#21

Boris
Heatherwick

#22

I donā€™t think Iā€™ve ever seen a scheme that so united the architectural community - outside of those who worked on it (and not many of those were proper architects), I think opposition was near unanimous.

#23

Not really followed this until last couple of months.
Why does everyone (citation needed) in London think itā€™s such a shit idea?

#24

yeah, heā€™s not an architect actually. made the scale model that they show to investors etc.

#25

cos it would be costly, unnecessary but most of all private - not public

I mean, Iā€™m not in London but thatā€™s what I read 3 years ago when they first started with the project

#26

Heā€™s quite lucky that cable cars have low running costs, else that oneā€™d have been scrapped to, leaving him with a legacy ofā€¦ wellā€¦ not a lot at all.

#27

Yeah. Iā€™m not really a Sadiq Khan fan or anything but heā€™s definitely, or at least good at appearing to be, Getting Stuff Done. Genuinely seems heā€™s actually Done More Things in one year than Johnson did in 8.

#28

Thatā€™ll close by 2022 at the latest, when the Emirates sponsorship deal runs out.

3 Likes
#29

much like Arsenal football club.

6 Likes
#30

Even thatā€™s not the main problem with it (although itā€™s a big one). It was trying to solve a problem that doesnā€™t exist by building a bridge that by the trustā€™s own estimates would be SLOWER to use than walking to an adjacent bridge and using that instead.

#31

Wasnā€™t the whole point of it that it it was to be mainly booked out to corporates for functions and whatever?

#32
  • it was a private bridge, with restricted hours of opening to allow for corporate events.
  • it would ban bikes and cycles
  • it would obscure some of the most famous views in London
  • it would be located in a position that already has numerous bridges across the thames
  • it would be located in a position that already has issues with overcrowding from tourists
  • it would require that green space and trees held by a community land trust be removed and built upon
  • it would require large amounts of public money in its construction for what is a private enterprise employing few people.
  • That money was coming out of the transport budget when it clearly isnā€™t a transport scheme.
  • Boris also committed TfL to covering any shortfall in running costs (which, given its terrible business plan, it was almost certain to incur).
  • the operators of the bridge were going to track peopleā€™s phone signals as they crossed.
  • It wasnā€™t even that ā€˜greenā€™ with few plants and a huge carbon footprint
  • It was going to be nothing like the images and models presented to the press and investors.
  • the whole procurement process was rotten, especially the involvement of Heatherwickā€™s firm

When I think of more, Iā€™ll add themā€¦

12 Likes
#33

ā€¦

3 Likes
#34

It was one of they ways they claimed they were going to pay for it, yeah. They claimed it was only going to be something like 12 evenings a year, but chances are that would have just been the thin end of the wedge to make the principle acceptable before actually closing it 5 days a week all summer or something.

#35

Unicycles, obvs

#36

what was so rotten about Heatherwickā€™s involvement?

#37

Oops. That was meant to say bikes and cyclists and then with a bit more after that: (i.e. not only would you not cycle over it, but you wouldnā€™t be able to wheel your bike over it either).

#38

those poor gurkhas

1 Like
#39

And all of December no doubt.

I genuinely donā€™t think Iā€™ve heard of a more crushingly pointless infrastructure idea. Literally the only, ONLY, plus point of it was that ā€œit might look prettyā€ and I wasnā€™t even sold on that.

1 Like
#40

It was shit mate

(I can see all my previous points have been covered)