Done but methinks you definitely need to toughen up. The "expansion" merely clarified the position. Edited to appease those hard of thinking.
I think it's a great idea. I remember the London Skyline when The BT tower was the only tall building. Now we have a wonderful skyline to match the best cities. I was up the shard last week,great views from a very impressive structure over a very impressive skyline. London pays for the rest of the country,so let's have it,bring in more tourists,we should have a toll on it for anyone who is not a Londoner,lol.
I think they should build a race track shaped bridge over the Thames just for motorbikes Preferably somewhere near Hammersmith please.
Thanks ET, that's wonderful Ah, man, I'm welling up here. Gawrsh! Thanks, ah, what was your name again?
I am all in favour of trees and plants and gardens. A garden bridge would be brilliant and would be yet another tourist attraction. To be really good though, it would need decently sized trees and shrubs - not just some bloody thuyas. I'm not sure of the practicalities of housing the root systems of large trees on a bridge, but doubtless someone like Mervyn will know. I can see that a bridge with buildings on it could also be cool but this raises some issues. For a start, you wouldn't want just some nameless offices on it. But if there were houses, the rents or sales prices would be astronomical - another banker, Russian oligarch or middle-Eastern oil magnate paradise. If it had a road going over it, it would quickly just be like any other London artery - noisy and polluted. Does London need more shops? I bet you'd end up with a MacDonalds and other chains. Maybe just have restaurants (real ones) and cafés in a garden setting and make it pedestrian and/or bicycles only. Now that could really work. I do question the proposed cost, though. It's an awful lot of cash for a purely aesthetic piece of infrastructure.
Obviously now declaring my thoughts on this topic - I can't believe subject to winning court case that they are seriously planning to go ahead with this.
Just playing devil's adjutant here but ... if someone suggested setting up a new institution in this country and called it, "The Royal Family", do you think anyone would go for it? Hardly likely. A pretty footbridge with a negative carbon footprint sounds like a nice decorative feature for London (a lot nicer than that German family, anyway).
The Tories are placing a 20% duty on chip fat ... so yes, the Scottish are paying for it. With the spare cash from this new tax, they will also be purchasing Australia.
My reasons for an overall no to the above are conflicting and quite similar to the reason that I've never owned a dog i.e. something I am really in favour of and know would be enjoyable but after looking at the reality of the situation realise that the commitment is too high. The structure could be fine for many years but could easily become unsafe in the future due to two things :- The inability to adequately access and inspect the structure due to excessive foliage plus an inability to know how much weight the structure is supporting at any time and how much damp and corrosion is getting into it as a result of the excessive moisture that will almost certainly be present. Even if somebody could adequately answer these two there is still the unknown quantity of escalating costs to maintain plus how the hell do you police it at night? Feeling sorry for the park warden/nightwatchman already.
so not only will they want me to pay for it, but they will expect me to contribute to it's maintenance? excellent.
