Author Topic: National Park City?  (Read 401 times)

John Walker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
National Park City?
« on: 22:01:37, 01/09/17 »
Have others come across the campaign to turn London into the first National Park City? Quite a few politicians (including the mayor) are supporting the campaign.  I think Iím in favour of the idea  :-\  but I donít understand all the implications. Iím interested to know what others think. It may not seem to have much to do with this forum but I first came across the campaign when I read about an Ďexplorerí from Ealing, Daniel Raven-Ellison, who did a 530 km long-distance walk entirely within London, spiralling in from the outer suburbs to the centre. He has published a low-res map of his route and some short vids and photos along the route. Any views on this?
http://www.greenlives.org.uk/walk.html
National Trails completed: SWCP, Thames, SDW and NDW

fernman

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #1 on: 10:54:04, 02/09/17 »
Well, Daniel Raven-Ellison's walk was some achievement, and there are also the Capital Ring and the London Loop long distance paths, while part of the Thames Path passes froim one side of the metropolis to the other. Then there are countless other local trails, nature trails and country parks. Also from a walking point of view there are a small number of guide books available of walks in London, while Mark Mason wrote "Walk The Lines" about walking the routes of each of the tube lines, and no doubt there are other similar books I am not aware of.
By all means promote this aspect of London, but to make it a "national park"? Complete and utter tosh! A national park is a largely rural area preserved for its exceptional scenery and wildlife, protected from being spoilt by poorly regulated development, and important for tourism and recreation. This most certainly does not apply to a city, no matter what it has in the way of green and open spaces.
(Written by one who has spent most of his life living in an outer-London borough.)
« Last Edit: 11:00:12, 02/09/17 by fernman »

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #2 on: 11:20:51, 02/09/17 »
I don't think they want London actually designated as a National Park. If you look at page 12 here they even say how London could not qualify to be one http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nationalparkcity/(Simple+A4+Design)+Greater+London+National+Park+City+Proposal+1.2.pdf


Looking at the website their aims are hard to disagree with but incredibly vague
Quote
Letís make London the worldís first National Park City. A city where people and nature are better connected. A city that is rich with wildlife and every child benefits from exploring, playing and learning outdoors. A city where we all enjoy high-quality green spaces, the air is clean to breathe, itís a pleasure to swim in its rivers and green homes are affordable. Together we can make London a greener, healthier and fairer place to live. Together we can make London a National Park City.
As far as I can tell they want to do pretty much what fernman suggests which is to promote outdoor knowledge and activities in the capital.
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

Dyffryn Ardudwy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #3 on: 13:59:10, 02/09/17 »
The only National Park, where the air quality is amongst the poorest in the country.

Its a good idea trying to encourage visitors to explore the walks in and around the City of London, but National park status brings with it many implications, conservation, planning rights, the list is almost endless.


I can easily see the idea causing significant conflict, with those living in and around the less heavily congested areas of London.


I should know what living in a National Park involves, living in Dyffryn, there are certain things i am not allowed to do, without the consent of the National Park, and altering my home, significantly is one of them.


Granted, there are some nice walks in and around the city, but National Park status ?.


I can easily see the multitude of foreign visitors, getting terribly confused, thinking if this is the Uk's idea of a National park, then we will not bother visiting the Lake district or Snowdonia.

I forget where i read it, but the number of foreign tourists who never venture out of London, on their visit to the Uk, is significant.

There are some really nice open areas, and parks in and around London, but National Park status, just a great excuse to charge the visitor a premium to visit it.

The Uk has a significant number of fabulous of National parks, i thought the whole idea of them, was to escape the noise and pollution of the major cities, and breathe the pure air.

No doubt another silly idea conjoured up by the Mayor, to waste millions of pubic revenue.

They thought the garden bridge over the Thames was a great idea, that was sensibly shelved.

One of the most polluted areas of the Uk, a National Park, total waste of our money if it gets the go ahead.
« Last Edit: 14:13:43, 02/09/17 by Dyffryn Ardudwy »

fernman

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1412
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #4 on: 14:23:10, 02/09/17 »
I don't think they want London actually designated as a National Park. If you look at page 12 here they even say how London could not qualify to be one http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nationalparkcity/(Simple+A4+Design)+Greater+London+National+Park+City+Proposal+1.2.pdf

Well "National Park City" is what they called their idea, and that was repeated by the press too.
They should have thought up another name from one which is already in use that means something very different.

I don't think they're offering anything new that other bodies aren't already doing, individually or collectively, while at the end of the day it's all going to come down to funding - or, more to the point, the lack of it.

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #5 on: 14:38:14, 02/09/17 »
Well "National Park City" is what they called their idea, and that was repeated by the press too.
They should have thought up another name from one which is already in use that means something very different.
You are right it is a misleading name but it gets them press coverage.

Quote
I don't think they're offering anything new that other bodies aren't already doing, individually or collectively, while at the end of the day it's all going to come down to funding - or, more to the point, the lack of it.
Yes it doesn't really look like anything new, more of an umbrella organisation.
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #6 on: 14:50:15, 02/09/17 »
No doubt another silly idea conjoured up by the Mayor, to waste millions of pubic revenue.
Nothing to do with the mayor, though he has said he supports it. They are saying it will be privately funded and the mayor has offered no financial support.


Quote
They thought the garden bridge over the Thames was a great idea, that was sensibly shelved.
Who is 'they'? Not the current mayor.
Quote
One of the most polluted areas of the Uk, a National Park, total waste of our money if it gets the go ahead.
  You should read the document I link to above if you are really interested as otherwise I will slowly have to quote it all.
Quote
The Government is not being asked to designate Greater London as a National Park
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

Mel

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6786
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #7 on: 16:05:37, 02/09/17 »
I think it (the Campaign) needs a re-name.  After reading it, "National Park City" is a bit misleading IMHO.  Granted, the vast diversity of Greater London should perhaps be recognised.  I'm sure I'm not the only person not native to London who hears "London" and thinks "urban"....even though the reality is far from that.  Most tourists visit for a "city tour".


Perhaps Greater London needs to apply for some sort of title celebrating its urban - industrial - green space - historical - cultural diversity instead  :-\



No expense spared in pursuit of a bargain ;)

Peter

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #8 on: 19:41:49, 02/09/17 »
I live 200 yards from the Dales National Park boundary. That is because most of the 'towns' wanted to be excluded. The planning restrictions are onerous, there is no way that London could cope with it. It would be totally blighted by it.
I am 100% in support of anything that encourages people to get out and about.

Peter
sometimes I fall off the learning curve....
Join: Yorkshire Dales Walking Buddies
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1783012625307

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #9 on: 20:13:28, 02/09/17 »
That thudding sound you can hear is me hitting my head on the wall.
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

Peter

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #10 on: 20:44:41, 02/09/17 »
That thudding sound you can hear is me hitting my head on the wall.




 :o
 :-X
Peter
sometimes I fall off the learning curve....
Join: Yorkshire Dales Walking Buddies
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1783012625307

Ridge

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5257
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #11 on: 21:01:12, 02/09/17 »
Sorry Peter, it sounds less humerus written down than I wanted it to, absolutely no offence intended.
Over hill, over dale. Thorough brush, thorough brier....
I do wander every where

Oldtramp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: National Park City?
« Reply #12 on: 21:21:47, 02/09/17 »
I'm all in favour of preserving green spaces in London and green belt around it.  And the chaos within has its own ambience for walking - as Iain Sinclair (now hanging up his boots) caught in 'Lights Out for the Territory'.  Not quite my taste for a good hike, but I see where he's coming from.  Ackroyd catches it too.


'National Park City' is, however, just a bit of fatuous, or maybe devious, marketing that, if adopted, will end up blurring and confusing what real National Parks are supposed to be about.