18 June 2015
Troubled Bridge Over Water
by J R Thomas
Ms Joanna Lumley is a National Icon. Beautiful, intelligent, a great wit, a fine actress, a harrier of governments over bad behaviours, hero first class of the Ghurkhas, a proper person, and, in short, a model to us all.
But we live in an age when even icons are liable to be rocked on their pedestals, and Ms Lumley may currently be bracing her footing. Her problem is, of all things, a bridge. Not just any old bridge, but a new bridge across the River Thames, a new way across the river that slides sinuously through London. You would expect Ms Lumley to associate her name with something stylish and hip and preferably green; and she has. Her big idea is a garden bridge, a leafy glade laid across the waters that flow down to the North Sea (and back – the Thames is tidal through central London).
The concept of a bridge was first raised by Ms Lumley in 1998 (one suspects in one of those meandering dinner party conversations where whilst waiting for the pudding people start to say “wouldn’t it be fun if…”). It became talked about, but for quite a while it was simply talk. At last, in 2013, the idea sprang, just as the bridge is intended to spring, into the public realm. Sketches were devised by Thomas Heatherwick (he of the astonishing cauldron at the opening ceremony of the London Olympics) showing a slim skein thrown over the river, lined in copper and surmounted by trees, shrubs and flowers. At one end this lissom construction is to launch from above Temple Underground station, thus connecting to the end of the Strand; the other end descends to earth in gardens east of the National Theatre. The sketches turned into detailed drawings. Transport for London, which oversees how London’s citizens and visitors move around the capital, commissioned Mr Heatherwick to work up a scheme, in conjunction with Arups, the distinguished engineers. Planting designs were provided by Dan Pearson.
Some thought was given to the cost; £60 million, it was thought, partly defrayed by building a new “commercial” building on a green mini-park that abuts the bridge landing point on the south embankment. A number of mature trees at each end will have to be felled to create room for the bridge. (To sweep away a pleasant little park and fell historic trees in return for a high maintenance garden on a bridge seems a little perverse, but no matter.) The rest of the cost would come from other private resources (unspecified).
The planning application was submitted, complete with views of St Pauls and the City framed by bosky vegetation. Regeneration of the areas round either end of the bridge-to-be was promised, the utility of a further Thames crossing praised. The media and many of the great and good praised the concept of greening and connecting London. The planning application was approved by Lambeth Council and Westminster City Council (the bridge connecting the two) to general acclaim and positive public noises, towards the close of 2014.
Then things started to go a little awry. Those of our readers who follow the construction of major public projects, especially those that tend to be pushing the boundaries of construction techniques and technology, will know what usually happens at this point – the cost goes up. And it did – from an estimate of £60m, all provided privately, to perhaps £175m, with £30m from the Mayor of London’s budget (his corporate one, not his personal pocket) and £30m from the Treasury. It is not entirely clear where the rest will come from – “private money” says the Garden Bridge Trust, though there is a suspicion this may mean National Lottery funds, the City of London’s Bridge Trust (an ancient pool of investments used to maintain the bridges which connect the City across the Thames), and some private sponsorship. Not from users though – the bridge will be free to cross.
Which brought up the question of who pays for the maintenance of the bridge and the gardens perched on it. Keeping gardens in good heart in urban environments is difficult enough in sheltered back streets, let alone on a windswept bridge. The City of Westminster wrote a requirement into its planning permission that Transport for London should guarantee in perpetuity at least £3.5m a year of any shortfall in maintenance costs. TfL emphasised that this was only payable if other sources of such income were not forthcoming and so could not be regarded as a burden on the public purse. What those other sources might be, given that access to the bridge is to be free (now another planning condition) has not been disclosed.
Further grumblings and mutterings have grown in volume – the bridge will in fact not be the slender wing-like structure of the drawings, but one hundred feet wide, with a strong structure for the weight of the gardens. The planting on top will be a big leafy obstruction to many of the much-loved classic river views of London. Critics pointed to the Blackfriars railway bridge on which was constructed a new railway station to allow longer trains to run via Thameslink across London. That bridge too was drawn as a barely visible glass sliver allowing the great views of the City from Waterloo Bridge to remain unhindered. But railway stations need to be robust, and Network Rail has lots of information it needs to impart to its staff and customers; glass needs to be thick to stand up to the winter winds which sweep up the Thames; and advertising hoardings along the platforms defray the costs of expensive buildings. That does not leave much transparency, let alone when trains are paused on the bridge. The Garden Bridge Trust counter that their bridge will open new views of London in return for those obstructed – an argument of which a number of property developers will doubtless make a careful note.
The Garden Bridge Trust announced that there will be a number of restrictions on use of the bridge. Groups of more than eight persons will not be allowed on the bridge. (How this will be policed or enforced is not known. Could thirty-two persons split into four groups to walk onto the bridge? What happens if on the bridge a group of five should become overly friendly with a group of six?) Bicycles will not be permitted on the bridge, no access will be allowed between midnight and 6am (no romantic canoodling admiring the late night skyline then). The bridge will be closed twelve days a year for private functions.
The chorus of doubt and complaint is now becoming greater and more organised. A judicial review is underway into the way Lambeth Council gave planning consent, focusing on its alleged failure to consider protected views from the Embankment. The London Assembly is becoming very restive about the cost; various former supporters have withdrawn. And a bigger threat looms; Thames Water, the private utility company which supplies London with water and takes away its sewage, will soon start building a new main sewer along and in the Thames; if the bridge cannot be finished by 2018 – only three years away – Thames Water will ask the government that the bridge construction be delayed until after the sewer is finished.
And does London need another bridge in the centre of town anyway? There are nine bridges in the two or so miles between Westminster Bridge already, and the Garden Bridge runs close to and parallel to Waterloo Bridge. The opponents and even some supporters of the Garden Bridge are now suggesting that the bridge be built somewhere more useful. East of Tower Bridge perhaps, or west of Battersea, two areas which actually need more crossing capacity.
But they are rather missing the point of what is going on at the Garden Bridge. It is not an attempt to increase capacity across the river. There is no possible case for that where it is proposed to be built. It is simply a tourist attraction, yet another central London draw for the crowds, something else unique and original and maybe even beautiful that can be promoted to bring the restless hordes to London. But you might well argue, as you fight your way along the south Embankment, that central London does not need that either. Which raises the question again: what is the point of it?
