Quote:
|
That does not mean that those who become interested in an issue (like myself) cannot find out, or be taught, the historical relevance. Did you know everything about the history of the JSB before the issue became paramount? I certainly didn't - but I found out, mainly through links provided on this thread.
|
This is exactly my point. I don't know what motivates other people to participate in these sorts of discussions, but for me it's all about access to persuasive information. Some of the info I post is stuff that I've known backwards and forward for years, and some of it is stuff that I just discovered yesterday. When I post something, I'm mulling it over as I post it. I'm digesting it and coming to terms with it. I ask a lot of questions in my posts (but I think many people assume I'm being rhetorical because most of the time nobody bothers to respond to them).
Believe me, I
seek a good rebuttal. This bridge is probably going to be replaced so anybody who wants to make a serious effort to convince me that it's a good thing -- and thus ease the pain -- is going to get my full attention.
Long story short, a few weeks ago I was moderately pro-bridge. If Victorians can arrive at the decision to demolish the Driard freakin' Hotel, and if we can look back at our decision 20 years later and debate the pros and cons of it all, then it's reasonable to conclude that Victoria itself was not destroyed along with its finest heritage building. Thus, if the city can survive the gutting that preceded the rise of the Eaton's Centre, I figured it can also probably survive the loss of the old bascule bridge. The bridge is heritage and we should preserve it, but if its time is up then so be it.
But after everything I've seen and learned and pondered and revisited since then, I'm now very strongly pro-bridge.
People have said the bridge is ugly. This is worthless. For every person that says it's ugly I can find another who says it's beautiful. How many times have we heard smears against the esthetics of Aria or The Falls or Shutters or Shoal Point or you name the building?
People have said the bridge is in disrepair and that the choice is between repair or replace. That the Johnson Street Bridge is in some degree of disrepair is a given.
All bascule bridges from this era are in the same situation. Some of the old bascule bridges have been replaced, others have been restored. Why? In Victoria, a funding deadline seems to be the factor that's tipping the balance against restoration. That smells like extremely short-sighted bureaucracy to me.
People have said the bridge's format simply can't accommodate the intense amount of traffic it handles. This rings completely hollow to me. Before this debate started, anyone who might have claimed that traffic on the bridge (or anywhere else in Victoria for that matter) was exceeding capacity would likely have been laughed at.
People have said (one way or another) that the bridge isn't historically significant. And yet the equivalent bridge
is significant in several other jurisdictions. How can the same bridge be prized heritage in one place and irrelevant junk in another? If you have eyes to see and ears to hear then you simply can't deny the significance of the bridge, particularly its significance in BC/western Canada. You can say
you don't care about its significance or that you want to replace it
despite its significance (as we did with the Driard Hotel) but the fact remains that the bridge is what it is, regardless of how inconvenient that factual data may be for the pro-replacement camp.
I was particularly affected by that Chicagoan's lament about how his city's engineers apparently thought it would be an esthetic improvement to build a poor man's suspension bridge, because that's how some people (even engineers) think a "real" bridge should look. Victoria has serious issues re: deriding everything that makes it unique, presumably because if Victoria is unique then it's not like (insert city of comparison here), and everybody knows (insert city of comparison here) does things right, which means Victoria is doing things wrong. But, as the Chicago example shows, a Victoria-style identity crisis can happen anywhere. I'm genuinely sick and tired of this neverending effort to strip away Victoria's essence and replace it with the half-baked imitation essence of a multitude of other places, as if we're somehow setting things right by doing it.
Quote:
|
Cost: The 4th Street Bridge in San Fran, which you yourself have identified as a restoration example, cost far more than estimated.
|
Yes, but consider:
Quote:
Rehabilitating the 85-year-old rusted bridge, at a cost of roughly $25 million, was considered but rejected.
“We could buy us 40 years of life versus 100 years of life with a new bridge,” Lai explained.
A new bridge, including the deck superstructure, piers and abutments will cost $29.3 million. Realigning roads and approaches adds $11.3 million.
Engineering and design will cost about $5.3 million.
A substantial $13.2 million contingency will be set aside because unexpected expenses could surface.
Foundation costs may rise depending on how drilling proceeds. The deeper the foundation, the higher the price.
Securing and building approach roads could hike project expenses.
Re-establishing utility lines could jolt costs.
And surprises, such as finding contaminated soil or First Nations’ burial sites, could affect the bottom line.
|
http://www.journalofcommerce.com/art...fenvironmental
Quote:
|
Fake restoration: My own personal big push towards new build was the 4th St. bridge example. Due to seismic considerations the restored bridge now has fake fiberglass counter weights...
|
Okay, so are fake counterweights necessary in the case of the Johnson Street Bridge? Were fake counterweights necessary on any of the other bridges that were restored?
Linear Mode
