SECTION 2.4.2

What 5 Bridges Was — And What Closure Took

Before exploring what a replacement should look like, the survey established what 5 Bridges actually was to its community — what people valued, how the build itself rated, and what closure has cost. The findings here are the evidence base for the priority hierarchy in § 2.4.3.

Six hexagonal tiles arranged in a honeycomb cluster, each labelled with one attribute that 5 Bridges combined: weather cover, community, free entry, evening lighting, central meeting point, and variety of features.

Figure 2.4.2a — The bundle of attributes 5 Bridges combined, which no other facility in the region replicated.

What people valued about 5 Bridges

Respondents ranked their top three values. The chart below shows first-place rankings — the count of respondents who placed each option first. The full top-three breakdown follows the chart.

Figure 2.4.2b — First-place rankings for what people valued most about 5 Bridges (n=134, top-3 ranking question).

Value driver	Ranked 1st	Ranked top-3
Protection from weather (covered by flyover)	116	130
Free to use	59	101
Community / social atmosphere	48	78
Lighting for evening use	41	68
Central meeting point	34	49
Variety of features	28	65
Quality of equipment / obstacles	28	63
Size of the facility	26	50
Town centre location	22	51
Metro / public transport access	19	52

Cover dominates every measure87% placed weather protection first; 4.75 / 5 mean importance for the covered aspect; 70% used the park just as often in bad weather, with a further 23% slightly less. The flyover converted 5 Bridges into the region's only year-round outdoor option.

Community & identity — joint secondThe "free to use" and "community atmosphere" rankings together explain why a non-premium concrete spot under a flyover became the regional focal point.

Build quality was middlingOverall quality scored 3.21 / 5. Asked what could have been better, respondents identified surface (61%), equipment quality (57%), variety of features (57%), lighting (45%), toilets (35%), and beginner-friendly areas (29%). The replacement has to do better on the build than the original did.

How the closure has affected the community

Personal impact (multi-select, n=134):

Figure 2.4.2c — Personal impact of the closure of 5 Bridges (n=134, multi-select; respondents could select all that apply).

Figure 2.4.2d — Change in personal skating/riding activity since 5 Bridges closed (n=134).

Activity dropped sharply70% are skating less than before closure (52% somewhat less, 19% a lot less, 2% completely stopped). Only 19% report no change.

Wider community impactMean 4.6 / 5 — 63% rate the impact on the North East scene at the maximum 5/5.

Public-safety signalHalf of all respondents (50%) now skate in unsuitable locations — streets and car parks — because no covered alternative exists. A council-funded replacement is a direct mitigation.

Wellbeing case33% report a mental-health impact from the closure; 25% a physical-health impact. Both feed into the difference a replacement would make findings in § 2.4.3.

The existing-parks gap

Key finding

87% of respondents have not found a working alternative within Gateshead.

Asked whether other Gateshead parks have stepped into the void:

63% — No, I haven't found a suitable alternative
24% — I've tried them but they don't meet my needs
8% — Yes, occasionally
4% — Stopped skating / riding
2% — Yes, regularly

Of those who tried alternatives, the top reasons they fall short are exactly the bundle of attributes 5 Bridges provided:

No weather protection (85%) No community feel (69%) No evening lighting (62%) Not town-centre (54%) Surface quality (46%)

This corroborates the existing-parks hypothesis tested in § 3 with community evidence rather than methodology alone.