The Observer view on the Thames garden bridge

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/observer-view-on-thames-garden-bridge

Version 0 of 1.

It requires much trust to think that the proposed Thames garden bridge will be an asset for Britain. You have to believe that within a confined area it can simultaneously be a haven of peace, useful transport infrastructure and an attraction with more visitors than Disneyland, that it will not push the overcrowding on London’s South Bank, already bad, beyond endurance and safety, and that the failure to provide lavatories will have no unfortunate consequences.

You have to hope that the new views created of St Paul’s will be better than those that will be lost and that the lush planting shown in the computer-generated images will survive the pounding of the crowds and the hostile river environment. You have to assume that this technically ambitious proposal will not be undermined by the glitches that have afflicted other projects by its designer, Thomas Heatherwick.

Faith in the bridge requires the discounting of drawbacks such as the felling of more than 30 mature trees and the occupation with retail of what is currently open space; that it will be forbidden to picnic or cycle there; that the bridge will be regularly closed for corporate events and for several hours every night. You have to ignore the considered opinions of a diverse range of objectors, some of whom might have been expected to support it: the RSPB, the Ramblers’ Association, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, residents, St Paul’s, the lawyers of the Middle Temple, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Green party, several engineers and other construction professionals who regard its structure as wasteful.

The Garden Bridge Trust and its backers have been evasive and misleading. First presented as something free to the public, it rapidly turned out to be costing £60m of taxpayers’ money, plus up to £3.5m a year in running costs. A judge stated that London mayor Boris Johnson’s excuses on the subject made sense “neither in terms of English, nor of what Mr Johnson intended”. Serious doubt has been cast on the tender process that chose Heatherwick over more obviously qualified designers. Publicly released images have been highly selective in what they do and do not show of the bridge’s impact.

These misrepresentations make valueless the trust’s claims of public support. At best, they can be explained as those of people charmed by a beautiful idea. Unfortunately, they mean that we can believe little that the bridge’s backers say to a degree that is unacceptable in a large public project. We can’t trust the trust.