On Mon, 8 May 2017 14:33:29 +0100, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2017\05\08 09:37, Optimist wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2017 09:30:37 +0100, e27002 aurora wrote:

On Mon, 8 May 2017 08:20:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 08 May 2017 00:33:07 +0100
wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2017 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:


Fashions change, of course. For example, the late Victorian Tower Bridge is
now highly regarded as one of London's icons, but was much criticised when
built.
The Eiffel Tower was widely seen as hideous when it was built but now its
the de facto symbol of France. However I'm probably in the tiny minority who
think its detractors were right - it is butt ugly and looks like an
electricity pylon on steroids IMO.

You'll be glad the English one was stillborn then.
http://spiritofmirko.com/wp-content/...tower_1900.jpg

I presume there would have been more to it than that? Unless thats all they
could afford!


The "Metropolitan Tower" was a project of Sir Edward Watkin of the
Metropolitan Railway, Great Central Railway, and the Southeastern
Railway.

It did indeed run out of money after reaching the first stage as
illustrated. There was also a question of the stability of the ground
under one of its legs.

After demolition, the site was used for the "British Empire
Exhibition".

Today, I believe, there is a soccer pitch on the site. :-)


Wasn't the "Neverstop Railway" one of the great attractions at the Exhibition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX_MlWL7YKM




HS2 eat your heart out!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com