surely pay for itself.
Jul 9th, 2015, 08:14 AM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>putting in a fancy bridge is nowhere near the top of the list.<<
And it isn't quite a bridge. It's a small park over the water, which you'd pay to get into; you could use it to get to the other side, but that ceased to be its primary purpose very quickly. Yes, it looks like a lovely idea in isolation, but not so much when the practicalities are looked at (another option might be to forget the Heatherwick supports, and re-use the old Victorian pilings beside Blackfriars station, if there's a way to allow people to access such a bridge without having to go through the barriers in the station concourses either side - and it would have to be toll-free).
And it isn't quite a bridge. It's a small park over the water, which you'd pay to get into; you could use it to get to the other side, but that ceased to be its primary purpose very quickly. Yes, it looks like a lovely idea in isolation, but not so much when the practicalities are looked at (another option might be to forget the Heatherwick supports, and re-use the old Victorian pilings beside Blackfriars station, if there's a way to allow people to access such a bridge without having to go through the barriers in the station concourses either side - and it would have to be toll-free).
Jul 9th, 2015, 08:33 AM
#15
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it more as a large "green" sculpture, a public work of art that you could relate to physically, more than a bridge. I could see people spending whole afternoons there. It should be free for Londoners, perhaps a fee for tourists.
I dislike most public art (we have some Awful stuff here in Baltimore) but the plans for this "sculptural bridge park" look so beautiful, I was quite taken with it. It is not my city though. It should be up to Londoners to decide what they want and how their money is spent. They know their needs and wants more than outsiders.
I dislike most public art (we have some Awful stuff here in Baltimore) but the plans for this "sculptural bridge park" look so beautiful, I was quite taken with it. It is not my city though. It should be up to Londoners to decide what they want and how their money is spent. They know their needs and wants more than outsiders.
Jul 9th, 2015, 11:58 AM
#16
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone really is spending money on real construction work for this pointless vanity project, they're either criminals or almost as self-deluding as the publicity-seekers behind it.
Do you have any views on art?
(I don't mean the art you can see from the end of your street, which it is clear from your posts, you have never left)
Do you have any views on art?
(I don't mean the art you can see from the end of your street, which it is clear from your posts, you have never left)
Jul 9th, 2015, 05:35 PM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or maybe Sassafrass and I don't know the personalities, politics, or economics behind the bridge, and so are able to judge its beauty unbiased.
If the bridge were closed more than a handful of times a year for rich person events I'd be mighty annoyed as a taxpayer.
My family and I just spent a week in Paris, where Napoleons carved big N's all over their bridges and everything else in sight, and the Arc de Triomphe has heroic statues of an adoring nation groveling at Bonaparte's feet.
Then a week in Fontainebleau, where the chateau is monogrammed with F's, H's, and N's, depending on which king or emperor got to decide how tax money was spent that year. I'm afraid you can't throw a rock in the great European cities without hitting the fruits of a massive ego trip. Often tax funded. People might be annoyed at the time, but a century or two later they think it's all just fine.
If the bridge were closed more than a handful of times a year for rich person events I'd be mighty annoyed as a taxpayer.
My family and I just spent a week in Paris, where Napoleons carved big N's all over their bridges and everything else in sight, and the Arc de Triomphe has heroic statues of an adoring nation groveling at Bonaparte's feet.
Then a week in Fontainebleau, where the chateau is monogrammed with F's, H's, and N's, depending on which king or emperor got to decide how tax money was spent that year. I'm afraid you can't throw a rock in the great European cities without hitting the fruits of a massive ego trip. Often tax funded. People might be annoyed at the time, but a century or two later they think it's all just fine.
Jul 9th, 2015, 11:34 PM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>I saw it more as a large "green" sculpture, a public work of art that you could relate to physically, more than a bridge. <<
Indeed - but that wasn't how it was promoted and sold to our Mophead Buffoon of a mayor (who has form when it comes to eye-catchingly irrelevant substitutes for proper river crossings).
Indeed - but that wasn't how it was promoted and sold to our Mophead Buffoon of a mayor (who has form when it comes to eye-catchingly irrelevant substitutes for proper river crossings).
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jewelhawg
United States
13
Sep 20th, 2004 12:56 PM
