On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 20:40:46 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
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.

Thats what town "planners" thought here in the 50s and 60s and we ended up
with concrete ********s like coventry and birmingham. Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.



I agree. The Continental approach of recreating their historic centres has
worked far better than our ugly brutalist concrete and cheap, colourful
cladding on office block slabs.

There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built
to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built
to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of
a breeze block.

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built
to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of
a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard, low
key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The top floor
could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing wide and strong,
and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

On 15/09/2020 16:42, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built
to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of
a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard, low
key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The top floor
could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing wide and strong,
and let the developer pay for the whole thing.


No there's a good idea!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 15/09/2020 16:42, Recliner wrote:

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side.

Restaurants, surely. If the carriageway was electric vehicles only or
enclosed, you could have very pleasant terraces on the restaurant roofs
right across the river. The bridge is right in the middle of a curve so
it is perhaps the only London bridge which could be fairly opaque
without spoiling too many people's view.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Wilco - 2001 - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

Basil Jet wrote:
On 15/09/2020 16:42, Recliner wrote:

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side.

Restaurants, surely. If the carriageway was electric vehicles only or
enclosed, you could have very pleasant terraces on the restaurant roofs
right across the river. The bridge is right in the middle of a curve so
it is perhaps the only London bridge which could be fairly opaque
without spoiling too many people's view.


Yes, restaurants would be good, and it would be sensible to restrict it to
electric-only vehicles and build a terrace over the carriageways.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:42:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built

to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics
a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of

a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard, low
key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The top floor
could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing wide and strong,
and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

Nice idea, but given the garden bridge flop I doubt we'll see any kind of
unusual or beyond basic functional bridge anytime soon in london. I doubt
even the millenium bridge would get built in todays political climate even
ignoring covid and brexit.

Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.

On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:
Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.


For the Richmond route Met trains did use it at intervals in the 19th and
early 20th century using a connection via Hammersmith Grove Road which was
on the LSWR route from Kensington Addison to Richmond, the District Railway
later joined from its Hammersmith Station via Studland Road junction and
continued on its own metals after Turnham Green and using running powers to
Richmond. The LSWR later made it a four track formation in 1911 to cope
with the amount of DR trains but found its own patronage rapidly dwindled
so Grove Road closed in 1916, the former LSWR tracks lay abandoned until
1932 when the Piccadilly was extended westwards from Hammersmith(LER) .
Despite the owning company having left the section between Studland Road
Junction and Gunnersbury remained with the LSWR and was transferred to the
Southern and I remember the Bridge at Turnham Green still had Southern
Railway ownership plates on it up to the 1970’s and possibly later.
I wonder if the Southern ever ran an inspection train or was this a
Southern line never visited by a Southern train?
LT finally got ownership in 1948.
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/Zgu29rveGfCa5sNj7

And the widened section of H+C viaduct where the spur came off is still
there.
Dropped pin

https://goo.gl/maps/bMmg3FeL5o4Hcq5C6

The LSWR route to Addison road and its Shepherds Bush station has been
well obliterated though one bridge parapet at the latter survives but
unrecognised.

https://goo.gl/maps/nN6kq6xmAmKNWuZs9

Grove road Station was to the West of Hammersmith H+C station and linked
by a walkway which is why there is a footbridge at the platform end of
this terminus station today,
it wasn’t built for passengers arriving by mistake to nip over to the
other platforms rather than go via the concourse to catch a train back out,
originally it lead through the wall to the walkway and to the LSWR station
which lay derelict to the 1950’s


GH