The London River Park is dead.

OK, the London River Park has been dead for some considerable time, but over the weekend, the website joined its architectural vision and has finally given up trying to promote the project.

Announced in June 2011 as a new floating walkway along the north bank of the Thames, it was a fairly interesting idea, if more showcase for companies during the Olympics than a realistically long term addition to the London riverside.

Then in early 2012 they admitted it wouldn’t be ready in time for the Olympics, and that probably killed it dead in the water.

Since then silence — but some software I use to track changes in websites pinged up a change this morning at the London River Park’s website.

It’s also dead. Or accurately, all the light-weight fluff that hadn’t been updated since 2011 has now been replaced by a splash page from the website developers. All the other pages on the website have vanished as well.

The website domain name expires in 2015 if you want it.

Their YouTube promo video is still online if you want to see what we didn’t get.


Be the first to know what's on in London, and the latest news published on ianVisits.

You can unsubscribe at any time from my weekly emails.

Tagged with:

This website has been running now for just over a decade, and while advertising revenue contributes to funding the website, but doesn't cover the costs. That is why I have set up a facility with DonorBox where you can contribute to the costs of the website and time invested in writing and research for the news articles.

It's very similar to the way The Guardian and many smaller websites are now seeking to generate an income in the face of rising costs and declining advertising.

Whether its a one-off donation or a regular giver, every additional support goes a long way to covering the running costs of this website, and keeping you regularly topped up doses of Londony news and facts.

If you like what your read on here, then please support the website here.

Thank you

  1. Greg Tingey says:

    And who was going to pay for the maintenance of this complex project, floating in a tideway with a big rise-&-fall & with lots of shipping?

    Totally impractical from before it started, actually.

    • IanVisits says:

      It’s pretty obvious who would have had to cover the maintenance cost.

      Whether the business model would have supported it is another matter — but the identity is so obvious as to not need saying.

  2. Nicholas A says:

    Thomas Heatherwick’s proposed garden bridge has a similar sort of look and will at least go somewhere useful. But is it destined to be filed in the same cylindrical filing cabinet at the side of the Mayor’s desk?

  3. Philip Arlington says:

    This is no loss. The press releases made it sound great, but in reality it was an abuse of the word “park” as it was nothing more than a floating concrete pontoon with some corporate hospitality pavilions and a few pot plants on it.

    • Greg Tingey says:

      And, as Ian hints, we’d have to pay for the thing, to profit scam-merchants.
      Good riddance.

  4. Anon says:

    Can I ask what it is you use to monitor changes…
    I’ve been looking for a good tool along those lines.

Home >> News >> Miscellaneous