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.

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 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

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

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

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

On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at
it and they are only now putting back one major building - which is
quite controversial.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK