London SE1 community website

Garden Bridge

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 17 of 52
Wednesday 27 May 2015 10.57am
nobody knows how many EXTRA visitors the bridge will bring to the area. the no campaign likes to paint the illusion that everyone using the bridge will be an extra pair of feet in the area. I would imagine you would have to be a very keen gardener to make a dedicated trip just to see it if you weren't intent on seeing the other attractions - but who knows. I imagine there will be the usual spike of Londoners visiting when the bridge initially opens as happened when the millennium (aka the wobbly) bridge opened. the bridge may actually decongest the area with people using the north bank more - and temple tube as an arrival point taking pressure off waterloo station etc. judging by how well the pollsters picked the result of the general election with massive polling I would take all estimates re numbers with a grain of salt.
Wednesday 27 May 2015 8.31pm
A bridge is a bridge is a bridge.

Only problem, is that this time it isn't: the proposal is for a visitor attraction located over the river and with entrances at both ends.

This attraction, nice as it may be, will not be cheap for visitors and will even limit the number of people from each group.

A pedestrian bridge, such as the Millennium Bridge, is beautiful and free: a great way for Londoners and visitors to get across the river.

Why can't this Garden Bridge operate in the same way?

Sure: it costs money to look after plants, but I'm sure no one here expects to pay and admission fee in order to enter Hyde Park yet it too requires quite a lot of maintenance...
Wednesday 27 May 2015 9.26pm
SimonSE1, it is a tourist attraction and will attract thousands of people a day and that is its intention; it wouldn't get built otherwise. Serious gardeners won't visit it because they go to Kew or Wisley. It will not be a gardeners paradise, in fact it will probably make most gardeners weep; not initially when it is newly planted, but eventually when the wind and careless pedestrians have trampled on the plants. The bridge looks exciting and I would love to see it somewhere, but it needs to be on a less windy site and it needs to be in a less congested part of the river (any river); the area on the Southbank near the OXO tower is a very narrow part of the Thames Walkway and will be a nightmare to get past during busy hours.
Wednesday 27 May 2015 11.22pm
I agree with Karen, it is the dynamics of the South Bank that need to be considered.When I came here in the 90's the South bank was a desert. Tourists came half-way across Westminster Bridge, took a photo of Big Ben , went back on the north bank and caught the no 11 bus to St Pauls.

Then, from each end we got the Belfast, the Millennium bridge, the Globe the Eye and a host of other attractions so that now, on a summer weekend, you can hardly move through the wide spaces let alone the narrow parts.

I am not complaining, it is great to see such a vibrant part of the City, but we need another "attraction" like a hole in the head. And just because a dotty airhead has a wet dream one day.

Where was Lambeth Council in all this? I really don't get it.
Thursday 28 May 2015 12.33pm
Went along to the Penny Lecture at Morley College last night and heard all about guerilla gardening, and in particular the idea of a nature super highway alongside the proposed cycle routes through London. What a smashing idea.
Asked Richard Reynolds, a passionate gardener, for his thoughts on the Garden Bridge and he had a good old rant about what a rotten idea it was. Thought so.
Here is a link
This is about real gardening, not a money wasting vanity project.
http://www.guerrillagardening.org/
Thursday 28 May 2015 4.43pm
I agree that SE1 needs more green spaces, but there are better locations than another bridge on the Thames.
For example why don't they build a park where the current E&C shopping centre is (which is planned for demolition anyway)? It could be connected with the next door St.Mary's churchyard and with the roundabout, making it a decent size.
Tuesday 2 June 2015 10.29am
Even more people can see the Garden Bridge for what it it. A vanity project, a folly. involving land grabbing, sponsorship from Glencore who only gave 10m on condition that GB is bulit in a prestigious place and use their copper to cover it.. Lambeth selling off land, destroying the green space on Queens Walk, and destroying 30 + mature trees. This garden bridge is looking like a 'who knows who project. With half a football pitch worth of wind blown plants to Green wash the whole thing.

Great to see so many people taking action to stop this Green washed commercial and private venture.
Tuesday 2 June 2015 11.06am
SimonSe1 wrote:
nobody knows how many EXTRA visitors the bridge will bring to the area.

Even if it were to bring no additional visitors (a ridiculous assumption, but let's use it), it would cause congestion:
1) during the building stage, when construction will block off part of the existing space;
2) once constructed, as the "landing area" on both sides of the bridge will restrict pedestrian flow.

SimonSe1 wrote:
the bridge may actually decongest the area with people using the north bank more - and temple tube as an arrival point taking pressure off waterloo station etc.

Given that the proposed site of this bridge is mid-way between to existing bridges which are already VERY close together, there's not really very much stopping people using Temple to visit the South Bank.

In any case, to go to Temple, you have to pass through either Blackfriars or Embankment - both of which are very handy for bridges that allow you to access the South Bank.

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 2 June 2015 10.44pm
I don't understand all the antagonism towards this project.

If there's one thing I've learnt in life it's that if you want to do something new, different or creative, there's always someone trying to stop you.

Luckily the project has some powerful backers so it's obviously going to go ahead, come what may.
Tuesday 2 June 2015 11.16pm
Floodplain wrote:
I don't understand all the antagonism towards this project.
If there's one thing I've learnt in life it's that if you want to do something new, different or creative, there's always someone trying to stop you.

Luckily the project has some powerful backers so it's obviously going to go ahead, come what may.

No antagonism here towards the project itself.

What doesn't sit right with me is that this will not be a bridge people may use to cross from one side of the Thames to the other, but a fee charging tourist attraction.

If crossing were to be free for all (both garden lovers as well as people simply wanting to get to the other side of the river), and subject to no restrictions (including having to pay an admission fee), then I would endorse it 100%.

Surely we can have the best of both worlds: a wonderful bridge in our capital that sports some amazing gardens and a functional river pedestrian crossing such as the Millennium Bridge.

I foresee people having to pay a lot of money just to walk around a garden, while those who simply want to get across having to walk away...
Current: 17 of 52

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions