| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hammersmith Horror story
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/decaying-bridge-fiasco-turns-poor-old-britain-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c
|
Hammersmith Horror story
On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/decaying-bridge-fiasco-turns-poor-old-britain-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c full story also in this weeks Private Eye -- Martin |
Hammersmith Horror story
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/decaying-bridge-fiasco-turns-poor-old-britain-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c That has affected my last London Relative who often took an exercise walk over it and back around over Barnes Bridge, he doesn’t expect to recommence that in his lifetime. He is of the age to remember and mentioned that in WW2 the authorities reasonably quickly erected a couple of temporary bridges just in case bombing destroyed a bridge, they did not wait for it to happen . AFAIK they fortunately were never needed and removed around 1947. They have reached the stage of being almost forgotten. Some pictures on this link https://thameshighway.wordpress.com/...rtime-bridges/ GH |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/decaying-bridge-fiasco-turns-poor-old-britain-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c Welcome to Boris's Britain, it's going to get a lot worse. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 01:16:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/decaying-bridge-fiasco-turns-poor-old-britain-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c I haven't used the bridge for a good few years but there always used to be one link in the supporting "chains" that had been reinforced. I believe it was a result of the first attempt by the IRA to blow the bridge up. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:20:05 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...poor-old-brita in-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c Welcome to Boris's Britain, it's going to get a lot worse. This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. |
Hammersmith Horror story
wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:20:05 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...poor-old-brita in-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c Welcome to Boris's Britain, it's going to get a lot worse. This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...nd-04-08-2020/ Perhaps if they stick some plant pots on it Joanna Lumley could get some money thrown at it. GH |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT
Marland wrote: wrote: On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:20:05 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...poor-old-brita in-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c Welcome to Boris's Britain, it's going to get a lot worse. This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. |
Hammersmith Horror story
wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the alternatives for river users are far less. The idea though of bits falling off might make the University Boat Race a bit more interesting if that possibility exists as a handicap, though no doubt if the prohibition is still in place when the time comes the upper crust associates that surround the event will get an exemption denied to ordinary folk who just want to pass under in their mirror dinghy. GH |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14 Sep 2020 11:03:35 GMT
Marland wrote: wrote: On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Ouch, its obviously in a very dangerous condition. I wonder if they're concerned about the entire structure failing. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14/09/2020 11:37, wrote:
On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: wrote: On Sat, 12 Sep 2020 12:20:05 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 12/09/2020 02:16, Recliner wrote: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...poor-old-brita in-into-a-laughing-stock-6dk0v0kxq?shareToken=76eeb8b2981b588355186d6745344 a0c Welcome to Boris's Britain, it's going to get a lot worse. This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. Boats aren't allowed to pass under it. Plenty of complaints from people stuck in expensive marinas downstream of the bridge. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14
Sep 2020, Marland remarked: Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the alternatives for river users are far less. Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect. The idea though of bits falling off might make the University Boat Race a bit more interesting I noticed one of the Cambridge crews was out practising today, but not in a boat. They were using socially-distanced rowing machines on the bank. -- Roland Perry |
Hammersmith Horror story
"Marland" wrote in message
... wrote: On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the alternatives for river users are far less. 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. -- DAS |
Hammersmith Horror story
D A Stocks wrote:
"Marland" wrote in message ... wrote: On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the alternatives for river users are far less. 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? |
Hammersmith Horror story
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep
2020, Recliner remarked: 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? Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England? -- Roland Perry |
Hammersmith Horror story
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote: D A Stocks wrote: "Marland" wrote in message ... wrote: On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the alternatives for river users are far less. 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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Recliner remarked: 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? Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England? Either English Heritage or Historic England? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Recliner remarked: 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? Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England? Either English Heritage or Historic England? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 14/09/2020 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:02:11 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Recliner remarked: 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? Allowed by whom: The Treasury, or Heritage England? Either English Heritage or Historic England? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner wrote: D A Stocks wrote: "Marland" wrote in message ... wrote: On 14 Sep 2020 10:18:30 GMT Marland wrote: This bridge is Sadiq Kahns and Hammersmith councils responsibility. Both Labour and just as ineffectual as the Tories. The calibre of politician we have at the moment in all parties is just laughable. As I understand it knowing a quick resolution was beyond the resources of TFL and Hammersmith approached the Government for financial assistance and was turned down. Quite possibly. Perhaps Rishi can visit his magic money tree again. Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient but do exist the alternatives for river users are far less. 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. I wasn't thinking of also preserving the original. |
Hammersmith Horror story
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Marland remarked: Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the alternatives for river users are far less. Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect. And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the Boat Safety Certificate is now common between CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit. You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and the navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure. The specialised sea going barge type one of which featured the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon . GH |
Hammersmith Horror story
In message , at 00:35:04 on Tue, 15
Sep 2020, Marland remarked: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Marland remarked: Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the alternatives for river users are far less. Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect. And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the Boat Safety Certificate is now common between CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit. You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and the navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure. The specialised sea going barge type one of which featured the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon . I think people stuck upstream of the bridge just need to cope with "**** happens". It's the people downstream, and away from their regular moorings, who have the bigger problems. I wonder how far you could shelter up the Lee with a larger craft. Here we a Below Old Ford Locks (entering from Limehouse) Length Beam Draught Headroom 28.8m 94ft 6" 7.8m 25ft 7" 3.5m 11ft 6" 2.6m 8ft 6" -- Roland Perry |
Hammersmith Horror story
"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? -- DAS |
Hammersmith Horror story
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'. |
Hammersmith Horror story
"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'. I suspect by now they are so ****ed off with having to fight their way through Putney or Mortlake to cross the river that they will happily accept any replacement bridge. Maybe that's the plan, but I doubt it. -- DAS |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 15/09/2020 08:51, 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? Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:38:13 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote: On 15/09/2020 08:51, 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? Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling. If we take that literally then I'm not convinced it would be fit for purpose. It's a narrow two lane road with pedestrian walkways either side. A fit for purpose bridge would have two wider lanes as well as the pedestrian walkways. A truly fit for purpose would have 2 lanes each way + pedestrian walkways. A compromise might be needed because of road width immediately either side in which case three lanes with a tidal flow system. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 15/09/2020 15:22, Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:38:13 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: On 15/09/2020 08:51, 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? Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling. If we take that literally then I'm not convinced it would be fit for purpose. It's a narrow two lane road with pedestrian walkways either side. A fit for purpose bridge would have two wider lanes as well as the pedestrian walkways. A truly fit for purpose would have 2 lanes each way + pedestrian walkways. A compromise might be needed because of road width immediately either side in which case three lanes with a tidal flow system. Then we come into whether a bridge that allows an increase in traffic is desirable in this day and age. Though widening the carriageways slightly wouldn't detract from the visual aspect enough to be a problem. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
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. |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 15/09/2020 01:35, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Marland remarked: Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge one can only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into dangerous structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river traffic beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off. All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenient exist the alternatives for river users are far less. Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect. And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the Boat Safety Certificate is now common between CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit. You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and the navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure. The specialised sea going barge type one of which featured the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon . How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Hammersmith Horror story
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 |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement when you can put something useful there instead? Because when that seemed a good idea in the post-war period, it led to a whole load of structures which are liked only by architecture nerds who don't have to look at them everyday? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Hammersmith Horror story
On 15/09/2020 21:07, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 01:35, Marland wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14 Sep 2020, Marland remarked: All River traffic has been prohibited. http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenientÂ* exist the alternatives for river users are far less. Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect. And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the Boat Safety Certificate is now common between CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit. You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboatÂ* conversion and the navigational skillsÂ* accompanied by a suitable stomachÂ* it may be possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure. Â* The specialisedÂ* sea going barge typeÂ* one of which featuredÂ*Â* the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon . How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London. Lightweights. https://www.classicglastron.com/jame...ump-100dpi.JPG -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to Wilco - 2001 - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot |
Hammersmith Horror story
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk