"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


michael adams


.....