I sometimes worry that the US enthusiasm for military adventures came from the ‘Ole Country. The British still go in for more of them than they should but I much prefer militarism in public parks to militarism in other people’s countries. So, yes, I agree, there is probably more good than bad to this trend. I am not keen on football crowds or cruise ships either but I would much rather people were on/in them than tramping on/in historic sites and occupying ugly hotels in beautiful places.

The idea of paying a lot of money to be treated really badly sounds like the scenerio in the restuarant from the Peter Greenaway film ‘the cook, the thief, his wife and her lover.’ So yes, it is a little bit disturbing.

This film seemed to suggest you only get treated badly in the most fashionable of places…[ http://www.visitlondon.com/attractions/eat/michelinstarred-restaurants ]. Gordon Ramsay certainly seems to typify this phenomenon?

Perhaps office workers are feeling a general lack of structure and discipline in their lives?

So maybe there is a good side and a bad side to this trend?

Thank you for the links and for the explanation of active in relation to space. Greenwich Park is becoming more active by the day, but not quite in your sense. The big change in the past 5 years has been more and more organized activity. The most visible organizer, though there are many others, is militaristic outfit called British Military Fitness http://www.britmilfit.com/. People pay lots of money to be treated really badly. Yobs in camouflage pants and hob nailed boots yell at pudgy office workers to ‘Get the xxxx on with it’. One begins to wonder about their bedroom habits!

Perhaps there are some statistics in the UK that would support increased expenditure on cycling to reduce the size of the health budget? [ http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/National-urban-planning-design-protocol.pdf ]

The cycle tubes could be an example of crime prevention through environmental design (see attached glossary) for example Tom would be safe from snowball weilding teenagers in winter. [ http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/documents/business/Urban%20renewal/20081125%20urban%20design%20terms%20explained.pdf ]

Active space is used in architecture to describe the use of buildings at ground level for high use public activities such as cafes, restaurants etc. [ http://www.4220.com.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/images/cafes/broadbeach-diningstrip.jpg ] In landscape it usually describes design which formally or informally encourages a high level of interactive activity. See informal active landscape[ http://www.4220.com.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/images/burleigh/burleigh-beach-markets.jpg ] and formal active landscape [ http://www.businessgc.com.au/uploads/images/Newsletter%20pics/rockpools.jpg ].

I would not want the cycle tubes to take up street space. The example I have had in mind is the railway from Greenwich to London Bridge, which is straight and is crossed by few bridges. The tubes could soar above it and I think the quality of the views and freshness of the air would be much better in the cycle tube than on the train. I used to cycle the trip on the A2 but the air was foul and the traffic dangerous so I now take my bike on the train. If there was a nice tube then (1) it would cost no money (2) the view would be much better (3) there would be no waiting for trains (4) it would work all night (5) I think the journey time would be reduced (6) the cost/trip would be vastly less than in a fossil-fuel powered system.
So I would swoosh into Central London and THEN enjoy the air and sun.

It could resemble the Hong Kong elevator visually, but not mechanically, and in order for the air system to work there would have to be either two tubes or a reversible tube. The decision would depend on demand. I wish they had built a cycle tube above the DLR to take people to the 2012 Olympics. Instead of this they are going to close roads and make life more of a hell for Londoners.

Especially on a glorious day like today 🙂