Opinion

A garden should not excuse a new bridge from fulfilling expected functions.

Alistair Lenczner, Useful Simple Projects

London's proposed Garden Bridge is a controversial projects for many reasons. But the fundamental question remains: is it fit for purpose, says Alistair Lenczner?

The progress of the proposed Garden Bridge over the Thames in central London has come into some choppy waters recently.

As the bridge was told it was to face a judicial review on its planning consent process, the project’s value for money became the subject of debate between electioneering politicians. In this context the project promoters may do well to consider ideas for enhancing the project’s prospects of moving forward.

Whilst much of the debate on the bridge has been about views, costs and funding, there has been relatively little discussion as to whether the bridge will be fit-for-purpose as a modern piece of infrastructure for public use.

"Notwithstanding the need to convince on planning and funding, the Garden Bridge could still be rethought to make it more useful to more Londoners."

Combining a bridge with a garden is a novel idea worthy of exploration, however it only makes sense if the resulting project’s usefulness as a bridge is not unnecessarily compromised.

The Garden Bridge promoters recently published list of “facts” confirms that that the bridge will be entirely closed to the public on up to 12 days a year for fundraising and community events. From a public viewpoint the Garden Bridge should be open to the public 365 days a year as are the rest of capital’s Thames bridges.

There is also a suspicion that the number of closure days might increase if extra fundraising is needed.

Apart from being closed to public on several days a year, the bridge “facts” also confirm that, unlike any other London bridge, the Garden Bridge will be closed to the public between midnight and 6am. If the Millennium footbridge just downstream from the proposed Garden Bridge site can be open 24 hours a day, there seems to be no justification for allowing the Garden Bridge to close at night.

Just as London is implementing 24 hour operation of its Underground service, a new Thames bridge that closes for the night would be a backwards step for increasingly 24 hour London. If the bridge’s proposed night closure is to do with the incorporation of the garden on the bridge, or due to the particular way in which this is being done, it suggests that the tail is wagging the dog in terms what the project is. It this project really a private river garden platform pretending to be a public bridge?

"Just as London is implementing 24 hour operation of its Underground service, a new Thames bridge that closes for the night would be a backwards step for increasingly 24 hour London."

Another bridge “fact” is that cyclists will be asked to walk their bikes across it. Despite the claim that it will be useful for commuters to cross the river, the Garden Bridge will effectively ban London’s increasing number of cycle commuters who do not expect to be asked to walk across bridges any more than car commuters do.

A particular concern is that one of the alternative bridges the project suggests that cycle commuters should continue to use instead of the Garden Bridge is Blackfriars Bridge. This route involves negotiating a junction already considered by many cyclists as one of the most dangerous in London.

The absence of a cycle lane on the bridge, together with suitable cycle access ramps, appears to go against the grain of current TfL initiatives to promote cycling and to make cycling safer in the capital. TfL’s planned “Quietway” cycle routes in central London are intended to take cyclists away from busy main roads.

The Garden Bridge is a great opportunity to create a river crossing link between Temple and the South Bank for such a “Quietway” network.

Notwithstanding the need to convince on planning and funding, the Garden Bridge could still be rethought to make it more useful to more Londoners. Making the bridge available for public use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by cyclists and pedestrians alike would be a move likely to attract wider public support for the project.

Alistair Lenczner is director, Infrastructure + Planning + Design at Useful Simple Projects

Comments

" It this project really a private river garden platform pretending to be a public bridge?" Yes.
The proposed garden bridge (which is mostly pavement) would come witha massive build of offices and landing platform' with lifts on the south side on Queens walk...eating up the last piece of open space on the already overcrowded Southbank. To do this they are proposing to chop down 27 mature trees. The £175m 'garden' bridge would be only 200 meters away from Waterloo bridge!.... which is open 24hrs. It would also truncate and ruin iconic open space views up and down the river
Support the judicial review http://www.everyclick.com/tcos The TfL Business Case for the Bridge, which is supposed to make the transport, regeneration and financial case for a Garden Bridge, and justify any public funding and support (which was published in May 2014, a full 6 months after the Mayor and the Treasury had decided to sink £60m of public money into the project) is a travesty of post hoc rationalisation. TfL admit that over half of people using the bridge will not cross, but will do a U-turn; that at weekends and busy times there will be queues as 5,000 people per hour want to get onto a structure that only holds 2,500; that the pedestrian environment will become "increasingly uncomfortable", akin to a tube station platform in rush hour...