2 ms·
That's worse, it implies with enough money, something designated historical for cultural reasons can be bought, modified, commodified, or changed to accommodate
by weatherlight 5y ago
That's worse, it implies with enough money, something designated historical for cultural reasons can be bought, modified, commodified, or changed to accommodate the whims of one exceptionally wealthy man.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- musingsole 5y agoDoes it? To me, it implies that pride is the only actual utility of the bridge. Disabling the bridge wouldn't even inconvenience the municipality. So, lifting the bridge up and then putting it back down over the course of a couple hours is only as expensive as the labor to do it plus the risk to damaging the bridge. From the view of a city council who may or may not love this monument, it's a complete and utter win: * Tell the whole world we have this monument * Collect money from the idiots who need to move it * Collect even more money from the idiots if they screw it up.
- pharke 5y agoIt's a historic railroad bridge that was originally designed to allow the passage of ships. Both its original use and the accommodation afforded by its design show deference to the city's industrial economy. I'd bet 10:1 that if the original designers were around today and you asked them what we should do they'd say "Just remove the middle part, that's why we built it that way" and would have no qualms about it.