Today, we’re taking a look at the proposed River Park, designed to float on the Thames in London. The proposed structure will be a full kilometre long, running between the Millennium Bridge and Tower Bridge and linking many of London’s key tourist spots. It’ll be comprised of long walkways with silver “pods” to house cinemas, museums and the like. The park is the brainchild of Gensler, an architecture firm and Venus, a Singaporean asset-management company which will foot the bill. They claim it will be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics – read more about it here.

It sounds like a fabulous idea – in the abstract. Londoners love their parks, and a floating green space on the water sounds rather lovely. But on closer examination we’re unimpressed by the design. It’s not so much a park as an extended walkway punctuated by the occasional tree. The design also disrespects its centuries-old surroundings.

The Design Council feels the same way. In September they reviewed the proposal concluding that it was not “appropriate to the character of the river.” They described the pods as “unimaginative and corporate in appearance,” “detracting from views of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Millennium Bridge” and too closed off from passersby. The report also raised concerns about the nature of the project, “we are not convinced by the description of the project as a ‘park,’ the structure appears more akin to a pier or walkway.” Gensler hasn’t addressed the issues of sustainability, safety or practicality to their satisfaction either. Personally, we’re surprised the design includes a swimming pool but no changing rooms or showers.

Most disturbingly, Gensler describes the project as an “urban public amenity,” which seems unlikely. As the Council put it, “the description ‘park’ gives the impression of free access; however we question whether this will truly be the case.” After all Venus will pay £60 million to build the thing and they’ll expect a return on that investment. They’ll get it by renting out the pods to TV companies or to big businesses for corporate events which seems likely to affect public access. Because they’ll own the site they’ll be entitled to dictate who comes in and when. This makes the site private space conditionally open to the public, unlike an actual park or street.

In an excellent piece for the Guardian, Rowan Moore explained how “this matters because, if we are kidded into thinking that there is a civic realm that is not actually there, we will suddenly find that there is less space than we had thought for such essential public actions as protest.” He relates how the Occupy London protesters found that much so-called ‘public space’ in capital turns out to be private – although it was always described as ‘public space’ in funding applications. Even worse, the ‘park’ will hijack the north bank of the Thames, which is currently truly public. Why exactly Boris Johnson supports a Singaporean firm occupying the Thames escapes us.

We actually think a floating park on the Thames could be a great idea. Just not this one – it’s poorly designed and not nearly as public as it wants you to think. And if you want a design to float your boat, brief the Exchange today.