People have been on to me about the garden bridge for months now. There’s a particularly vociferous group of “affordably housed” tenants in the immediate vicinity of the proposed London crossing who are understandably aggrieved about the amount of public money being spent on what is, pretty obviously, a tourist attraction rather than a social amenity, whatever a new promotional trailer – “for every one, for every day” – suggests.
I share their concern: the garden bridge is a projet at once grand and fluffy – and so appeals to our political class, with their delight in style over substance. The rumblings that Thomas Heatherwick was settled on as the bridge’s designer in advance of a proper tendering process may have little substance, but they’re of a piece with the entire scheme, which is reminiscent of the Olympics in which he played such a prominent part. (And where’s the legacy of that little log-rolling exercise, Tommy, baby?)
In a London increasingly characterised by the erosion of genuinely public space and its replacement by pseudo-public spaces controlled by private corporations (with the assistance of the police, now that Public Space Protection Orders are being introduced), the bridge is the flagship for a new corporatist capital. Capital being the operative word.
I’m usually fairly sanguine about London’s ability to transgress all limitations placed on its development, whether they be by the state or other parties. When it comes to the city I love, and have lived in all my life, I tend to think: anarchy will out.
But in recent years there has been a growing sense that the centre of London is becoming freeze-dried into a simulacrum of its former self. That it’s no longer a living, breathing city, supporting a wide and heterogeneous group of individuals, with different social, economic and ethnic identities, all doing different things, but rather a sort of entrepôt for capital either amassed by indigenous rentiers, or lodged here by the kleptocrats of other countries.
Some of these people deign to actually live here, in which case they’ll probably be spending their leisure time trolling back and forth on the bridge. But many others simply lodge their money here while off living the high life elsewhere. Meanwhile, nobody without a mean income of £40k per annum can afford to live in zones 1 or 2, so, on balance, nothing much in the garden is that lovely, whether it’s on a bridge or not. Is there a solution to this problem?
Absolutely: a garden bridge that’s accessible and free to all would be a lovely thing. And the two frontrunning candidates for mayor have the right sort of form to make this happen: Sadiq Khan, for reasons of social and economic equality, and Zac Goldsmith (who has spoken out about an “urban right to roam”) for environmental ones.
Come on, boys – pull your fingers out, before it’s too late!
.jpg?w=600)
