A new wonder of the world to be built in London

nickj_2

it's a bridge with some trees on it , like a glorified window box , but bridge based

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

I believe you have misunderstood the nature of a railway line. It works both ways. It will equally well provide a swift exit from the North.:)

That is a very valid point, and one which I don't believe the planners have included in their calculations.

TruckerT

mayonnaise

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I don't understand the point of it, frankly. Waterloo and Blackfriars bridges seem perfect adequate bridges to me, even though there's not a single plant on either of them I have successfully used both to achieve my objective of getting from one side of the river to the other.

We could also have built Heathrow Terminal 5 to look like an Asda depot, it would have been able to handle flights also.

Jeez...what's wrong with a bit of vision? With the idea to create something visually and emotionally pleasing as well as being functional?

grizzly1911

mayonnaise wrote: »

We could also have built Heathrow Terminal 5 to look like an Asda depot, it would have been able to handle flights also.

Jeez...what's wrong with a bit of vision? With the idea to create something visually and emotionally pleasing as well as being functional?

Is another bridge needed?

Who is paying for it?

I believe a bridge should be safe and functional if it is being built from the public purse. If it can be made more attractive within budget fine but titivation?

What will the new vision cost to maintain? Perhaps the features will provide relief for those needing to relieve themselves mid way?

mayonnaise

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Is another bridge needed?

Who is paying for it?

I believe a bridge should be safe and functional if it is being built from the public purse. If it can be made more attractive within budget fine but titivation?

What will the new vision cost to maintain? Perhaps the features will provide relief for those needing to relieve themselves mid way?

Is it needed? I suppose some kind of analysis was done prior to commisioning for design?
As for the price, yes of course it will cost more than a slab of concrete on two pillars.
That's the point. Do we go for mediocrity and just functionality or do we create another amazing landmark for London?

chewmylegoff

mayonnaise wrote: »

We could also have built Heathrow Terminal 5 to look like an Asda depot, it would have been able to handle flights also.

Jeez...what's wrong with a bit of vision? With the idea to create something visually and emotionally pleasing as well as being functional?

The difference is that terminal 5 was highly necessary whereas this bridge appears to serve no purpose other than to be decorative as it takes less than 10 minutes to walk between the two existing bridges which it is going to bisect. £150m for a vanity project which makes it 5 mins quicker to get from the district and circle lines to the globe theatre isn't my idea of value for money when there are so many other things it could be spent on that would improve transport in London.

If there was a pressing economic need for another foot crossing over the Thames in that location then by all means tart it up a bit rather than slapping a steel girder across the river. But there isn't.

kabayiri

Let's get this right.

It's a bridge with plants.

It's no eighth wonder of the world (or whatever number we are up to now). It's just a bridge. The Romans did some nice bridges a couple of millenia ago. I expect one or two of them will be overgrown with plants now too.

Now, a footbridge in Salford - graffiti free and in working order and looking pristine - now *that* would be a 'wonder'

A footbridge in London with Triffids, where you bet on the chances of people making it to the other side, now that definitely would be something worth seeing

grizzly1911

mayonnaise wrote: »

Is it needed? I suppose some kind of analysis was done prior to commisioning for design?
As for the price, yes of course it will cost more than a slab of concrete on two pillars.
That's the point. Do we go for mediocrity and just functionality or do we create another amazing landmark for London?

Why, pray, does London need another amazing landmark at a time of austerity?

GlynD

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why, pray, does London need another amazing landmark at a time of austerity?

There's usually a practical reason behind the commission. The cooncil must think there's enough footfall.

kabayiri

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why, pray, does London need another amazing landmark at a time of austerity?

I suppose Rich Arabs; the new Chinese nouveau-riche; Russian ex-mob-types; football club owners. All these want the place where their new penthouse flat is located to look nice.

(Not that they go there much, and if they did they wouldn't dream of walking anywhere, especially not on a bridge where you could be ambushed from villians hidden in the bushes)