Garden bridge to be built in London

Well, she can pay for it then! Sounds wonderful but makes no sense in our economic climate.

Anyone with Hayfever won't be going over it!

wot she can also care for it because that will not be cheap!

Well - it makes more sense than some of the London landmark projects. It is likely to be a pleasant environment for Londoners and to attract visitors.

I'm with Luckygirl here. If we vetoed all non-essential spending we would be living in a gloomy environment indeed. Realistically £14m would be a drop in the ocean of the NHS cash crisis anyway.

It would not be a drop in the ocean for those of us who live in 'the sticks' but hey ho London wants a new footbridge so London will have to have one.

I think it's a terrible waste of money and more so because it is not needed at the location proposed - right near several other bridges. The yearly maintenance has been estimated to be at least £1 million, and some people believe that it will obstruct the view down the river towards St Paul's.

London is one of the greenest cities in the world - with large parks like Hyde Park, Green Park, Regent's Park, St James's Park, etc. There are more than enough things for tourists to see and do in central London and I don't think a garden bridge is likely to attract more than already come.

Trees and shrubs planted on a bridge will require far more irrigation than would be required on land.

"London " does not want a new footbridge, certainly not in that location. And it is Londoners who would have to pay for it, and not that many Londoners would go on it, it would be mostly tourists and visitors. What London needs is new river crossings further east, as the Dartford crossing and Blackwall tunnel are always congested. A complete vanity project by a few luvvies and Boris J . I can't imagine what £14m has been spent on when they haven't even yet got planning permission. Probably some very expensive jollies for certain politicians. Yuk. Sadiq Khan has set up an enquiry and with any luck they'll see sense and stop throwing good money after bad.

I wish if there is money to spare they concentrate in getting the homeless off the streets in London.

£14 million could be spent on the homeless

It is an interesting debate - do we then spend nothing on the arts, music, the environment, sport? Should all spending be targeted at the housing problem and the NHS?

It is an old argument that rumbles around all the time. The general agreement seems to be that the arts and the environment (in the sense of gardens, protected environments etc.) enhance our lives and reflect that which makes us human rather than animal - our aesthetic sense. It is part of civilization.

The argument of course rumbles on as to which non-essential projects should be funded.

We are all moved by beautiful cathedrals, by the architecture of Venice, by wonderful music in wonderful concert halls etc. All these were constructed and supported at times when there were people who were ill, poor and under-privileged. Do we regret them? Should they not have been made?

It is a debate with no answer I guess.

I do think money should be spent on beautiful things sometimes - but not on this bridge. There is already such a tourist draw in that area of central London, the people come anyway, it is not needed there.

It is an indulgence. If Miss Lumley wants it that badly, she should set about raising a good amount of the money herself from friends/ rich contacts etc.

Far better to create something of beauty in a poorer area (hopefully outside London) that really needs the visitors.

I personally would have preferred that 14 million ££ go towards installing lifts or whatever at tube stations for those of us who do not have step free access.

Cathedrals are churches are they not.

Er...yes

It is difficult - I am sure that we can all list things that we would rather money had been spent on than arts etc - so how do we resolve this? Do we stop all "unnecessary" spending until all the world's problems are solved?

Annie - I am not sure that I understand your post about cathedrals being churches - are you suggesting that money is OK to spend lots of money on churches when people are in need?

"...that it is OK...."

Luckygirl, churches were not built for people to admire the architect, they were essential to people's lives , still are to some people's lives so I don't think they csn be included in a list of buildings built to admire . When was the last cathedral built in this country apart from Coventry . Surely comparing a church built hundreds of years ago with a bridge built now for no purpose but to seed grass doesn't really make sense . I agree now cathedrals are more viewed than used but they were not built for this purpose

Vanity project - Johnson is always up for those. Remember the island airport, which would have meant wholesale destruction of wildlife habitat.

Luckygirl I agree with you that we should not confine spending to only utilitarian projects or that the arts and the provision of beautiful things to adorn public spaces are a non-essential luxury.

However, I really think it is wasteful to spend a vast amount of money on something that will require high yearly maintenance costs and constant irrigation, when there is already a substantial amount of very attractive and easily accessible green space already available in central London.

Yes spend the £1m per year not to mention the £xxxxm building costs on the arts / maintaining historic buildings/ parks and playgrounds for all to enjoy etc, not this ill-thought out vanity project.

I don't know where the figure of £14 million has come from - most articles claim that £37 million has been spent so far. The new mayor, Sadiq Khan, had previously said that it would cost more to cancel but it seems he's now planning a formal review.

I think the figure of £14 million was once said to be what it would eventually cost the taxpayer, once loans had been paid back, or something like that

Bridge

I love big projects e.g. The Shard, Millennium Wheel, Tate Modern, etc, and especially like bridges but there's a lot wrong with this project, including how the contracts were awarded.

I seem to be out on a limb here - I think it sounds rather attractive and will bring in more tourists and make Londoners happy when they use it.

Cathedrals and churches are definitely not essentials and the amount of money spent on their building, embellishment and upkeep is not essential either - but they are beautiful and life-enhancing with awesome architecture and I enjoy them. I think it is wrong to suggest that these buildings were put there as an essential part of people's lives - often they were a piece of conspicuous expenditure on the part of rich people wishing to impress others.

From the graphics it does look lovely and as said I do love bridges however there are any number of life-enhancing structures in that area already.

It's a lot of public money to be spent in an area that certainly doesn't need it, nor any more tourists - it's already heaving with visitors and commuters.