It looks lovely as a concept, and I believe that the Victorians would have approved, but today, we only build things to make money. That is all we do. We chase the buck, we don't build beautiful things. Unless they turn a profit. Even then, we'd prefer to build something else for more profit. So, no. Unless it make money, of course!
Some new bridges across the Thames are much needed, but they are needed above all to carry traffic. A better idea would be a bridge like the ancient London Bridge, with buildings all across it. There could be shops, offices, flats, etc and they would finance the construction. The Rialto in Venice and the Ponte Vecchio in Florence are excellent exemplars. I would like to see an architectural competition for a bridge with buildings, not trees.
What's that got to do with the price of fish? I'm sorry but like I said not everything revolves around London despite what you may think. Plus there are far more pressing projects to help people that money could be spent on other than a bridge with trees and bushes on.
Sorry if I touched a raw nerve, what amused me (which you just confirmed) is that you would think I had a biased opinion either way just because I set it up - got a toothache maybe?
No but I have had man flu all friggin' week, my head is banging and feeling like cotton wool at the same time, my throat is sore and I'm sounding like Barry White, and I've been awake since 1.15am with a full day ahead of me that means I won't be home before midnight. But thanks for the apology
so I was close then, sorry to hear you're ill but apologise after you 'modded' my poll options without asking me?
If you have the power then use it - if only you hadn't made such a poor attempt in the first place...
Maybe so, but still slightly better than just sitting back and taking pot shots at everyone though no?
