<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Developers build 35-metre model of controversial London River Park</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/18/developers-build-35-metre-model-of-controversial-london-river-park/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/18/developers-build-35-metre-model-of-controversial-london-river-park/</link>
	<description>architecture and design magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:41:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: South Bank Residents</title>
		<link>http://www.dezeen.com/2011/10/18/developers-build-35-metre-model-of-controversial-london-river-park/comment-page-1/#comment-887349</link>
		<dc:creator>South Bank Residents</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dezeen.com/?p=165840#comment-887349</guid>
		<description>This project began with the appealing notion - a riverside boardwalk that would bridge the gaps from the Tower of London to Embankment Gardens.  It compared itself to New York&#8217;s &#8216;High Line&#8217; &#8211; a project that retrieved and re-animated the urban landscape.  
The &#8216;High Line&#8217; it is not. This project not only falls very far short of its original ambition, it also appropriates and exploits part of London&#8217;s river for private gain. The so-called &#8216;River Park&#8217; is really a platform for commercial development, hiding behind the pretence of public interest.  
As a walkway, it duplicates much of what already exists. It doesn&#8217;t make the connections that would make a real difference. And its private commercial &#8216;pods&#8217; will block the best views. It is a project that now fails in its own terms.  
It is supported mostly by those who stand to benefit: by the Mayor&#8217;s office, which, instead of looking to the river&#8217;s protection, prefers to take 30% of the profit; and by the developer and contractors, who want to earn as much as they can.  
In seeking a five-year approval, the protagonists claim it will be temporary. This alleged transience hides a black hole of omissions. Where is the management plan and the concern for the impact on local communities? Where is the conclusive evidence in relation to the environmental, archaeological or navigational impacts? And where is the necessary design sensitivity to the character of London&#8217;s historic artery and the appropriate (CABE describes it as &#8216;unimaginative and corporate&#8217;).  
The Thames&#8217; significance to our capital is immeasurable and yet no single authority is charged with its protection.  The only remaining defence against such a predatory development and the precedent it will set is the City of London&#8217;s Planning Committee. 
The Thames is too important to London to allow this to happen.  
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This project began with the appealing notion &#8211; a riverside boardwalk that would bridge the gaps from the Tower of London to Embankment Gardens.  It compared itself to New York&rsquo;s &lsquo;High Line&rsquo; &ndash; a project that retrieved and re-animated the urban landscape.<br />
The &lsquo;High Line&rsquo; it is not. This project not only falls very far short of its original ambition, it also appropriates and exploits part of London&rsquo;s river for private gain. The so-called &lsquo;River Park&rsquo; is really a platform for commercial development, hiding behind the pretence of public interest.<br />
As a walkway, it duplicates much of what already exists. It doesn&rsquo;t make the connections that would make a real difference. And its private commercial &lsquo;pods&rsquo; will block the best views. It is a project that now fails in its own terms.<br />
It is supported mostly by those who stand to benefit: by the Mayor&rsquo;s office, which, instead of looking to the river&rsquo;s protection, prefers to take 30% of the profit; and by the developer and contractors, who want to earn as much as they can.<br />
In seeking a five-year approval, the protagonists claim it will be temporary. This alleged transience hides a black hole of omissions. Where is the management plan and the concern for the impact on local communities? Where is the conclusive evidence in relation to the environmental, archaeological or navigational impacts? And where is the necessary design sensitivity to the character of London&rsquo;s historic artery and the appropriate (CABE describes it as &lsquo;unimaginative and corporate&rsquo;).<br />
The Thames&rsquo; significance to our capital is immeasurable and yet no single authority is charged with its protection.  The only remaining defence against such a predatory development and the precedent it will set is the City of London&rsquo;s Planning Committee.<br />
The Thames is too important to London to allow this to happen.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 7/11 queries in 0.008 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 238/242 objects using memcached

Served from: www.dezeen.com @ 2013-06-20 05:26:31 -->