London SE1 community website

London Promenade project

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5
Tuesday 29 January 2008 1.54am
The theory sounds good but I have big reservations. I absolutely adore the river but I fear we might just end up with one big tourist trap like the horrors around the Eye. I am definitely not in favour of losing any of the foreshore - the bit in front of Tate Modern remains a delight where one can still find remains of the 'real' London - bits of clay pipes, tarred rope lengths, pottery from further upstream where the great factories were, and a myriad of other bits and pieces from the days of the Thames being a truly 'working' river. As for ironing out the twists and turns - why oh why does everything have to be sanitised into straight lines? I know it is nothing to do with this plan but I would much rather see efforts made to introduce a proper London Transport commuter boat service rather than what is currently on offer - existing boats made be good but the service is sporadic and it is expensive so only for the elite and those who work regular hours. If the Mersey has its ferries why can't London have a proper boat service running between Chelsea and Greenwich from 6am until midnight? Bring back real honest to God working life to the river rather than a sanitised bends ironed out version PLEASE.
Tuesday 29 January 2008 7.05am
Agree there. Our river has been underused for years.
Tuesday 29 January 2008 12.12pm
It would be nothing short of criminal to put a walkway in front of the Clink Street warehouses. One of the beauties of the river walk is that it does alter as you go along and takes you through a city that had no masterplan, as parts of Paris did.

The Blackfriars Bridge pinchpoint will be dealt with by the railway plans, (incidentally why does the river walk have to be closed to execute them? Why not build the river walk exetnsion first? )

It would also help if the signposting was better to direct people back to the river on the East side after London bridge, it would also take more people past a beautiful Art Deco building.

A cantilever platform under London Bridge might work, but i am not clear where it would start on the west side as I would want to ensure visitors encounter Southwark Cathedral and Borough market ie they stay inland for that bit.
Thursday 22 July 2010 3.20pm
I'm bumping this thread because there's some news about it:

And, to get the discussion going...

I think any widened or new path should be pedestrian only and cycles should remain on the newly clearer inland tracks. What do you think?
Thursday 22 July 2010 4.39pm
We must make London more pedestrian friendly, yet in the meantime Mayor Boris Johnson - whilst supporting the year of walking - has plans to remove 9 sets of traffic lights in Southwark, five of which are pedestrian lights. I sincerely hope we can persuade him to see the world from the perspective of the pedestrian and not just the road user !
Thursday 22 July 2010 6.32pm
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous, VS.

Perhaps you can give us some examples of these traffic lights that are to be removed that will greatly inconvenience the average Londoner - whom you will recall probably (certainly South of the River) spends a considerable amount of time sitting on a bus that would otherwise be waiting at the traffic lights.

We need to make London more user friendly. Which is a combination of making it more friendly for everybody - white van men, buses, taxis and pedestrians.
Thursday 22 July 2010 8.06pm
Just a bit of devils advocacy (perhaps) - this proposed pedestrian (and without doubt, cycle) motorway looks potentially like just another component in the Disneyfication of London. It strips away any possibility of quiet serendipitous meandering that is central to the enjoyment of a fulfilling walk. Look at what's happened to Potters Field, Shad Thames, the area around the grotesque "Eye" etc. etc. More like Oxford Street every year.

Under the guise of beautification this ugly idea looks like it's real aim is to suck in the maximum possible number of tourists with the kind of lowest common denominator business and buskers they love. Selling off the family silver for the benefit of businesses peddling junk. Not the kind of city I want.
Thursday 22 July 2010 8.45pm
It really isn't that much of an inconvenience to walk down Clink Street. The street has great charm. The occasional diversion of the wonderful south bank river walk away from the river is no bad thing. This proposal to push people along the river is contrary to what ought to happen. The problem of Southwark's Bankside area is the over-concentration of people on the river front. We should be doing all we can to get people to enjoy the streets further away from the river. This proposal would be an utter waste of money. Much better to spend the resources on improving what we have.
Thursday 22 July 2010 9.29pm
What a great idea,its an inconvience to Clink street studios and our deliveries.In the 15 years that I have had a studio here it has become increasingly difficult to recieve goods in,due to the increase in footfall and excessive parking resctrictions,when I first came here Clink Street was a through road.Of course it will never come to pass,the weight of objections from people who own one of those properties affected will be huge of which I'm sure that the previous poster is one.And I can't blame them why would you want the public spoiling your view of the thames.
Thursday 22 July 2010 10.48pm
Nigel, I remember your area very well and others too when they attracted an appropriate level of usage and I do empathise. What has happened to you has already happened to others and would only get worse if this preposterous idea goes ahead in any form. Look at the presentation back in this thread, from "30m to 60m" people pa it screams. What kind of moronic boast is that? The current river of tourists needs to be dispersed not concentrated and added to.

Imagine a continuous ribbon of Starbucks , All Bar One , Pizza Express and Pret a Manger punctuated by the occasional embarrassing old tat like the London Experience. With the Eye at one end of this theme park and David Blaine the full stop, or should that be an exclamation mark, at the other.

We need to spread tourists around not funnel them through a theme park shute to satisfy the gluttony of those unaffected. This isn't improvement, it's carnage akin to the bulldozing of the 1970's.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 2 of 5

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