Boris' Tour de France 'no brainer'

Fans of Boris Johnson like to claim that behind that bumbling, buffoonish, Bertie Wooster-esque, façade there is a clever, conscientious politician.

But it has become increasingly hard to be convinced by this argument and with his rejection of London hosting the Grand Depart of the Tour de France, he has acted with staggering unprofessionalism and short-sightedness, damaging any prospect of the race returning to Britain for many years to come.

London went through the whole process of bidding for this stage of the Tour triumphing over places such as Edinburgh, Manchester and cities in Germany. And then, the day before contracts were due to be signed, Transport for London pulled out claiming that it wouldn’t provide value for money.

Boris Johnson has now said pulling out was his call, describing it as a ‘no-brainer’.

‘I had to take a very tough decision, obviously painful. In an ideal world, you know me, my policy is to have your cake and eat it. The difficulty was we had to make a choice. £35million is an awful lot to spend on a one off when you could put that money in to long term projects. What people really want is safer cycling lanes.’

It’s certainly true that people want safe cycle lanes – something which Boris himself has been pretty reluctant to invest in until recently – but if it was such a ‘no-brainer’ why on earth wasn’t this realised at an earlier stage? What is the point of going through the whole charade of bidding for such a prestigious event when the mayor can so glibly withdraw at the last minute? 

TfL claim that the process didn't cost a penny as it was all done internally; perhaps true, but all the work done on the bid by members of staff has been completely wasted. Whatever else has gone on, there has been a massive failure of process at TfL and within the mayor’s office.

And we must look at this claim that it wouldn’t have proved to be value for money. Spending £35m on anything is certainly a hefty bill but Yorkshire, which hosted the opening stage last year, estimates it has generated £150m worth of wider benefits. There, the event attracted 4.8m spectators; it is hard to imagine it wouldn’t have attracted an even bigger crowd if the peloton had been wheeling their way through London's highways and byways next year.

In TfL’s defence, a spending review is looming and it does face cuts but Boris isn’t exactly averse to wasting money. Christian Wolmar, the transport journalist who recently tried to become Labour’s prospective candidate at the next mayoral election, put together a good little article looking at the money wasted by Boris during his tenure.

Amongst the highlights were:

£300million spent on the New Bus for London, a poorly conceived, terribly designed monster that will lumber around our streets for the next few years. Boris has also spent £10m pursuing his fantasy of an estuary airport, something which was never likely to happen in the first place

£24m on a cable car across the Thames that promised to be a great way for commuters to travel but in fact carries precisely zero commuters. Boris pledged no public money to this, but of course TfL has contributed.

Boris pursued another vanity project to rebuild the Crystal Palace; it involved handing much of a public park over to a Chinese business, apparently ignoring the conventional tendering process and hoping locals would simply be wowed. Unsurprisingly, Bromley Council ultimately walked away after fruitless talks – wasting £150,000 in the process – and Crystal Palace Park was in the sadly all too familiar position of missing out of millions of pounds from the Heritage Lottery Funding as a consequence of Boris’ misadventure.

TfL has also pledged £30m to build the Thames Garden Bridge (along with another £30m from the government) despite promises, again, that public money would not be used. Again, the whole project appears not to have gone through proper tendering processes.

In comparison to the above, therefore, spending £35m, with the likelihood of greater, and wider, benefits down the line, doesn’t seem such a bad idea.

But what makes the decision all the more inexplicable is that one of Boris’ genuine achievements as mayor has been his ability to sell London around the world. Yet this tangible success – one which has the capacity to provide a legacy for the future – has been foolishly set back by cancelling the event in such a last minute, casual fashion.

It is clear that the Tour de France owners, Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), are angry at the withdrawal – the bidding process would undoubtedly have cost them time, money and effort – and they are hardly likely to look at future bids from London, or elsewhere in the UK, with much sympathy. And other sporting organisations too will look at London with sceptical eyes, wondering whether it’s worth dealing with the city if there is a chance it might pull out at the last minute.

Boris’ legacy has been looking flimsy for some time but a future major will not thank him for this genuine damage to London’s reputation as a city which can stage major international events with competence, confidence, success and flair.

The clock is now ticking

When David Cameron pours himself a glass of wine this evening, kicks off his shoes and sits back to relax, he may feel content that not far in the too distant future, he will be a former prime minister and able to spend decent, quality time with his family. But he may also have a nagging feeling that, by announcing his intention to stand down after a full second term - should he be elected of course - he has unleashed instability and chaos upon an already troubled Conservative Party.

A ten-year tenure as prime minister is enough, as Cameron rightly observed. Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had evidently lost touch with reality, to put it politely, by the time they had been in office so long. Cameron, already prone to hubris, is wise to want to escape.

There is, however, no chance that he will be able to serve a full second term. He isn't a president; the Tories will need a new leader for the next general election, currently scheduled to be held in 2020. Instead of quashing speculation that he might stand down after a 2017 in or out referendum on the EU, it seems likely to only intensify such talk. He will constantly be asked when he intends on standing down by any reporter lucky enough to be granted an interview.

And the timing is extraordinary. To announce his intention to stand down just weeks before a general election seems an utterly unnecessary distraction and might actually damage his electoral chances; do the general public want to vote for someone who already has his eyes on retirement?

In true football manager style, Cameron spoke of 'the Theresa Mays, and the George Osbornes, and the Boris Johnsons' who could succeed him. All likely candidates at this stage, certainly, but any successor would need a decent run-in time to stamp their mark on the party before a 2020 poll. And it's worth noting, both May and Osborne hold positions which are vulnerable to political weather and their stars could wane.  As for Boris, whatever his personal popularity may be, he remains a liability.

Other potential successors will inevitably emerge. Liam Fox and Owen Paterson still seem keen to be champions of the Tory right wing but it's hard to imagine either could mount a serious challenge. And the trouble for these two - and for those mentioned above - is that they would have been at the top of their party for a decade or longer. Fresh faces may be required. And, as yet, it's hard to identify likely candidates from the modernising wing of the party. A shift to the right looks likely and potentially dangerous for a party that would have been in power for ten years by 2020.

In the event that the Tories find themselves in government after May, every speech or move made by any likely successor will be scrutinised for any hint of leadership ambitions. Inevitably, these moments will be over-read and misinterpreted. All this turmoil will only destabilise and fracture the party further.

So Mr Cameron should enjoy that glass of wine while he can: he may have just unleashed years of trouble for his party.

Boris questioned on Crystal Palace plans

*This is really just an update on the previous entry.

Several London Assembly members have tabled a series of questions to Mayor Boris Johnson about the proposed £500million redevelopment plan for Crystal Palace Park and today I received all of the answers.

Readers will notice a disappointing number of responses are simply 'Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly'.

The questions, from Green member Darren Johnson and abour's Val Shawcross and Fiona Twycross, range from issues over the London Plan to the failings of the consultation process, which Boris now believes have mainly been resolved.

The highlights are below, responses in italics. (If anyone wants the full responses, contact me on Twitter and I'll respond)

Darren Johnson

Further Alterations to the London Plan 

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Is this in relation to the proposal to build on the top site?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Does this encompass (a) the park, (b) the National Sports Centre, (c) the Crystal Palace "town centre" and (d) other neighbouring town centres such as Penge?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

You are proposing to designate Crystal Palace as a Strategic Outer London Development Centre. Is this area identified for exogenous growth, to create new significant growth opportunities, or endogenous, to enhance existing growth trends?

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

Val Shawcross

Crystal Palace Park - MOU

Please publish the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the GLA, LB Bromley and ZRG in March 2013 concerning the development on the top site of Crystal Palace Park.

This will be made available on the Bromley Council website.

Crystal Palace Park. Transport impact

When is it planned to undertake a transport impact assessment on the proposal to redevelop the top site on Crystal Place Park? How many car journeys would be generated by the Crystal Palace Park Development each day if the development were to go ahead?

I acknowledge this is a priority for local people having listened to feedback from the consultation sessions.

The consultant team will identify transport issues raised by the scheme early on and have already begun initial discussions with TfL and Tramlink. A Transport Assessment will be prepared alongside all the planning application documents after an architect has been appointed in Summer 2014. It will rely on detailed information on uses and activities within the building and therefore it will evolve as the proposals develop.

The new Crystal Palace should not have unacceptable impacts on the transport network and the potential impact on both the local highway network and the public transport network will be a key consideration throughout the design process.

Crystal Palace Park - Overseas Government Investment

Are you concerned that LB Bromley are allegedly proposing to let a large part of Crystal Palace Park's public Metropolitan Open Lane to an overseas private developer for 125 years?  What scrutiny and public oversight will be in place to ensure the interests of the local community and public access to the park is protected for the entire length of this proposed lease period?

Crystal Palace Park is owned by the London Borough of Bromley and therefore the details of any land transaction related to the park is a matter for Bromley.  Any impact on Metropolitan Open Land will be fully and carefully considered in detail as part of the planning process.

Crystal Palace Park - Potential Uses of Development

What commercial usages are being considered for the buildings at Crystal Palace Park top site? How are potential conflicts between what is planned and the planning restrictions currently imposed on this land going to be resolved?

It is very early days in the process, but suggested commercial uses could include a hotel and conference facilities, studios, galleries and other commercial space. These will be subject to a full, detailed planning process.

Fiona Twycross 

Crystal Palace Park 

Have you read the results of the first questionnaire carried out by Arup at its consultation event? They are available on the London Crystal Palace website and show a majority favouring a museum, art gallery or visitor attraction rather than hotels and retail. What do you think of the findings of this initial consultation meeting?

Yes, I have read the results, and am extremely encouraged that people are engaging so actively with the ongoing consultation process. I’m keen to see something that balances public appeal, facilities and attractions with the need to ensure the ongoing commercial sustainability of the building, and my officers are working closely with Bromley and Arup to ensure this is the case. I assure you that we want to attract and deliver in Crystal Palace a cultural attraction that will be of national significance and add to and not compete with London’s existing cultural offer.

Despite your own personal enthusiasm for the plans to build of a replica of Crystal Palace in Crystal Palace Park the findings of the consultation show respondents top three priorities were restoring the park, attracting locals and protecting heritage. Will you listen to these views even if they are different to your own stated view?

There is no reason why the views of local constituents and the aims for the renovated park should be being mutually exclusive. Restoring the park, attracting locals and protecting heritage are three of our long-stated goals for this project. However, the cost of renovating the park is rising and currently estimated to be £80 million. Therefore, significant investment needs to be generated to deliver the priorities of the public, and the findings of the consultation process, and we will keep this in mind as developments continue to progress.

Are you aware of concerns raised about the initial consultation meeting about Crystal Palace Park in December, and what is your office's involvement in the consultation process?

I am aware of the concerns that were raised. A team from Arup is leading on engagement activity on behalf of the developer and is being supported by my officers. I understand that the second consultation meeting on 1^st February addressed many of the concerns around communication and presentation.

Approximately 350 people attended this meeting, with around 320 copies of the questionnaire completed online and on the day. There was representation from my officers at the event, as there will be at the next event on 1^st March.

We need to talk about Crystal Palace

It would appear that those behind plans to 'rebuild' Crystal Palace have underestimated levels of interest. The Mayor of London's office, Bromley Council and consultants Arup hosted a day long 'drop-in' event for local communities to hear an update on plans to redevelop the top terraces of the park, on the site of Joseph Paxton's original building. But, with a talk scheduled for 11.30am, the doors of the meeting room at the Lodge - inside a modern tower within the park - had to be closed as it was already bursting with at least a couple of hundred people (indeed, I only managed to squeeze in waving a toy to give to my wife to keep our daughter entertained!). 

While the planners may have the best of intentions, the event didn't seem to satisfy most attendees. There wasn't an enormous amount to update as there remains a lack of information and detail as to what is really intended. And, significantly, there was not, as far as I was aware, a representative from the Zhong Rong group, the Chinese firm who are eager to pay for the £500million redevelopment.

As soon as James Lough, associate director of Arup, began his speech, he was interrupted by challenging questions:

'Where is the brief for this? There is no brief that says, we want this. You don't have a brief you don't have a concept. You have got six disparate firms of architects, how can they come with a concept for Crystal Palace?

'A lot of us were under the impression that the Chinese organisation were going to rebuild Crystal Palace. A lot of us thought this would be according to Paxton's own design and now it seems that this in fact something completely different.'

Another lady exclaimed: 'We don't buy it, it's a sham and it's shameful.'

Mr Lough did his best to respond. The brief 'is being developed for the competition and the project'. Yet, it is clear the six short-listed firms have not been set any parameters within which to work. This is their opportunity to show off with flamboyant designs that will never be built.

The new building, Mr Lough admitted, 'isn't going to be a slavish adherence' to Paxton's design as that was of its time and the new building will have to conform modern building regulations.

An ambitious timetable was laid out. From the six firms, three will be selected later in Spring to submit more detailed - and presumably realistic - proposals, with the winner chosen in the Summer. Assuming all goes smoothly in planning (!), work would commence in winter 2015 with the final building opening in 2018.

There is nothing firm about what might be in the new palace, though the questionnaire they have distributed gives an interesting insight into what the local community thinks.

Would you like to see a new Crystal Palace developed in Crystal Palace Park?

Yes - 54% No - 19% Not sure - 28%

What uses would you like to see in the new Palace?

                                           Yes          No

Hotel                                    32            45

Cinema                                 52            31

Museum                               86              7

Art Gallery                           85              8

Shops                                    25            52

Artist studios                        72            12

Restaurant/cafes                  81            13

Conference facilities            44            33

Viewing platform                  85              7

(The above figures are estimates. The only precise percentage given was for the 'yes/no' question, all the other figures are my interpretation of block graphs. I'm happy to be corrected)

A world class hotel is a crucial aspect to any development of this scale so the hostility to this is already striking. There is also strong opposition against the venue hosting shops. The backers say they will not compete with what is already available in Crystal Palace, but it's hard to imagine this project going ahead without shops, bars and restaurants.

The Q&A afterwards developed something of theme. There were repeated complaints about the failure to alert people about the exhibition, though I did wonder if this was perhaps a bit unfair; while I only found out the night before, the event was packed and I gather the later, similar, meeting was heaving too.

Were other councils being involved? Yes, but none were there at this session. They are being kept updated apparently. It is significant that, while Bromley Council control the park, those most affected do not live in the borough.

Concerns were raised over the funding of the project; how could it be guaranteed that the Zhong Rong Group would be committed to the project for the entire course? And what about the potential sale - the 'privatisation' - of a significant proportion of the park? A representative from the council said lawyers were already looking to securing funding and they would ensure open access to land is guaranteed for the future.

I don't want to give the impression there was only opposition to the scheme. It clearly has robust support. One man described it as the 'most exciting' of the various schemes he had seen over the 30 years he had lived in the area. Another called for prominent water features to be part of any new development, reminding the gathering how the park's fountains had once been the size of Nelson's Column.

The fountains of Crystal Palace

But overwhelmingly, there was a feeling of frustration at the lack of detail. Labour London Assembly Member Val Shawcross asked about the footprint of the planned building, saying it appeared to be way beyond was what allowed - presumably based on the current artist's impression which sees the an enormous structure covering spots like the bus station. The answer was no limits had been given to the architects to give them as much freedom as they needed to come up with their design. When Ms Shawcross begged for consultation to 'be cranked up' she was met with a round of applause.

The redevelopment of Crystal Palace has been dogged for decades by politics at all levels; local, council level, regional and in government. Indeed, I have heard the various Crystal Palace groups compared with the People's Front of Judea. Consultation so far has been dogged by a lack of information. Arup made no guarantee that the planning brief will be made public but they are looking at opening a shop in the Crystal Palace Triangle to try and keep people more directly informed. Perhaps that will help.

Those behind the project will surely hope so. The scheme will only have a successful outcome with careful negotiation. There is a vocal body of opposition which will only get stronger and louder if the current inadequate state of affairs continues.

Boris' bridge of whimsy

The Evening Standard today splashed with ’Floating Garden for New Thames Bridge’. It elaborated the only mysterious aspect of Mayor of London Boris Johnson’s otherwise tedious 2020 Vision unveiled last week, a 'garden bridge'.

Then no further details, other than it would be a bridge across the Thames lined with trees, were given. And now we see why.

Apparently, the plan, conceived by Thomas Heatherwick - he of the petal torch at the Olympics and the considerably less successful B of the Bang in Manchester - has won a Transport for London contest to ’improve pedestrian access across the Thames’. A fine idea, I'm sure we can agree, but the proposed location linking Covent Garden to the Southbank is possibly the worst spot they could have chosen.

For that area of the Thames possibly has among most generous provision of bridges, pedestrian and otherwise, anywhere along the river. Only in 2003, I was one of several journalists who covered the opening of the two, excellent Golden Jubilee Bridge. Flanking Hungerford Bridge, the two link from the Embankment, by Covent Garden, directly with the Southbank.

And disregarding the crossing at Blackfriars, the Millennium Bridge is only a 20 minute walk away, so peaceful pedestrian crossing is not hard to find.

According to the Standard piece, mayoral advisers believe the new bridge ’would bring to life the quiet stretches around Temple and the east of the Southbank Centre’. 

Firstly, I'm not sure where this quiet spot on the Southbank is as it's a hive of activity from Westminster Bridge to London Bridge and beyond. Secondly, the peace around Temple offers a welcome respite. The gardens of the Inns of Court sit there as well as several small, but well-tended and used public parks. And the peace of this spot is questionable anyway considering the traffic of the Embankment roars by ferociously.

The other great problem, which the Standard fails to mention and Boris perpetually does his best to avoid, is the concept of building a new bridge in the relatively well-catered for West End would be an enormous two fingers to the poor people of East London who are desperately in need of a new river crossing.

Beyond Tower Bridge crossings are dreadful and despite the growing population one of Boris' first acts as mayor was to cancel a planned new bridge. No new provision has been made, though there was talk of a new tunnel which has got nowhere. Though there is, of course, Boris’ ludicrous, increasingly costly cable car, going from nowhere to nowhere.

The excellent blogger MayorWatch has charted the increasingly sorry story of the #dangleway: the foolish ambition; the misguided planning and strategy; the obfuscation; the swallowing of public money despite promises otherwise; and now, the pathetic decline in numbers and it’s horrible unreliability. It was and will ever be a vanity project, one which the next mayor will have no choice but to firmly wash of their hands.

The whole bridge scheme remains very flimsy - theoretically, not practically of course. Though, I should say, the concept of a garden bridge, in another location, remains very appealing.

But this plan apparently has Boris’ support, though the Standard has no supporting comment from the blonde, shaggy one. Boris, today described by Nick Clegg as a slacker’, obviously enjoys these flights of whimsy as it seems to make him think he’s doing his job. And as the piece makes clear no money is in the offing from either his office or TfL, it would be no surprise if it was right up his alley.