Tucked away within that most excellent piece is an entirely different issue that the entire UK needs to address, sooner rather than later.
What is the purpose and goal of our listed building infrastructure and how should it operate?
As currently constituted English Heritage [and its companion bodies in the other nations] will eventually end up turning the entire nation into a theme park for American and other tourists; because eventually all buildings will be old enough to deserve a listing..
I speak to this as someone who lives in a G2 listed building and has done for more than 40 years. That building is in an entire street of such buildings, all designed by Nash and built by Cubbitt.
Do we need to protect the street's general look and feel? Probably. Do we need to prevent all meaningful and useful changes to the structures? Definitely not.
We're not allowed to alter the roof line. We're not allowed to change the railings outside to enplace waste/rubbish/recyling points. We're not allowed to change doorframes and windows, or use double glazing. We're not allowed to change the colour of the facade. We're not allowed ... the system is all about what we can not do and not at all about how buildings can be changed and adapted to suit modern needs and requirements.
Where planners are willing to engage with and address changing needs the entire process is excruciatingly slooooow.
A small example here: almost all of London's "Georgian" architecture is built from soft bricks made from local clays that were almost always underfired. So when exposed to the atmosphere they erode rapidly and badly. They're also so soft that a good swing with a heavy sledge hammer will smash right though two course walls in two or maybe three full swings. But if we want to stabilise these buildings which usually have no foundations, we're not usually allowed to replace the existing soft bricks with stronger items that won't collapse or erode.
This isn't future proofing, this is preserving in aspic. This isn't management of a dynamic urban environment. This is managing a living museum.
In the case of Hammersmith Bridge we now need to seriously ask what it is that we are protecting with its listing.
Assuming that we need a bridge there at all then why not simply tear it down and replace it with a modern properly designed structure that looks exactly the same? There's no law - natural or statutory - that says a new bridge has to look modern. Making it look and feel the same as the old bridge won't actually add significantly to the costs and will be far far simpler cheaper and faster than seeking to "renovate and repair".
Thank you for reading and sharing this interesting comment, Robert.
The UK heritage system has indeed become absurdly restrictive, preventing reasonable adaptations (double glazing, waste points, replacing eroding bricks) and risking turning Britain into a living museum. Some buildings deserve preservation, but the system must distinguish between what truly matters and where sensible adaptation should be allowed.
For Hammersmith Bridge, ideally we'd remove the listing and build a robust replacement whose architectural beauty rivalled Bazalgette's original - quickly and at reasonable cost. In reality, UK infrastructure delivery is so uncertain that such a project would take many years at unknown expense (and we'd probably build something rather ugly). Moreover, given changes to traffic patterns and the economy, it's unclear there's a strong case for restoring full motor traffic anyway.
That's why a solution like the pods (cost-effective, timely, innovative, and using the existing structure) is, in my view, the only practical way to solve the challenges facing local residents today.
As a [now long retired] civil engineer I have to say: tearing down and replacing with an identical looking structure need not take that long or cost that much. But I'm not going to argue the case one way or the other. If the public votes for pods then pods it is.
As for our Heritage system: it's actively working against us and our civic needs in all sorts of ways. I've been complaining about this to all sorts of bodies and people for 35 years or more, but it doesn't seem to help change minds. Addtionally, the way in which EH is so closely intertwined into the Local Authority planning system militates against change. It's like asking a sadistic judge to give judgements on the ethics of sadism.
A simple example: allowing owners of buildings [listed or otherwise] to add roof gardens without a need for additional consents other than standard structural oversight via building control could help to lower inner city mean temperatures by anything between 2C and 8C. Inner London has a vast and massive problem of excess heat, notably inner city soil temperatures are articificially raised by the London Underground system. We need to start lowering subsoil temperature by as much as 15c over the next decade, and we are not going to achieve that unless we can also slow solar gain through increased vegetation.
We need to join up the thinking!
Thanks again for your most excellent piece. I look forward to more of the same.
@robertneuschul you articulate very well the challenges of obsessive conservation.
Let's consider another bizarre example; the current furore about a proposed development at Liverpool Street station - a place regularly overwhelmed by users and with poor accessibility, particularly to the underground platforms. All the cliches have been rolled out for this one; talk of bespoiling a conservation area, demolition of heritage buildings and isn't-the-world-a-horrid-place-these-days.
But the trouble is, apart from the direct aesthetics of the proposal, which will never be to everyone's taste, none of it is particularly truthful. This is in the midst of the City of London, surrounded by some of the tallest modern buildings in Europe. Calling it a conservation area is laughable. And the "heritage buildings" set to be demolished? They're all less than 40 years old, and include a bunch of cringey 1980s clutter that we're truly better off without. The only true heritage "loss" is a Victorian barrel vault that no-one even knew existed before the planning application went in. Anyone who's been to Liverpool Street knows full well that it's not really a heritage marvel - some bits are old, for sure, but it's not a massively characterful landmark like St Pancras or Buckingham Palace.
And yet Griff Rhys-Jones is leading a virtuous campaign lambasting the greedy overlords of whoever-it-is daring to want to upgrade a critical and overwhelmed piece of public transport infrastructure with money from an over-site development - a strategy, by the way, pioneered by Leslie Green on the London Underground and used to great effect to fund transport infrastructure around the world - most notably making Hong Kong's metro system profitable.
Well done, Nick. This is an excellent piece of citizen research and writing. It’s making quite an impact and rightly so. You have brought together the various threads of the complicated story in a way that has been missing up to now with great thoroughness and wordcraft - thank you Charles.
One thing I have noticed in my life is that sometimes letting the answers evolve over time can lead eventually to the right solutions. When I see the school children cycling, scooting and walking across the bridge in the morning laughing, chatting and being independent I think how could we go back on this. The previous situation was nightmarish!
Nick This is the best most exhaustive piece of research analysis and summary of optional solutions that I have come across anywhere. Congratulations with this incredible piece. Please do get in touch as I think we should take this forward. Im standing as Conservative Cllr for Barnes - let's make a plan. Im doing a Barnes Podcast would you like to do an interview with me for the podcast ? I'll email Lynne so you have my contacts.
Thank you for your very kind feedback Helen. Glad you are also thinking about creative and more realistic solutions for the bridge. Have been abroad but happy to connect later in April when convenient
Good article; I agree with the conclusion, but I'm not so sure about the solution. Pods always feel a bit too much on the gadgetbahn spectrum.
But actually, as proposed, these are more like lightweight autonomous buses than the inefficient individualised pods we've seen elsewhere (eg Heathrow). It seems to me that's likely to be a much more feasible and useful framing. Lightweight autonomous buses. Paint them red and run them from Hammersmith Bus station to Barnes Bridge. Or Barnes station. Or both.
Thank you for this excellent research and summary of the situation as it stands. My house is at the far end of Barnes (off White Hart Lane). Overnight, it went from being a short 10-15 min bus ride to a well-connected tube station to half an hour or more sitting in traffic around Chiswick, or a late night walk under the flyover and over the bridge, then a wait for a bus on Castelnau. As a non-driver and someone who cannot safely cycle (I am partially sighted), my home went from being an easy commute to a village backwater. I ended up moving house, because it was all the costs of living in London with none of the benefits. I went back there last year briefly and it hadn’t substantially improved. Opening up to cyclists and pedestrians is a positive move, but not a complete transport solution. I really like what’s set out here. Combining preservation of the heritage with a truly integrated system that links Barnes back to the rest of London’s public transport network. Add in a properly connected mini bus station at either end, so people can wait somewhere dry and well-lit, and this feels safe and sustainable. And the cost is pocket change stacked up against the alternatives (which, as you note, are clearly never going to happen).
Thank you Sharon for your comment and sharing your experience.
The fact that you had to move house because Barnes became cut off from the transport network is exactly the sort of impact that gets lost in policy debates.
You're quite right that pedestrian and cycle access does not offer a solution for those who can't cycle or drive, whereas, a solution like the pods offer a genuine way to reconnect Barnes and Hammersmith quickly and affordably.
I could not agree more with your point about proper waiting facilities at either end (safe, dry and well-lit). That is the sort of straightforward enhancement that transforms this into a serious transport solution rather than a novelty.
this is a great, thought-provoking and detailed article - thank you
on the key question why Britain can't build like it used to, or China has
bureaucracy, red tape, regulation and safety all clearly matter, but the major difference is surely outside these normal discussions in the UK debate
Britain now is far wealthier than Victorian Britain was, but the fiscal space to do useful things is incredibly squeezed now, has shrunk over perhaps a century (worse with recent austerity etc) and that is paradoxical — needs economic explaination
China was authoritarian for a long time, but only had the funds to build this infrastructure recently — the opposite happened for China
The fiscal paradox you highlight is interesting, but I would counter that with these two points (assuming I have understood correctly)
1. Victorian Britain built Hammersmith Bridge as a private toll bridge - the money was there because delivery costs were low and regulatory friction minimal and private individuals felt incentivised to take the speculative risk on that capital expenditure investment.
2. Modern Britain does actually fiscal capacity, our tax take and deficit are far larger now (for a peacetime period), but we have simply chosen to spend on welfare rather than industry. I am reminded of this recent FT comment contrasting Britain and China's approaches to socialism https://x.com/crankynotions/status/1991630920999178701
A couple of points - Why were the Hyder recommendations to H&F ignored? Wasn’t the Cost:benefit presented based on Pell Frischman scheme by Government 1:10? Why no mention of the Beckett Rankin temporary bridge? Didn’t the Foster/COWI scheme envisages the double deck solution as temporary enabling the bridge to be dismantled cleaned and put together again? Many ‘challenging’ (batty) ideas not just the ones you highlighted.
Yes, the Foster/COWI scheme doubledeck was to be temporary: the rationale was that the doubledeck frame could i) make removing the old and inserting new road deck sections easier; and ii) provide for the bridge to remain open to vehicles for a portion of the construction period, by using the doubledeck frame for cars and pedestrians/cyclists. It would most likely have been more expensive than a solution which didn't cater to keeping the bridge open to vehicles during construction and would have meant the construction period was longer as well. As we have all adapted to having the bridge closed now anyway, the value in this solution is greatly diminished if it was ever feasible. The pods or something like that(golf carts would work as well) look to be the most cost effective solution for those to are not able to walk or cycle across the bridge, and which can be implemented quickly and at low cost. The rest of us have simply adapted.
Thank you Simon - it sounds as though you know far more of the technical details than I do! I have limited knowledge of the Hayder recommendations (presumably you are referring to the 2014 report rather than 1997), if you have them in full, please do share.
You're right to mention the Beckett Rankine plans. There are other far more eccentric proposals I'd have liked to include in this piece, but I felt that for brevity it was not helpful to overindulge in examining the full range of alternatives.
My focus here is simply to present a solution that can be delivered quickly at reasonable cost, hence the pods - its been 7 years after all! It is also worth reiterating that the pods themselves offer optionality since they do not preclude other solutions being explored in the longer term.
I started answering your points. It was the 1997 report which a google search summarises. It is Hyder not Hayder! The WhatsApp group is questioning the viability of the pod solutions but i think something along those lines is the best way froward. I passed on your piece to Christian Wolmar who responded positively - he may try and do a podcast with you.
I remember seeing the Hyder (not Hayder!) 1997 report and a quick google search reveals some of the key facts. The detail is not really the issue, it was delivered/commissioned by Hammersmith and Fulham and as far as I can ascertain the warnings were ignored.During the 1990’s there was a group of bridge engineers who looked at the state of London bridges. It was managed by Westminster City Council and went by the acronym of LOBEG - London Bridges engineering group. I was working at Westminster City Council at the time. There is a WhatsApp group (Charles Campion is on it) which posts messages on the bridge. Perhaps you know that. Recently one of the members was casting aspersions on the feasibility of the pods. I also wonder about the loadings quoted. (This is the response that I started earlier then lost)
I've lived nearby as well (Richmond area) since before Hammersmith bridge closed. I think the one thing you missed here are the substantial negative effects the closure had on surrounding communities. It's been great for Barnes, and bad for everyone else. I lived in Mortlake at the time, and traffic quite literally went up 10x overnight after the closure - as everyone routed through Kew/Mortlake due to the closure. And it's never improved, traffic remains awful in these areas.
Tucked away within that most excellent piece is an entirely different issue that the entire UK needs to address, sooner rather than later.
What is the purpose and goal of our listed building infrastructure and how should it operate?
As currently constituted English Heritage [and its companion bodies in the other nations] will eventually end up turning the entire nation into a theme park for American and other tourists; because eventually all buildings will be old enough to deserve a listing..
I speak to this as someone who lives in a G2 listed building and has done for more than 40 years. That building is in an entire street of such buildings, all designed by Nash and built by Cubbitt.
Do we need to protect the street's general look and feel? Probably. Do we need to prevent all meaningful and useful changes to the structures? Definitely not.
We're not allowed to alter the roof line. We're not allowed to change the railings outside to enplace waste/rubbish/recyling points. We're not allowed to change doorframes and windows, or use double glazing. We're not allowed to change the colour of the facade. We're not allowed ... the system is all about what we can not do and not at all about how buildings can be changed and adapted to suit modern needs and requirements.
Where planners are willing to engage with and address changing needs the entire process is excruciatingly slooooow.
A small example here: almost all of London's "Georgian" architecture is built from soft bricks made from local clays that were almost always underfired. So when exposed to the atmosphere they erode rapidly and badly. They're also so soft that a good swing with a heavy sledge hammer will smash right though two course walls in two or maybe three full swings. But if we want to stabilise these buildings which usually have no foundations, we're not usually allowed to replace the existing soft bricks with stronger items that won't collapse or erode.
This isn't future proofing, this is preserving in aspic. This isn't management of a dynamic urban environment. This is managing a living museum.
In the case of Hammersmith Bridge we now need to seriously ask what it is that we are protecting with its listing.
Assuming that we need a bridge there at all then why not simply tear it down and replace it with a modern properly designed structure that looks exactly the same? There's no law - natural or statutory - that says a new bridge has to look modern. Making it look and feel the same as the old bridge won't actually add significantly to the costs and will be far far simpler cheaper and faster than seeking to "renovate and repair".
Thank you for reading and sharing this interesting comment, Robert.
The UK heritage system has indeed become absurdly restrictive, preventing reasonable adaptations (double glazing, waste points, replacing eroding bricks) and risking turning Britain into a living museum. Some buildings deserve preservation, but the system must distinguish between what truly matters and where sensible adaptation should be allowed.
For Hammersmith Bridge, ideally we'd remove the listing and build a robust replacement whose architectural beauty rivalled Bazalgette's original - quickly and at reasonable cost. In reality, UK infrastructure delivery is so uncertain that such a project would take many years at unknown expense (and we'd probably build something rather ugly). Moreover, given changes to traffic patterns and the economy, it's unclear there's a strong case for restoring full motor traffic anyway.
That's why a solution like the pods (cost-effective, timely, innovative, and using the existing structure) is, in my view, the only practical way to solve the challenges facing local residents today.
As a [now long retired] civil engineer I have to say: tearing down and replacing with an identical looking structure need not take that long or cost that much. But I'm not going to argue the case one way or the other. If the public votes for pods then pods it is.
As for our Heritage system: it's actively working against us and our civic needs in all sorts of ways. I've been complaining about this to all sorts of bodies and people for 35 years or more, but it doesn't seem to help change minds. Addtionally, the way in which EH is so closely intertwined into the Local Authority planning system militates against change. It's like asking a sadistic judge to give judgements on the ethics of sadism.
A simple example: allowing owners of buildings [listed or otherwise] to add roof gardens without a need for additional consents other than standard structural oversight via building control could help to lower inner city mean temperatures by anything between 2C and 8C. Inner London has a vast and massive problem of excess heat, notably inner city soil temperatures are articificially raised by the London Underground system. We need to start lowering subsoil temperature by as much as 15c over the next decade, and we are not going to achieve that unless we can also slow solar gain through increased vegetation.
We need to join up the thinking!
Thanks again for your most excellent piece. I look forward to more of the same.
@robertneuschul you articulate very well the challenges of obsessive conservation.
Let's consider another bizarre example; the current furore about a proposed development at Liverpool Street station - a place regularly overwhelmed by users and with poor accessibility, particularly to the underground platforms. All the cliches have been rolled out for this one; talk of bespoiling a conservation area, demolition of heritage buildings and isn't-the-world-a-horrid-place-these-days.
But the trouble is, apart from the direct aesthetics of the proposal, which will never be to everyone's taste, none of it is particularly truthful. This is in the midst of the City of London, surrounded by some of the tallest modern buildings in Europe. Calling it a conservation area is laughable. And the "heritage buildings" set to be demolished? They're all less than 40 years old, and include a bunch of cringey 1980s clutter that we're truly better off without. The only true heritage "loss" is a Victorian barrel vault that no-one even knew existed before the planning application went in. Anyone who's been to Liverpool Street knows full well that it's not really a heritage marvel - some bits are old, for sure, but it's not a massively characterful landmark like St Pancras or Buckingham Palace.
And yet Griff Rhys-Jones is leading a virtuous campaign lambasting the greedy overlords of whoever-it-is daring to want to upgrade a critical and overwhelmed piece of public transport infrastructure with money from an over-site development - a strategy, by the way, pioneered by Leslie Green on the London Underground and used to great effect to fund transport infrastructure around the world - most notably making Hong Kong's metro system profitable.
Well done, Nick. This is an excellent piece of citizen research and writing. It’s making quite an impact and rightly so. You have brought together the various threads of the complicated story in a way that has been missing up to now with great thoroughness and wordcraft - thank you Charles.
One thing I have noticed in my life is that sometimes letting the answers evolve over time can lead eventually to the right solutions. When I see the school children cycling, scooting and walking across the bridge in the morning laughing, chatting and being independent I think how could we go back on this. The previous situation was nightmarish!
Nick This is the best most exhaustive piece of research analysis and summary of optional solutions that I have come across anywhere. Congratulations with this incredible piece. Please do get in touch as I think we should take this forward. Im standing as Conservative Cllr for Barnes - let's make a plan. Im doing a Barnes Podcast would you like to do an interview with me for the podcast ? I'll email Lynne so you have my contacts.
Thank you for your very kind feedback Helen. Glad you are also thinking about creative and more realistic solutions for the bridge. Have been abroad but happy to connect later in April when convenient
Good article; I agree with the conclusion, but I'm not so sure about the solution. Pods always feel a bit too much on the gadgetbahn spectrum.
But actually, as proposed, these are more like lightweight autonomous buses than the inefficient individualised pods we've seen elsewhere (eg Heathrow). It seems to me that's likely to be a much more feasible and useful framing. Lightweight autonomous buses. Paint them red and run them from Hammersmith Bus station to Barnes Bridge. Or Barnes station. Or both.
Thank you for this excellent research and summary of the situation as it stands. My house is at the far end of Barnes (off White Hart Lane). Overnight, it went from being a short 10-15 min bus ride to a well-connected tube station to half an hour or more sitting in traffic around Chiswick, or a late night walk under the flyover and over the bridge, then a wait for a bus on Castelnau. As a non-driver and someone who cannot safely cycle (I am partially sighted), my home went from being an easy commute to a village backwater. I ended up moving house, because it was all the costs of living in London with none of the benefits. I went back there last year briefly and it hadn’t substantially improved. Opening up to cyclists and pedestrians is a positive move, but not a complete transport solution. I really like what’s set out here. Combining preservation of the heritage with a truly integrated system that links Barnes back to the rest of London’s public transport network. Add in a properly connected mini bus station at either end, so people can wait somewhere dry and well-lit, and this feels safe and sustainable. And the cost is pocket change stacked up against the alternatives (which, as you note, are clearly never going to happen).
Thank you Sharon for your comment and sharing your experience.
The fact that you had to move house because Barnes became cut off from the transport network is exactly the sort of impact that gets lost in policy debates.
You're quite right that pedestrian and cycle access does not offer a solution for those who can't cycle or drive, whereas, a solution like the pods offer a genuine way to reconnect Barnes and Hammersmith quickly and affordably.
I could not agree more with your point about proper waiting facilities at either end (safe, dry and well-lit). That is the sort of straightforward enhancement that transforms this into a serious transport solution rather than a novelty.
this is a great, thought-provoking and detailed article - thank you
on the key question why Britain can't build like it used to, or China has
bureaucracy, red tape, regulation and safety all clearly matter, but the major difference is surely outside these normal discussions in the UK debate
Britain now is far wealthier than Victorian Britain was, but the fiscal space to do useful things is incredibly squeezed now, has shrunk over perhaps a century (worse with recent austerity etc) and that is paradoxical — needs economic explaination
China was authoritarian for a long time, but only had the funds to build this infrastructure recently — the opposite happened for China
Thanks Anand.
The fiscal paradox you highlight is interesting, but I would counter that with these two points (assuming I have understood correctly)
1. Victorian Britain built Hammersmith Bridge as a private toll bridge - the money was there because delivery costs were low and regulatory friction minimal and private individuals felt incentivised to take the speculative risk on that capital expenditure investment.
2. Modern Britain does actually fiscal capacity, our tax take and deficit are far larger now (for a peacetime period), but we have simply chosen to spend on welfare rather than industry. I am reminded of this recent FT comment contrasting Britain and China's approaches to socialism https://x.com/crankynotions/status/1991630920999178701
I should add that it is a story that as a local I have followed closely and your telling is excellent.
A couple of points - Why were the Hyder recommendations to H&F ignored? Wasn’t the Cost:benefit presented based on Pell Frischman scheme by Government 1:10? Why no mention of the Beckett Rankin temporary bridge? Didn’t the Foster/COWI scheme envisages the double deck solution as temporary enabling the bridge to be dismantled cleaned and put together again? Many ‘challenging’ (batty) ideas not just the ones you highlighted.
Yes, the Foster/COWI scheme doubledeck was to be temporary: the rationale was that the doubledeck frame could i) make removing the old and inserting new road deck sections easier; and ii) provide for the bridge to remain open to vehicles for a portion of the construction period, by using the doubledeck frame for cars and pedestrians/cyclists. It would most likely have been more expensive than a solution which didn't cater to keeping the bridge open to vehicles during construction and would have meant the construction period was longer as well. As we have all adapted to having the bridge closed now anyway, the value in this solution is greatly diminished if it was ever feasible. The pods or something like that(golf carts would work as well) look to be the most cost effective solution for those to are not able to walk or cycle across the bridge, and which can be implemented quickly and at low cost. The rest of us have simply adapted.
Thank you Simon - it sounds as though you know far more of the technical details than I do! I have limited knowledge of the Hayder recommendations (presumably you are referring to the 2014 report rather than 1997), if you have them in full, please do share.
You're right to mention the Beckett Rankine plans. There are other far more eccentric proposals I'd have liked to include in this piece, but I felt that for brevity it was not helpful to overindulge in examining the full range of alternatives.
My focus here is simply to present a solution that can be delivered quickly at reasonable cost, hence the pods - its been 7 years after all! It is also worth reiterating that the pods themselves offer optionality since they do not preclude other solutions being explored in the longer term.
I started answering your points. It was the 1997 report which a google search summarises. It is Hyder not Hayder! The WhatsApp group is questioning the viability of the pod solutions but i think something along those lines is the best way froward. I passed on your piece to Christian Wolmar who responded positively - he may try and do a podcast with you.
Thank you very much!
I was taking my cue from LBHF who seem to have misspelt it on their own website… https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/hammersmith-bridge/hammersmith-bridge-timeline “Hayder Consultancy.”
I wonder if there are any other typos in there - the bridge weight limit perhaps (!)
I remember seeing the Hyder (not Hayder!) 1997 report and a quick google search reveals some of the key facts. The detail is not really the issue, it was delivered/commissioned by Hammersmith and Fulham and as far as I can ascertain the warnings were ignored.During the 1990’s there was a group of bridge engineers who looked at the state of London bridges. It was managed by Westminster City Council and went by the acronym of LOBEG - London Bridges engineering group. I was working at Westminster City Council at the time. There is a WhatsApp group (Charles Campion is on it) which posts messages on the bridge. Perhaps you know that. Recently one of the members was casting aspersions on the feasibility of the pods. I also wonder about the loadings quoted. (This is the response that I started earlier then lost)
Great article Nick
Many thanks to Andy Conroy for writing up this piece on his blog: https://www.bridged2050.com/p/more-on-the-disappearing-cars-in
Great article!
I've lived nearby as well (Richmond area) since before Hammersmith bridge closed. I think the one thing you missed here are the substantial negative effects the closure had on surrounding communities. It's been great for Barnes, and bad for everyone else. I lived in Mortlake at the time, and traffic quite literally went up 10x overnight after the closure - as everyone routed through Kew/Mortlake due to the closure. And it's never improved, traffic remains awful in these areas.
Hi Nick
Your article is quoted in this months e letter! Follow me back! Have sent an email to you via Lynne.
https://helenedward1.substack.com/p/barnes-ward-newsletter-march-april?r=1tiyw1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true