I think it must be a couple of weeks since a hot little debate started up on my personal Facebook page. I had posted the previous blog about The Garden Bridge, and whilst a few friends were “for” there were also a few friends that were adamantly “against”.
Below is an altered version of the conversation, to separate out the most valid points. I enjoyed reading the comments to balance out my own child-like enthusiasm for the project. I think the figures mentioned surrounding public money resounded most for me.
“UK horticulture needs to stop relying on its heritage. London is the perfect place for this creative vision. Hope the Garden Bridge will become a reality very soon. Gardening is always about change and using plants in this way is an innovative approach to interactive architecture.”
“The recent withdrawal of support by wildlife experts the RSPB speak volumes. How has this got through planning and got public money without all the requirements that are usually involved? I hope the project will be reviewed for how a project that is getting £60m of the public purse wasn’t open to other tenders as required by law. Just because celebrities are involved shouldn’t mean they are above the law. As for it being innovative all I can say is poppycock, there’s a garden bridge in Mile End that’s been there for at least 10 years and students regularly produce ideas like this. Please stop claiming its innovative and that London needs a new tourist attraction.”
“I’d really really love to be behind this, as the idea itself is of course fantastic…..and of course, most of our world wants horticulture to be innovative…but you can’t separate it from the other issues. Public money is going to this and the location is one of the most iconic in the country, which requires consulation by all appropriate statutory bodies and the public. As well as a process of tendering – ensuring a transparent process that ensures public money is spent well and that public gains (open access) are achieved. We have to remember that most of the public aren’t concerned whether horticulture is innovative.. However excited a project’s supporters are about it, we should all want that process to be gone through. It is what protects our money and ensures we get the benefits from it.”
ME: “Thanks for your responses. I’m not quite sure futuristic is the right word, but I get your point. Forward-thinking is maybe a better way of putting it. I would say I like the conceptual art and design of the bridge, and that would be the innovative part of this entire project. I’m not sure the tourist office would agree with you about not needing another attraction. The fact that the plans are strongly opposed by a number of people, can only be a positive factor in highlighting the requirements for proper consultation. The panel in the video seemed somewhat reserved about the project, and I don’t know exactly how far along things are, or how far they will get. We shall see.”
“I was pro at first and I am pleased to see some innovation in the UK at last to rival the High Line and Gardens by the Bay. These projects show that if you invest in horticulture projects, the benefits reach far beyond the project itself. However, now there seems to be restrictions on access, possible entry charges etc. I’m not so sure the original high ideals and benefits for everyone are actually going to be realised. That saddens me.”
“No entry charge is a condition of the planning consent so that can’t happen.”
“Creating a garden bridge where people living and working in offices might be inspired to engage with gardens has the potential to create more interest in the future of our planet. Either way horticulture has a huge role to play in the future of our society whereas at the moment engagement with this activity is often very elitist. The fact that it is suggested that most of the public aren’t concerned whether horticulture is innovative is exactly why we need this iconic garden to hopefully engage more Londoners with green matters. Agree private funding is best route and feel sure there are plenty of banks and finance insititutions in the city that have more than enough money to make this a reality. The organisers should present the project as a unique opportunity for Corporate Social Responsibilty to secure substantial private funds so everyone can stop worrying about use of public money. The funding is certainly key and understand concerns here but as individuals passionate about horticulture I think we should view it as an opportunity to raise the profile of gardens and plants in London’s concrete jungle.”
“I was initially keen but now I wonder who the project is actually for. The High Lines success is partly due to it repurposing an existing structure whilst this is building something new which will of course have a whole range of impacts on the existing environment and the people that use it. Does London actually need another tourist attraction which is what this really is? The funds would be better spent on green initiatives elsewhere in the capital or its surroundings that would benefit more people from across society rather than the few. I understand that some feel we need to be ambitious to promote our horticulture and the Singapore Gardens in the Bay are often sited in this context but I think this is something of a red herring. Singapore wanted to regenerate an area which was essentially reclaimed and not that great, this isnt the case in London. There are surely ways of showing off our horticulture and engaging more people in it aside from building another bridge over a river which already has many crossings. I should add that there are other initiatives similar, so it isn’t that innovative. There are plans for something along these lines near me but, as with the High Line, using an existing structure.”
“It is wrong to assume that people in offices are somehow not engaged with landscape and plants. Indeed people who live in places with no outdoor space of their own are often the first to seek it out. I feel the money could be spent better on grass roots horticulture that inspires people and supports thousands of projects across the UK. Projects like Streetscape and the many campaigns that Thrive are involved with will not in any way benefit from a £175m/£3.5m a year corridor of planting less than half the size of a football pitch.”
“Just a few comments from someone who works in horticulture, has worked on high end projects such as this and is now firmly entrenched in community work. If this was to be London’s High Line, a repurposed space being brought back into use, then it would be a wonderful project. If it was engaging with communities and improving lives, giving people the opportunity to be involved in such a project equally it would be amazing. But it isn’t either of these things. There appears to have been little or no public consultancy, which in itself is appalling knowing what most tiny projects have to go through to prove the project is wanted in the area. And yet still there is £60million of public money, in times of crisis and austerity, put aside for this. If it is going to be timed ticket only, closed to cyclists, of no use to London’s biodiversity needs or wildlife, closed in the evenings and one day per month for private events, and only open to groups of over 8 by previous booking, or indeed at all, I question how this is inclusive? How is it going to change the lives for the better of people living in the area? What will be its social outcomes?These are questions that working in the community, have to be in the forefront of your thinking. I wonder why private companies working within the public sphere don’t feel they have to ensure the same outcomes?”
“I think what finally made me really baulk was the stat that each London borough could have 53 community projects funded at £100,000 per project with this money. Our community projects made 12 gardens on a budget of about £3000 this year, imagine what a difference £100,000 would make. If this can’t make that change, then the money should be repurposed. But actually it also brings to light the way public money is given out, and that I think now needs scrutiny and a new policy drafted.”
ME: “Thank you for your comments, I think your questions highlight the need for transparency in the entire planning and consultation process. I don’t think many projects in such a high profile area would engage communities or even individuals. Money rules in central London, and as far as authorities see it, this is a project for tourists rather than Londoners. Every time I visit London, I feel like a tourist, which is probably the reason for my support of the project..”
“Private companies are often more motivated by commercial issues like brand awareness and maximising awareness of their corporate identity, as well as being seen to support a high profile project in one of the world’s leading cities that offers huge potential for pubilicity. Corporate objectives often very different from public sector ticking of boxes. Just wondering why cyclists have become so crucial to every project in London. There are plenty of other bridges for them to use and the garden bridge in my view should encourage visitors to ponder and enjoy the surroundings. Cyclists in London are normally riding from a to b in a hurry so let them use other bridges. I am fed up with being nearly run over at pedestrian lights but cyclists who seem to think red lights do not affect them. Social outcomes of any garden bridge are important but I am more interested in the environmental and green impact so keen to know what evidence there is to suggest it will be of no use to Londons biodiversity or wildlife. That is the crucial issue for me. Delighted this could thankfully be a cycle free environment so we dont have to worry about speeding maniacs on 2 wheels.”
ME: “I know the RSPB don’t approve, but I really can’t see the bridge as being of benefit to wildlife anyway, judging from the occasional pockets of shrubs along the South Bank. Pigeons and maybe the odd cormorant? I’m pretty sure any bees or insects would just get blown away! I’m not sure how many cyclists use the footbridge, but not sure they would need to be banned altogether.”
“It has been stated that cyclists won’t be allowed onto the bridge in one of the pieces in the national press. If this is a tourist attraction, rather than something for real Londoners, and is being run by corporate organisations who will be looking at making money out of it in some form or another, it is completely inappropriate for public funding. I also think if it is going to continue to be called a bridge, it needs to be one, and that is something accessible that allows a crossing to take place, a transit to happen.”
ME: “I’m not sure whether the national press can be trusted on everything they say, but as mentioned there can be no entrance fee. The way the bridge is to be laid out would imply ease of passage for cyclists if they wanted to cross, though the number of people stopping and using the space may mean that it simply isn’t practical for cyclists to pass anyway. In my last post, I meant the footbridge to Charing Cross doesn’t seem to be a heavily used cycle path. I’m off to look up how many London boroughs there are!”
“There are 32 London boroughs and the city-so effectively 33 areas/boroughs in all!! I think what’s important to consider is social outcomes. Coming into a city and creating another tourist attraction with minimum at best public consultation, is not a good way to make friends, or influence people. And if social outcomes haven’t been considered, then they should be brought into the conversation now. It’s all very well pleasing tourists but another attraction that isn’t inclusive just plays into the hands of all those shouting against this and every other project like it. Moving into the future we need horticulture to be innovative, urban greening to be the change that is needed in all our urban spaces and landscape architecture to begin in the cities to begin to make real change in the way we use our outdoor spaces. We need cutting edge projects, skilled designers/architects and horticulturalists to begin to make the change that will see urban spaces greened and made more useful in a myriad of ways. But innovation needs to come from new ideas, not partially recycled ones, and the projects that will work are those that change the way citizens use the urban space. It needs to be about changing people’s everyday lives for the better, rather than pleading tourists.”
“Why can’t we have both? Agree we need community projects that change how we use outdoor space and involve citizens but London also has a reputation for large iconic structures that create international interest and encourage international visitors due to the city having a global reputation as a creative hub. We should use public money to change local people’s lives for the better through horticultural innovation but also encourage large privately funded iconic structures that green our capital and attract tourists that in turn create jobs for local people. Hopefully with careful planning and public consultation London can accomodate both of these horticultural futures.”
“The two should be the same. We shouldn’t be changing people’s lives unless we have consulted with them on how they want that doing, if at all. We can have corporate projects that are iconic and support local people. We just need a minor step change in the way we think about this, and if it could come from horticulture we could all stand up and say look at the change we’ve made!!”
“I have swayed back and forth in regards to my support for the bridge. My initial thoughts were very sceptical as I thought it was purely a branding project, whether that be an individual or company. The actual concept of the bridge is very appealing to me and a ‘project’ I would like to see become reality in some form. However, my eyes are now more open to the public funding aspect. Do we know how much public funding has been given to other similar projects? I’m going to call this a vanity project and I do not see anything wrong with that, lets try not to pretend it’s anything else. Should such a project have public funding and the processes involved with the bridge, that’s a very different question all together.”
Mutterings in the Shrubbery 