
Privatised London: the Thames Path walk that resembles a prison corridor - chrismealy
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/24/private-london-exposed-thames-path-riverside-walking-route
======
Jedd
I used to live on the Isle of Dogs - just down and to the left from the intro
photo on that article - on the Thames waterfront, albeit in a relatively
modern 15-storey, multi-building estate.

I was always torn between wanting more access along the waterway edges - it
would make a fantastic bicycle route into town, as well as further outwards -
and wanting more privacy / protection from the kinds of idiots that thought
partying in front of a residential building at 3am was acceptable behaviour.
By partying I mean music, shouting, glass bottles being smashed, and so on.

The estate was in on-going 'discussions' over the previous several years with
the local council about gating half the street, and consequently access to the
foreshore. It was moot in terms of providing east-west access, as estates left
and right had already gated their access. And it's clear this is one of the
problems being described in the article - the 'let's make it less appealing so
you want to _use_ it less so you can _lose_ it more easily'.

I'm back in Australia now, where I believe (IANAL and the information may be
apocryphal) access to all tidal foreshore up to some distance, I think 30
metres? - was provided by law with two notable (military) exceptions. Whether
that's the case or not doesn't affect the fact that it's practically
impossible to obtain public access to foreshore areas in and around our
capital cities.

~~~
praptak
Aren't UK police effective in dealing with small-scale nuisance like loud
partying at 3am?

~~~
Ntrails
Most likely people are noisy "in transit" rather than actually sitting outside
a residence for several hours. It's unlikely you'll see a policeman in under
30 mins at which point they're just going to wake you up again to talk to you

------
blahedo
I'm a little disappointed that none of the photos particularly resemble a
prison corridor.

------
mangecoeur
London's developers are hell-bent on snapping up the best bits of the city for
the wealthiest clients, and the government doesn't seem very motivated to
protect them for public enjoyment.

It's pretty frustrating as a citizen feeling that no one's got your back - the
rich and the powerful work hand in hand for their benefit and everyone else is
left with the scraps - little bits of fenced of public space as a charity
gesture for the people who made the foolish choice of not being filthy rich.

~~~
nly
While I get how it must be tricky for Londoners to escape the chaos for a few
hours, the UK is a tiny island and you're never more than a short train ride
away from countryside.

~~~
DrJokepu
Great Britain is the 9th largest island by area in the world[0]. It's not tiny
by any measure.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area)

~~~
mobiuscog
but you're also never more than 72 miles away from the coast.

~~~
DrJokepu
Well, yes, but that would be also true for an island with the shape of a
rectangle that is 144 miles wide and 10000 miles long.

------
lorddoig
Who has, wants, and/or needs access to a riverfront is a marvellously
practical problem to solve. A lot of high-school kids are equipped with the
scientific know-how to get a relatively robust answer to this question, and
there are many, many smart mofos in universities around the globe who could
get a pretty damn definitive answer, taking into account relative harm/benefit
and everything!

But no, that just won't do. Instead let's reformulate it in ideological terms
- who _should_ have access? Now the whole planet is entitled to chip in. Facts
just became irrelevant. Yay. "So let's go collect some 'facts' for our story,"
said someone at The Guardian before cherry-picking a few half-notable views
from the (now global) distribution of opinions. One tiny little change to the
premise and this problem went from something well-defined and manageable to a
thinly veiled pitting of rich against poor with no objectively defensible
outcome. The Guardian - our dear moral leaders who spend their days paving the
path to social equality - pouring petrol on the class warfare fire to sell
papers? Well I never.

This is all fine if the point is entertainment, but this bullshit - coupled
with a super out-of-date version of democracy we like to get sentimental about
- is how we _govern_. It's madness. It's certifiable, crack-a-jack, put-you-
on-strong-pills craziness of the highest order.

------
guard-of-terra
They totally should implement a Marvin John Heemeyer Bulldozerway there.

Of course people who got hand on a part of city will try to ruin it for their
profit. Build fences, destroy historical sight, build up waterfronts.

The solution is in regulation. You only buy property, but you end up owning a
part whole of city experience. Preserve it or suffer.

------
peteretep

       > Wapping and Limehouse have certainly been radically altered
    

Yes. Thank fuck for that. Eagerly awaiting the articles pining for 1980s NYC
O_o

------
1971genocide
I do not see what the big deal is.

So there a few CCTVs cameras and an increase in private property - since the
public seems not to use it anyway - along a river ?

London is becoming a city for the elite bankers and capitalists, everyone
knows it. The world is a massive place. Rather than working like peasants I
suggest to the people complaining to have some dignity and create wealth
somewhere else where they think is a much fairer place.

I am slightly frustrated that so many young people spend their prime years
enriching a city that cares little for them and takes so much wealth from
them.

~~~
patrickyeon
I honestly don't even know how to begin to explain this to you.

There are highly valuable pieces of land (as happens with nice waterfronts)
that developers have promised to make accessible to everyone in exchange for
being able to develop there. They then make those places as unappealing as
they can to the public by using misleading architectural cues, being less tahn
helpful in enabling the access they promised, or even having guards flat-out
lie about the public's access to a space. If this does not seem like a bad
thing to you, and I mean this with no malice, I don't believe there is enough
common ground between you and I for me to be able to explain why it is.

If you think this is just a London thing, it's happening in San Francisco
(which, yes, has similar issues with inequality) [1] and is an ongoing issue
along the entire coast of California where the beach is public up to (at
least) the high tide mark, and often with trails to get to it too. But
landowners there also put up fake signs, block off access paths, and hire
security guards to lie about whether the general public is allowed there or
not.

[1] [http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/01/little-known-
publ...](http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/01/little-known-public-open-
spaces-soon-history.html)

~~~
Gustomaximus
This is also an issue in Oslo. Traditionally (and currently) the population
has the right of assess 2 meters inland from the high tide mark. People with
houses (typically elite suburbs) on the waterfront have tried to stop this as
they don't want someone walking across their front lawn or parking their boat
there.

Given Norways egalitarian society, I was more surprised the people pursuing
this felt it was worth their effort given the likelihood of success.

