{"id":185,"date":"2017-08-18T12:08:24","date_gmt":"2017-08-18T11:08:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.humanities.manchester.ac.uk\/mui\/?p=185"},"modified":"2019-10-08T14:12:30","modified_gmt":"2019-10-08T13:12:30","slug":"where-next-for-green-architecture-how-will-the-demise-of-londons-garden-bridge-impact-future-investment-in-urban-greening-by-dr-ian-mell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.manchester.ac.uk\/mui\/2017\/08\/18\/where-next-for-green-architecture-how-will-the-demise-of-londons-garden-bridge-impact-future-investment-in-urban-greening-by-dr-ian-mell\/","title":{"rendered":"Where next for green architecture: How will the demise of London\u2019s Garden Bridge impact future investment in urban greening? by Dr Ian Mell"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ _builder_version=”3.0.106″ menu_id=”7″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” background_layout=”dark” module_class=”main-navigation” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″][et_pb_row_inner locked=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.0.106″ title=”on” meta=”on” author=”on” date=”on” categories=”on” comments=”on” featured_image=”on” featured_placement=”above” text_color=”dark” text_background=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n

London\u2019s proposed \u201cGarden Bridge\u201d is no more. After years of controversy<\/a>, Sadiq Khan, the city\u2019s mayor, has finally sunk the idea into the Thames<\/a>. The notion of a bridge covered in trees spanning the river has merit, but it needed to be in the right place, with the right design, and had to generate support from local Londoners. Thomas Heatherwick\u2019s<\/a> proposal appeared to lack awareness of this. Nonetheless, the Garden Bridge\u2019s failure shouldn\u2019t be an excuse to rein in our ambitions. In order to deliver innovative urban greening in London, Manchester and beyond, there is value in thinking bigger, bolder and greener.<\/p>\n

To actually deliver visions of such urban oases we should continue to dream big. But we must also be realistic. Long before such a project even makes it onto the drawing board, architects, politicians and the public need to agree on certain vital questions. Who will eventually own it? How it will be funded? And who will be able to access it? And where will it go?<\/p>\n

The Garden Bridge was an example of what not to do. A lack of transparency lead to approximately \u00a337m of taxpayer funding being lost in the project; the level of private funding<\/a> lost remains unknown. Likewise, the pseudo-public nature of the bridge, a growing issue with urban thinkers, would have restricted access for groups, cyclists, and buskers, allowed its management company to close the bridge at will, and would in essence developed a corporate space underwritten by ongoing public investment.<\/p>\n

But projects with similar visions can work, and there are many examples where derelict or brownfield land in urban centres has been transformed into multi-functional public spaces. Millennium Park<\/a>, in the heart of Chicago, was built on a former rail yard and car park. The High Line<\/a> in New York turned a disused elevated train line into a park, and there are similar projects in Atlanta<\/a> and Seoul<\/a>. Each brought disused transport infrastructure back into public use.<\/p>\n

Recently Paris<\/a> has invested in floating gardens, parks and recreational areas in the River Seine. Berlin\u2019s summer swimming pool<\/a> in the River Spree highlights how innovation can be brought into urban greening. There\u2019s also a clamour among cities across the world to develop the \u201cnext\u201d High Line<\/a> \u2013 the latest proposal being a \u201cCamden Highline<\/a>\u201d in north London. Such enthusiasm to follow the success of New York illustrates how cities want their brands to be associated with projects that are innovative yet also green and sustainable.<\/p>\n

One of the big ideas behind the Garden Bridge was to create such an oasis in one of the world\u2019s busiest and most polluted cities. Where successful interventions have occurred, they have been achieved with community (public and business) backing. The redevelopment of the Historic 4th Ward Park<\/a> in Atlanta or the Cheonggyecheon River restoration<\/a> project in Seoul would be very different projects without public support. Likewise, the Olympic Park site in London is largely publicly accessible 24\/7, making it a multi-functional and valuable public space. Even in Milan where the Bosco Verticale<\/a> \u2013 a pair of tree-covered skyscrapers \u2013 shows the architectural merit of innovation on private property, is complemented by a new public park, allotments and communal spaces. What each of these projects does is to find a balance between funding, ownership and access, which helps to limit conflicts over use.<\/p>\n

Future projects should therefore take notice of what these investments got right, and the Garden Bridge got wrong. Developing truly valuable parks and open spaces is a delicate process. It requires a mixture of funding from public and private sources but should not be held hostage to the demands of private investors. Publicly-funded projects also need to meet the needs of the public, and should reflect local community and wider city-level aspirations. This may mean negotiating a prize-winning design into a more intuitive space that is functional for older people, families or children. The Maggie Daley Park<\/a> in Chicago is an excellent example of this.<\/p>\n

There is also a need to ensure that ownership is transparent and that everyone knows what rights they have to use a park or open space. This should be publicly and not privately focused, as there is a wealth of evidence to highlight the social<\/a>, health<\/a>, and economic value<\/a> of accessible parks and gardens.<\/p>\n

Finally, the demise of the Garden Bridge should be a cautionary note for future investments. There are many projects in across the UK and globally that have worked with various partners to design, develop and manage parks and open spaces successfully. They have managed to grasp the needs of local communities, work with complex design and funding issues, and negotiate ownership and access rights. These projects are the ones we should be promoting as best-practice examples of what make a good public park. As they (nearly) say, one bad apple doesn\u2019t spoil the whole bunch.<\/p>\n