tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 14:49:49 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I note this report says £60 million has been "committed" so far.
What is the difference between the £40 million spent and the
£60 million committed?

I wonder how they've managed to spend so much already? Has much work
been
done on the ground?

There's some piling work going on in the river, whether it's for the
garden bridge or not, I don't know.

Apparently not. It now looks like the bridge will get canned, after £38m
has been spent before any actual construction work. Apparently Boris is
the
only cabinet minister in favour, and there's no enthusiasm in City Hall.

Anyone have any idea how you can spend 38 million on just talking about
something

it seems nuts

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

I didn't realise the man who designed the "roastmaster"
designed this new bridge as well. He's quite a boy, isn't he?

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:07:57 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

Cancel it, kill it, get rid of it, don't give Heatherwick one penny of
public money for his disastrous design.

I'm not against the design, but London doesn't need a new footbridge so
close to Waterloo bridge, and it doesn't need a small, new, hideously
expensive g arden in the middle of the river. And there's no reason why so
much, or indeed any, of the funding should come out of London's public
transport budget. If it was felt that Temple Tube station really needed a
new footbridge link to the South Bank, it would cost a small fraction of
what Boris committed TfL to spend on this redundant bridge. But I've not
heard any clamour for such a link.

There are many other places on the Thames that could use new bridges, and
no doubt there are plenty of bits of derelict land that could be turned
into new public parks. But this project is an over-priced solution to a
non-existent problem.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;157610']tim... wrote:-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Roland Perry wrote:-
In message
nal-septe
mber.org, at 14:49:49 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I note this report says £60 million has been "committed" so far.
What is the difference between the £40 million spent and the
£60 million committed?

I wonder how they've managed to spend so much already? Has much work
been
done on the ground?

There's some piling work going on in the river, whether it's for the
garden bridge or not, I don't know.-

Apparently not. It now looks like the bridge will get canned, after
£38m
has been spent before any actual construction work. Apparently Boris is

the
only cabinet minister in favour, and there's no enthusiasm in City
Hall.-

Anyone have any idea how you can spend 38 million on just talking about

something

it seems nuts-

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

I didn't realise the man who designed the "roastmaster"
designed this new bridge as well. He's quite a boy, isn't he?

That's one of the questions Sadiq has raised, as Heatherwick wasn't chosen
using a proper procurement process. In fact, the decisions all seem to be
based on how well Joanna Lumley knew people.

Quote:

Lumley has known Heatherwick for a long time – at least since 2004, when
her autobiography described him as a designer of “incomparable originality�
– and Johnson for much longer. When the Heatherwick Studio submitted its
bridge design to Transport for London in 2013, it listed “Joanna� as an
associate who had worked with it for more than a decade – she had been
“involved with the strategic development of a number of the studio’s
self-initiated public projects in London�. And when, on a BBC show the same
year, Alan Yentob gently quizzed Lumley about how Johnson had reacted to
her plan, she said: “I’ve known Boris since he was four, so he was largely
quite amenable.�

Human beings are, of course, social animals and tend to combine in their
own interest (some Dorset labourers were transported to Australia for it).
The question now arising is whether this London combination broke the
rules. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act and some diligent work last
year by the Architects’ Journal, we know that Lumley wrote to Johnson soon
after his re-election in 2012 saying she wanted to talk to him “most
earnestly� about her bridge – and that the mayor replied that, much though
he would like to hear her ideas, his packed diary meant that instead she
would need to meet his deputy mayor for transport and chief of staff.

Nonetheless, this meeting had its effect. Transport for London decided that
“a new footbridge … connecting the South Bank with the Temple area� was a
feasible idea. No mention of gardens there, or in the invitation-to-tender
document that followed in 2013, when TfL invited three architects to submit
footbridge designs and gave higher marks to Heatherwick in the “relevant
design experience� category, despite the other two firms having designed
many more bridges than Heatherwick Studio, which, at that time, had only
one to its name. Its winning design was for what Lumley had always wanted,
a garden bridge, though that can hardly have come as a surprise to her
given that Heatherwick and Johnson were together promoting the garden
bridge idea on a trip to San Francisco in January, 2013 – before TfL
decided in favour of the Heatherwick design.

The last and most recent disclosure prompted Jane Duncan, president of the
Royal Institute of British Architects, to call this week for a halt to the
project and an investigation into the procurement process, given “the
amount of public money at stake and the seriousness of the allegations�.
The RIBA isn’t the first body to worry. Last month the National Audit
Office said that a “high degree of uncertainty� hung over the bridge’s
value for money, and that the taxpayers’ £60m was at greater risk than the
private funding.

From
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-joanna-lumley

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;157610']tim... wrote:-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Roland Perry wrote:-
In message
nal-septe
mber.org, at 14:49:49 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I note this report says £60 million has been "committed" so far.
What is the difference between the £40 million spent and the
£60 million committed?

I wonder how they've managed to spend so much already? Has much work
been
done on the ground?

There's some piling work going on in the river, whether it's for the
garden bridge or not, I don't know.-

Apparently not. It now looks like the bridge will get canned, after
£38m
has been spent before any actual construction work. Apparently Boris is

the
only cabinet minister in favour, and there's no enthusiasm in City
Hall.-

Anyone have any idea how you can spend 38 million on just talking about

something

it seems nuts-

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

I didn't realise the man who designed the "roastmaster"
designed this new bridge as well. He's quite a boy, isn't he?

That's one of the questions Sadiq has raised, as Heatherwick wasn't chosen
using a proper procurement process. In fact, the decisions all seem to be
based on how well Joanna Lumley knew people.


And yet, despite all this further discussion, I am no nearing to finding out
what the 39 Million pounds wasted so far, has been spent on.

For those that don't realise, this insignificant, to a national government,
amount is TWICE the total costs of the wibbly-wobbly bridge, so we could
have had normal bridge here by now, with cash left over for a second one
somewhere else.

tim

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;157610']tim... wrote:-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Roland Perry wrote:-
In message
nal-septe
mber.org, at 14:49:49 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I note this report says £60 million has been "committed" so far.
What is the difference between the £40 million spent and the
£60 million committed?

I wonder how they've managed to spend so much already? Has much work
been
done on the ground?

There's some piling work going on in the river, whether it's for the
garden bridge or not, I don't know.-

Apparently not. It now looks like the bridge will get canned, after
£38m
has been spent before any actual construction work. Apparently Boris is

the
only cabinet minister in favour, and there's no enthusiasm in City
Hall.-

Anyone have any idea how you can spend 38 million on just talking about

something

it seems nuts-

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

I didn't realise the man who designed the "roastmaster"
designed this new bridge as well. He's quite a boy, isn't he?

That's one of the questions Sadiq has raised, as Heatherwick wasn't chosen
using a proper procurement process. In fact, the decisions all seem to be
based on how well Joanna Lumley knew people.


And yet, despite all this further discussion, I am no nearing to finding out
what the 39 Million pounds wasted so far, has been spent on.

I know, it's baffling. I wonder if it will turn out that consultants chosen
by the sainted Joanna have been billing large amounts?


For those that don't realise, this insignificant, to a national government,
amount is TWICE the total costs of the wibbly-wobbly bridge, so we could
have had normal bridge here by now, with cash left over for a second one
somewhere else.

Yup, and London doesn't even need another bridge there; it's too close to
Waterloo bridge. A couple of perfectly serviceable, simple footbridges
could have been erected in more useful places along the river. And, for not
much more, we could probably have had a nice new riverside park somewhere
as well.

On Friday, 19 August 2016 10:27:56 UTC+1, tim... wrote:

And yet, despite all this further discussion, I am no nearing to finding out
what the 39 Million pounds wasted so far, has been spent on.

For those that don't realise, this insignificant, to a national government,
amount is TWICE the total costs of the wibbly-wobbly bridge, so we could
have had normal bridge here by now, with cash left over for a second one
somewhere else.

I think that if the project had run its course and cost about 70 million then people might have shrugged and said, Seems a lot but there you go.
As it is people are looking at a big sore thumb.

tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;157610']tim... wrote:-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
Roland Perry wrote:-
In message
nal-septe
mber.org, at 14:49:49 on Mon, 11 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
I note this report says £60 million has been "committed" so far.
What is the difference between the £40 million spent and the
£60 million committed?

I wonder how they've managed to spend so much already? Has much work
been
done on the ground?

There's some piling work going on in the river, whether it's for the
garden bridge or not, I don't know.-

Apparently not. It now looks like the bridge will get canned, after
£38m
has been spent before any actual construction work. Apparently Boris is

the
only cabinet minister in favour, and there's no enthusiasm in City
Hall.-

Anyone have any idea how you can spend 38 million on just talking about

something

it seems nuts-

It does, and it now seems the funding gap is even wider than thought:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37112199

I didn't realise the man who designed the "roastmaster"
designed this new bridge as well. He's quite a boy, isn't he?

That's one of the questions Sadiq has raised, as Heatherwick wasn't chosen
using a proper procurement process. In fact, the decisions all seem to be
based on how well Joanna Lumley knew people.


And yet, despite all this further discussion, I am no nearing to finding out
what the 39 Million pounds wasted so far, has been spent on.

For those that don't realise, this insignificant, to a national government,
amount is TWICE the total costs of the wibbly-wobbly bridge, so we could
have had normal bridge here by now, with cash left over for a second one
somewhere else.

http://www.cityam.com/249834/sadiq-k...ead-new-garden

I saw an update in the Times on Saturday, but their articles are nonhyperlinkable, so here's a BBC update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39524979
"A project to build a bridge covered with trees and shrubs across the Thames in London should be scrapped, a review has found.
Dame Margaret Hodge's review said it would be better to ditch the Garden Bridge than risk uncertain costs.
Three months ago the Garden Bridge Trust admitted its future was in doubt after publishing accounts which showed a £70m shortfall in funding.
Initially £60m of public money was pledged on planning for the bridge.
Transport for London pledged £30m, but £20m of that was to be a loan, and the rest was from central government.
Dame Margaret says £37.4m had already been spent, and even if the bridge did not go ahead it would cost the taxpayer £46.4m."

Is even worse than wot I funk.

Offramp wrote:
I saw an update in the Times on Saturday, but their articles are
nonhyperlinkable, so here's a BBC update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39524979
"A project to build a bridge covered with trees and shrubs across the
Thames in London should be scrapped, a review has found.
Dame Margaret Hodge's review said it would be better to ditch the Garden
Bridge than risk uncertain costs.
Three months ago the Garden Bridge Trust admitted its future was in doubt
after publishing accounts which showed a £70m shortfall in funding.
Initially £60m of public money was pledged on planning for the bridge.
Transport for London pledged £30m, but £20m of that was to be a loan, and
the rest was from central government.
Dame Margaret says £37.4m had already been spent, and even if the bridge
did not go ahead it would cost the taxpayer £46.4m."

Is even worse than wot I funk.

Yes, it keeps getting worse in every report. And as discussed here
previously, it's extraordinary how much public money has apparently been
spent so early in the project, with the plans not even finalised and no
physical work done. A great deal must have been spent on architects,
consultants, lawyers, engineers, PR firms, etc.

Here's a more detailed report:

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/...s-hodge-report

Extract:

The £200m Garden Bridge project does not offer taxpayers value for money
and should be scrapped, a review by Margaret Hodge has concluded.

The report, commissioned by London mayor Sadiq Khan, published today, found
the £60m cost to taxpayers for the scheme, which is significantly
over-budget, could not be justified.

Hodge, who is the former chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said she
found “too many things wrong� with the development and implementation of
the Garden Bridge Project.

“Value for money for the taxpayer has not been secured. It would be better
for the taxpayer to accept the financial loss of cancelling the project
than to risk the potential uncertain additional costs to the public purse
if the project proceeds,� she added.

“In the present climate, with continuing pressures on public spending, it
is difficult to justify further public investment in the Garden Bridge.�

She urged the mayor to not to sign any guarantees until it is confirmed
that the private capital and revenue monies have been secured by the Garden
Bridge Trust.

The review found that decisions on the Garden Bridge were driven more by
electoral cycles than value for taxpayers’ money.

The costs of the project have escalated from an early estimate of £60m to
over £200m today.

Also, risks to the taxpayer have intensified, Hodge said, and the original
ambition to fund the Garden Bridge through private finance has been
abandoned. The Garden Bridge Trust has lost two major private donors and
can count on pledges of only £69m, with no new pledges secured since August
2016.

A public sector contribution of £60m would still leave a gap in capital
funding of at least £70m. Moreover, very little progress has been made on
raising money to fund the ongoing maintenance of a completed bridge, the
report said.

The two TfL procurement rounds for the scheme were deemed neither open nor
fair, revealing systemic failures and ineffective control systems at many
levels.

Hodge concluded that the Garden Bridge Trust’s finances are in a precarious
state and many outstanding risks remain unresolved.

Responding to the report, Sadiq Khan confirmed that he would not invest any
further public money in the proposed bridge, which would span the River
Thames from Temple station to the South Bank, and had been scheduled to
open in 2019.