Posted by: Mr T, Glasgow on 11:00am Wed 19 Mar 08
What a total waste of money when there is a car and also a FOOT bridge only 2 min walk beside the Casino right next to it...
How on Earth does this make sense?
What a total waste of money when there is a car and also a FOOT bridge only 2 min walk beside the Casino right next to it...
How on Earth does this make sense?
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 11:23am Wed 19 Mar 08
I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers.
Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.
I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers.
Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: markydc, London on 11:27am Wed 19 Mar 08
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented.
Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented.
Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.
Posted by: Mr T, Glasgow on 11:29am Wed 19 Mar 08
Brad,
dude im totally for more bridges right but one next to the other at a stone hit away is to me madness.
Why not build one in Yoker to link it to Renfrew which will be great for both sides and also kids can access the Xscape and also families for both that and Breahead. The Ferry is great but its old and talks on way to do something when they are beyond repair in 2 years time.
This new bridge iv been in that area many times and even worked near by and you can and never dont mind to walk an extra 5 min to the lights to cross the bridge... all im saying it could be much better else were... like you said with the South bank.
Brad,
dude im totally for more bridges right but one next to the other at a stone hit away is to me madness.
Why not build one in Yoker to link it to Renfrew which will be great for both sides and also kids can access the Xscape and also families for both that and Breahead. The Ferry is great but its old and talks on way to do something when they are beyond repair in 2 years time.
This new bridge iv been in that area many times and even worked near by and you can and never dont mind to walk an extra 5 min to the lights to cross the bridge... all im saying it could be much better else were... like you said with the South bank.
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 11:55am Wed 19 Mar 08
I hope they sort it out .The ideas there.
I hope they sort it out .The ideas there.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 11:58am Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote][bold]markydc[/bold] wrote:
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented. Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.[/quote] [quote]The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented.[/quote]
Eh?
What's he on about?
Does he mean King George v Bridge - that one which was built in 1937?
That's the only bridge that's nearby, my my! This is a job for the council, the bridge is a hazard, get the thing CLOSED NOW!
Plonk!
markydc wrote:
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented. Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.
The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented.
Eh?
What's he on about?
Does he mean King George v Bridge - that one which was built in 1937?
That's the only bridge that's nearby, my my! This is a job for the council, the bridge is a hazard, get the thing CLOSED NOW!
Plonk!
Posted by: hugo, south side on 12:22pm Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote]dude im totally for more bridges right but one next to the other at a stone hit away is to me madness.
Why not build one in Yoker to link it to Renfrew which will be great for both sides and also kids can access the Xscape and also families for both that and Breahead. The Ferry is great but its old and talks on way to do something when they are beyond repair in 2 years time.[/quote]
I agree, i have asked my councillor on numerous occasions about the possibility of a feasability study into the impact of a light road bridge to link thornwood and linthouse, at the southern general, just above the tunnel, In my view this would increase walking between govan partick, would take pressure of the tunnel in terms of local car use, would make the new southern general more accessible from the west, and could enable Linthouse / Govan to flourish in a manner similar to partick and the harbour. My councillors response : i was acused of talking rubbish ??/
dude im totally for more bridges right but one next to the other at a stone hit away is to me madness.
Why not build one in Yoker to link it to Renfrew which will be great for both sides and also kids can access the Xscape and also families for both that and Breahead. The Ferry is great but its old and talks on way to do something when they are beyond repair in 2 years time.
I agree, i have asked my councillor on numerous occasions about the possibility of a feasability study into the impact of a light road bridge to link thornwood and linthouse, at the southern general, just above the tunnel, In my view this would increase walking between govan partick, would take pressure of the tunnel in terms of local car use, would make the new southern general more accessible from the west, and could enable Linthouse / Govan to flourish in a manner similar to partick and the harbour. My councillors response : i was acused of talking rubbish ??/
Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 12:40pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Maybe WHEN our New Clyde fastlink turns into a tram .!
Maybe WHEN our New Clyde fastlink turns into a tram .!
Posted by: Jaym, Glasgow on 1:18pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Wonder if this one will be built correctly? The reason the bridge is so close to the others is that the council are slowly working their way along the clyde trying to figure out how to actually build bridges. By the time they get to the East End they should have figured out how to build a bridge!
Mr T. - I too would love to see a bridge of some sort at Yoker to Renfrew but no link will ever happen. It's two separate council's. They will never work together because they will effectively be providing a gateway for people to spend money outwith their area. I know to you and me this sounds crazy but that is how these muppets operate.
Wonder if this one will be built correctly? The reason the bridge is so close to the others is that the council are slowly working their way along the clyde trying to figure out how to actually build bridges. By the time they get to the East End they should have figured out how to build a bridge!
Mr T. - I too would love to see a bridge of some sort at Yoker to Renfrew but no link will ever happen. It's two separate council's. They will never work together because they will effectively be providing a gateway for people to spend money outwith their area. I know to you and me this sounds crazy but that is how these muppets operate.
Posted by: Mr T, Glasgow on 2:27pm Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Jaym[/bold] wrote:
Wonder if this one will be built correctly? The reason the bridge is so close to the others is that the council are slowly working their way along the clyde trying to figure out how to actually build bridges. By the time they get to the East End they should have figured out how to build a bridge! Mr T. - I too would love to see a bridge of some sort at Yoker to Renfrew but no link will ever happen. It's two separate council's. They will never work together because they will effectively be providing a gateway for people to spend money outwith their area. I know to you and me this sounds crazy but that is how these muppets operate. [/quote] hahahaha!! by the time the reach east end all our council tax will hit the roof as they will have spent every single penny building these bridges so close to each other... any closer then it will be a fly over the other... idiots! need to be slapped with an infected fish out of the clyde right across there no brain heeds!!!!
Jaym wrote:
Wonder if this one will be built correctly? The reason the bridge is so close to the others is that the council are slowly working their way along the clyde trying to figure out how to actually build bridges. By the time they get to the East End they should have figured out how to build a bridge! Mr T. - I too would love to see a bridge of some sort at Yoker to Renfrew but no link will ever happen. It's two separate council's. They will never work together because they will effectively be providing a gateway for people to spend money outwith their area. I know to you and me this sounds crazy but that is how these muppets operate.
hahahaha!! by the time the reach east end all our council tax will hit the roof as they will have spent every single penny building these bridges so close to each other... any closer then it will be a fly over the other... idiots! need to be slapped with an infected fish out of the clyde right across there no brain heeds!!!!
Posted by: HeyHo, Glasgow on 3:40pm Wed 19 Mar 08
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge"
More Garbage - Nobody calls it that
Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum -
"the squiggle museum"
"riverside squiggle"
Actually I can wait - [bold]don't bother[/bold]
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge"
More Garbage - Nobody calls it that
Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum -
"the squiggle museum"
"riverside squiggle"
Actually I can wait -
don't bother
Posted by: HeyHo, Glasgow on 3:40pm Wed 19 Mar 08
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge"
More Garbage - Nobody calls it that
Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum -
"the squiggle museum"
"riverside squiggle"
Actually I can wait - [bold]don't bother[/bold]
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge"
More Garbage - Nobody calls it that
Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum -
"the squiggle museum"
"riverside squiggle"
Actually I can wait -
don't bother
Posted by: Mr T, Glasgow on 3:46pm Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote][bold]HeyHo[/bold] wrote:
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge" More Garbage - Nobody calls it that Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum - "the squiggle museum" "riverside squiggle" Actually I can wait - [bold]don't bother[/bold] [/quote] init man!!!
who calls them that anyway apart from the geeks in the GCC thinking they can add some spin on it to help it get accepted better and make it a success...oooppps then the cables snap and close it down for half a year after being opened late in the 1st place.
HeyHo wrote:
"dubbed the Squiggly Bridge" More Garbage - Nobody calls it that Cant wait to see what utterly stupid name you have for the new transport museum - "the squiggle museum" "riverside squiggle" Actually I can wait - don't bother
init man!!!
who calls them that anyway apart from the geeks in the GCC thinking they can add some spin on it to help it get accepted better and make it a success...oooppps then the cables snap and close it down for half a year after being opened late in the 1st place.
Posted by: CM, Whiteinch on 3:49pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Totally agree about the bridge between Govan and Partick. The current pedestrian tunnels are a disgrace! Dark, damp, deserted. You never know who you might encounter, and there's absolutely no way to call for help. A separate bridge would be ideal. More buses through the tunnel would help too.
Totally agree about the bridge between Govan and Partick. The current pedestrian tunnels are a disgrace! Dark, damp, deserted. You never know who you might encounter, and there's absolutely no way to call for help. A separate bridge would be ideal. More buses through the tunnel would help too.
Posted by: flyingscot, Crookston on 4:08pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Oh yeah something to replace the Clyde Tunnel for peds would be good an a proper bridge at Renfrew would be nice, but we have to remember the ship-yards, and that it would need to either open reliably, or be very tall!
Oh yeah something to replace the Clyde Tunnel for peds would be good an a proper bridge at Renfrew would be nice, but we have to remember the ship-yards, and that it would need to either open reliably, or be very tall!
Posted by: George Brown, Glasgow on 4:19pm Wed 19 Mar 08
As I recall some years back when there was essential maintenance being carried out on a Paisley road bridge a temporary pontoon bridge successfully carried rerouted vehicular traffic over the river,
Why doesn't the council do something different and exciting, stick a pontoon crossing on the river so apart from going squiggly it should have more ups and downs than the current efforts to effect crossings
As I recall some years back when there was essential maintenance being carried out on a Paisley road bridge a temporary pontoon bridge successfully carried rerouted vehicular traffic over the river,
Why doesn't the council do something different and exciting, stick a pontoon crossing on the river so apart from going squiggly it should have more ups and downs than the current efforts to effect crossings
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 4:39pm Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers. Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.[/quote] Agreed Brad.
We need more of these footbridges. If people are to leave their cars at home, they need to have footbridges to cross the Clyde!
Brad wrote:
I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers. Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed Brad.
We need more of these footbridges. If people are to leave their cars at home, they need to have footbridges to cross the Clyde!
Posted by: teamdroid on 4:46pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Oh look, it's the Evening Times phantom nickname game again!
No-one calls the Underground the Clockwork Orange.
No-one calls the bridge at Finnieston the Squinty Bridge.
And this news story is the first place I've ever heard the term Squiggly Bridge.
Hey, let's start calling the Evening Times "That Crap Local Rag" and complete the set ;)
Oh look, it's the Evening Times phantom nickname game again!
No-one calls the Underground the Clockwork Orange.
No-one calls the bridge at Finnieston the Squinty Bridge.
And this news story is the first place I've ever heard the term Squiggly Bridge.
Hey, let's start calling the Evening Times "That Crap Local Rag" and complete the set ;)
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 4:48pm Wed 19 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote: I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers. Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.[/quote] Agreed Brad. We need more of these footbridges. If people are to leave their cars at home, they need to have footbridges to cross the Clyde![/quote] How many bridges do people need? Would you walk from Renfrew to Braehead in pouring rain and gale force winds? If people are soo Brahead this and Braehead that, then why does nobody bother about the train line that runs to the front of the bloody place?
Of course, shut down the shipyards and screw the boats coming into Glasgow and as an alternative there can be a network of bridges from Govan to Erskine every 500 metres.
Ian wrote:
Brad wrote: I think it might have been better a bit more downstream, Mr T, but if you want people (other than those in their cars) to use the riverside - supporting cafes (etc), making it safe and pleasant, then more bridges are needed. So, I'd give this one two cheers. Hopefully the riverside on the South bank will be opened up too - all the way from the Squinty to the Squiggly bridge. But I'm not holding my breath.
Agreed Brad. We need more of these footbridges. If people are to leave their cars at home, they need to have footbridges to cross the Clyde!
How many bridges do people need? Would you walk from Renfrew to Braehead in pouring rain and gale force winds? If people are soo Brahead this and Braehead that, then why does nobody bother about the train line that runs to the front of the bloody place?
Of course, shut down the shipyards and screw the boats coming into Glasgow and as an alternative there can be a network of bridges from Govan to Erskine every 500 metres.
Posted by: bossman, lanarkshire on 5:05pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Wharever happened to the Bell's bridge???
Wharever happened to the Bell's bridge???
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 6:30pm Wed 19 Mar 08
bossman, it's still there, creaking a bit and without its roof but still there.
TMC, whit are you oan aboot??? Neither Ian nor mentioned Braehead. I don't think a bridge there is the best use of money.
bossman, it's still there, creaking a bit and without its roof but still there.
TMC, whit are you oan aboot??? Neither Ian nor mentioned Braehead. I don't think a bridge there is the best use of money.
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 6:36pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Simple solution. Dont get estimates, get quotes, then ENFORCE THEM!!!
Also its so simple here, GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION was paid 13 million to do a job, tell them to fix it or sue them for the FULL 13m plus court costs plus interest.
Its time the Councils started taking these big construction firms on.
Example, Renfrewshire council paid millions to have the road between Lochwinnoch and Kilbirnie 18 months ago. The road has collapsed in part, pot holes have appeared in other parts (bleedin big ones too). Result? Temporary traffic lights for 3 months so far without ANY work being done, probably getting paid for again by the local authority.
Simple solution. Dont get estimates, get quotes, then ENFORCE THEM!!!
Also its so simple here, GRAHAM CONSTRUCTION was paid 13 million to do a job, tell them to fix it or sue them for the FULL 13m plus court costs plus interest.
Its time the Councils started taking these big construction firms on.
Example, Renfrewshire council paid millions to have the road between Lochwinnoch and Kilbirnie 18 months ago. The road has collapsed in part, pot holes have appeared in other parts (bleedin big ones too). Result? Temporary traffic lights for 3 months so far without ANY work being done, probably getting paid for again by the local authority.
Posted by: Richard Davis, Vienna on 9:35pm Wed 19 Mar 08
Where is Brunell when you need him?
Where is Brunell when you need him?
Posted by: mick, new york on 12:17am Thu 20 Mar 08
how about ferries for peds,anyone else remember ferries?[not fairies]
how about ferries for peds,anyone else remember ferries?
Posted by: mick, new york on 12:37am Thu 20 Mar 08
how about ferries for peds,anyone else remember ferries?[not fairies]
how about ferries for peds,anyone else remember ferries?
Posted by: absent_not_vacant, London on 3:17pm Thu 20 Mar 08
[quote][bold]markydc[/bold] wrote:
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented. Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.[/quote] I agree. My main worry about Glasgow is that there seems to be plenty of vision but no idea how to actually get things done.
This bridge started off as a magnificent vision (for which London based architects were paid a tidy sum). Its been scaled back from an international standard prestige project to the sort of second rate crud that we always get in Glasgow. And even then we cant get it in on time and on budget.
markydc wrote:
Well it makes sense because without this bridge it makes the future of the residential development in the area unsustainable as the flats are aimed at workers who would be employed in the financial district across the water. The old bridge is inefficent as it does not provide 'safe'access as the pedestrain footways are too narrow and it is predominantly car oriented. Furthermore, it will encourage development along the clyde which Glasgow has been crying out for and ensure that in spite of economic turmoil Glasgow will continue to prosper in the long term. If you want a case study look at the South Bank in London and although its on a different scale this area could become a key area in future with this bridge and community areas along the waterfront allowing for cultural activities. One day short sighted Glaswegians will stop complaining about developments and actually praise the visions of urban planners.
I agree. My main worry about Glasgow is that there seems to be plenty of vision but no idea how to actually get things done.
This bridge started off as a magnificent vision (for which London based architects were paid a tidy sum). Its been scaled back from an international standard prestige project to the sort of second rate crud that we always get in Glasgow. And even then we cant get it in on time and on budget.
Posted by: someone sensible, glasgow on 6:46pm Thu 20 Mar 08
How on earth can a footbridge cost 33 million quid. The world has gone mad. How about 2 ramps at either side and we can jump it on motorbikes.
How on earth can a footbridge cost 33 million quid. The world has gone mad. How about 2 ramps at either side and we can jump it on motorbikes.
Comment | Read Comments (27)
