Sometimes the sheer simplicity of an idea makes it brilliant. Sir Terry Farrell’s proposal last week in AJ (and first mooted in EG last year) to build low-level, rather than high-level, bridges across the Thames downstream of Tower Bridge is one such idea.
First, imagine the value of a square mile of dreary shed-filled land lying under long approach ramps connecting a motorway-grade monster like the Dartford Bridge. Now imagine the value of a square mile of housing land surrounding a shore-level crossing with the traffic capacity of Vauxhall or Blackfriars bridge.
We’ll do more than imagine that scenario later. But first, let’s take a look at the latest proposals. They came in March from Transport for London. The suggestion is for not one, but two high-level crossing points, the first between Thamesmead and the Royal Docks, the second between Bexley and Havering.
There has been little reaction, beyond a yawn. Easy to see why. The first serious proposal for a single Thames Gateway Bridge came in 1979. Two planning inquiries followed before approval in 1991, cancellation in 1993 and revival in 2002. Then yet another inquiry in 2005 and cancellation in 2008 when Boris Johnson caved in to pressure from Bexley’s mayor. The topic has become a bore.
The debate becomes less boring when you begin to talk about low-level bridges. These crossings are far more than conduits for streaming roaring traffic over and through long-suffering boroughs. Traffic capacity will be diminished, admitted.
Hands up who really cares, beyond TfL? Big ships will have to honk their horn to pass though raised bascules. Hands up who cares, beyond the Port of London Authority, which will presumably go crazy?
But let’s hear from the man who does care, Sir Terry Farrell: “We were struck by the fact that only high-level bridges or tunnels are currently being consulted on for east London. Low-level bridges, which lift a few times a day to let tall ships past, are a much cheaper alternative that connect communities through cycling and walking.
“They would act as instant catalysts for mixed-use development on either side of the river and turbocharge existing plans for areas such as the Royal Docks and Thamesmead.”
Why a low-level bridge might “turbocharge” development can be gleaned from an unrelated government document published in February.
Land value estimates for policy appraisal lists indicate prices for “post-permission housing land” for every authority in England. The landing ground in Barking and Dagenham is valued at £8m per hectare; in Bexley, £7.5m. As industrial land it will be worth no more than £1m. Let’s say the difference in price between shed land and housing land is £6m per hectare. In the case of a low-level bridge, this is an uplift of £1.6bn per square mile per bank.
How do you capture that value to pay for the bridge? By the issue of compulsory purchase orders. After all, they would have to be issued anyway to build the ramps.
Yes, yes, this is a hopelessly simplistic rendition of what might actually happen. Ask any planner. They will come up with a list of objections as long as the Dartford Tunnel. Ignore. Farrell’s ground-level bridge plan is brilliant.
Suddenly, the very idea of a high-level bridge feels like some sort of concrete dinosaur. Who, these days, is going to put up with a crossing that has the same effect as a neutron bomb over vast areas of both banks?
That’s it. No more arguments, please. Can someone see to it that these crossings are built by 2025.
BL’s brilliant appointment
Second brilliant idea: British Land’s appointment of Argent’s Roger Madelin to run its 46-acre development of Canada Water in Southwark. Madelin will bring matchless experience and an eagle eye for good architecture, after 15 years piecing together King’s Cross.
It’s an SMO (see me out) job if there ever was one for the forceful 56-year-old. SMO, as long as Madelin stays acutely aware that BL is not Argent.
