3 ms·

It's also entirely legal to pay someone to lick your boots clean, but I would still consider a person vile that did that. I don't know to what extent any origi

It's also entirely legal to pay someone to lick your boots clean, but I would still consider a person vile that did that. I don't know to what extent any original parts of the bridge will get replaced etc, but even if it is 100% restored it sends a pretty disgusting message, that there are private individuals that are so powerful that they can literally have city infrastructure dismantled for their pleasure. Even if it doesn't cost the city a cent, it still very clearly establishes who's in charge.

bennyelv 5y ago
That's a strange lens to put on it. Bezos wants a ship built, and a range of shipyards around the world tendered for it. This one won the tender, and they knew that they'd have to dismantle the bridge to get the ship out, and would have got permission to do it before tendering. The people who decided on whether to give permission or not would have looked at the economic value being added by having the shipyard win the contract, and the heritage cost of temporarily dismantling the bridge. I imagine that the shipyard and the city have decided that the value of them being able to build bigger ships in their yard outweighs that. It really doesn't have much to do with Bezos at all.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  I didn't even mention Bezos. My point is that it's a bad look for everyone involved, regardless of the legality or financial considerations. It says "anything is for sale". Which of course is exactly what America is all about, but I don't have to like it. If Bezos wants to celebrate a Hawaii themed birthday at Versailles I'm sure he could bribe/pay the city to close it for the public for a week and fill it with tiki heads and palm trees, and it would make financial sense and be perfectly legal. But it would still be degrading for the French people. Not saying this is quite that bad, but it's the same idea. Money should not be the only consideration.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Right, but business and public spheres interact all the time, in all kinds of ways. Say you're building a massive factory and request a road closure for a while, so that parts necessary to run your business can arrive - it inconveniences a lot of people who use that road daily. For another example - film crews ask for location closures for filming all the time, it's hardly exclusive to US - you ask if you can shut down a major street in a big city for an hour, and usually the request is granted, just so you can make some money on a film or whatever. It's clearly a trade-off between the public and the business sphere, right? For the most straightforward example - there are bridges in Rotterdam that open up to let the ships pass. So let's say you are driving to work, but have to wait 30 minutes because some asshole is sailing his shop across the canal to make money. Everything is for sale, right? Of course this is an extreme example, but I really don't see those things as that different. The yacht building company wants to make a sale, so they requested that the bridge be dismantled temporarily to finish that sale. That doesn't mean everything is for sale - more that everything has a price. That's not the same thing. I also find it really amusing that random people across the internet really care about some random bridge in Rotterdam - things like that happen daily and all the time, just not to complete a sale of a yacht, so no one really writes about them.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      Most people on the internet are "random", but I wish more people cared about our built heritage. It is being sacrificed all the time to the highest bidder. Mostly entirely legally and profitably, but it's still a great shame. When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. That's not the same as shutting down a street for an hour. Of course if everything is about money then this line of thinking will seem baffling, but I'm sure that in the long run it's a terrible decision to put a price on everything, even if it is profitable in the short run. Similarly to how it's a bad idea to take a job as a stripper, even if it pays the bills for now. You need to value yourself higher than that.
      - gambiting 5y ago
        >>When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. Imagine the bridge had to be dismantled to move a large wind turbine part instead - would that change your view of the whole thing? If yes, why? The people building yachts run a business - dismantling the bridge allows them to complete the sale. If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Simple as that. But even if it did, I don't see how that's debasing anyone or anything. The bridge will be reassembled as it was and a week later it will be a funny story to tell your friends at best, if you live in the area.
gambiting 5y ago
I'm not saying that this happened here, but let's assume a scenario to the extreme - that Bezos doesn't even know this is necessary. He orders a yacht, is quoted a price, pays that price. The dismantling of the bridge is included in the price, because the yacht building company wants his business and has made a deal with the city council to make that happen. How is he still a bad guy here, outside of being so obscenely rich to afford a yacht? Why is everyone complaining about him, instead of: 1) the company that accepted the order knowing full well they would need to dismantle the bridge to deliver it 2) the city council for allowing this to happen Like yes, I get it - he's a billionare so he's automatically a bad guy. And a lot of it is deserved. But in this case some of this hate really should be directed towards people and institutions that made this plan and those that approved it.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  Obviously if Bezos didn't know it's not his fault. Then it's only the city's fault. That's a pretty strange retort, if that's what it is.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    But then again, even if he knew, how is that his fault? If the company said "Mr Bezos, to deliver your yacht we'll have to dismantle a bridge, but don't worry, we asked the city council and they agreed already" - then again, how is he the bad guy here? Why is no one blaming the city council for agreeing to this???
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      I don't know about no one, but I think the city council is the biggest culprit. But he can still be an entitled buffoon. Rich people will always try to get their way, that is not new or surprising. But that is precisely why we have laws and governments, to offer some protection for the weak, so we're not just ruled by might is right.
      - Grustaf 5y ago

bennyelv 5y ago

That's a strange lens to put on it. Bezos wants a ship built, and a range of shipyards around the world tendered for it. This one won the tender, and they knew that they'd have to dismantle the bridge to get the ship out, and would have got permission to do it before tendering. The people who decided on whether to give permission or not would have looked at the economic value being added by having the shipyard win the contract, and the heritage cost of temporarily dismantling the bridge. I imagine that the shipyard and the city have decided that the value of them being able to build bigger ships in their yard outweighs that. It really doesn't have much to do with Bezos at all.

Grustaf 5y ago
I didn't even mention Bezos. My point is that it's a bad look for everyone involved, regardless of the legality or financial considerations. It says "anything is for sale". Which of course is exactly what America is all about, but I don't have to like it. If Bezos wants to celebrate a Hawaii themed birthday at Versailles I'm sure he could bribe/pay the city to close it for the public for a week and fill it with tiki heads and palm trees, and it would make financial sense and be perfectly legal. But it would still be degrading for the French people. Not saying this is quite that bad, but it's the same idea. Money should not be the only consideration.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Right, but business and public spheres interact all the time, in all kinds of ways. Say you're building a massive factory and request a road closure for a while, so that parts necessary to run your business can arrive - it inconveniences a lot of people who use that road daily. For another example - film crews ask for location closures for filming all the time, it's hardly exclusive to US - you ask if you can shut down a major street in a big city for an hour, and usually the request is granted, just so you can make some money on a film or whatever. It's clearly a trade-off between the public and the business sphere, right? For the most straightforward example - there are bridges in Rotterdam that open up to let the ships pass. So let's say you are driving to work, but have to wait 30 minutes because some asshole is sailing his shop across the canal to make money. Everything is for sale, right? Of course this is an extreme example, but I really don't see those things as that different. The yacht building company wants to make a sale, so they requested that the bridge be dismantled temporarily to finish that sale. That doesn't mean everything is for sale - more that everything has a price. That's not the same thing. I also find it really amusing that random people across the internet really care about some random bridge in Rotterdam - things like that happen daily and all the time, just not to complete a sale of a yacht, so no one really writes about them.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    Most people on the internet are "random", but I wish more people cared about our built heritage. It is being sacrificed all the time to the highest bidder. Mostly entirely legally and profitably, but it's still a great shame. When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. That's not the same as shutting down a street for an hour. Of course if everything is about money then this line of thinking will seem baffling, but I'm sure that in the long run it's a terrible decision to put a price on everything, even if it is profitable in the short run. Similarly to how it's a bad idea to take a job as a stripper, even if it pays the bills for now. You need to value yourself higher than that.
    - gambiting 5y ago
      >>When a billionaire's yacht causes a historical bridge to be dismantled you are degrading yourself, it debases the city. I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. Imagine the bridge had to be dismantled to move a large wind turbine part instead - would that change your view of the whole thing? If yes, why? The people building yachts run a business - dismantling the bridge allows them to complete the sale. If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Simple as that. But even if it did, I don't see how that's debasing anyone or anything. The bridge will be reassembled as it was and a week later it will be a funny story to tell your friends at best, if you live in the area.

gambiting 5y ago

I'm not saying that this happened here, but let's assume a scenario to the extreme - that Bezos doesn't even know this is necessary. He orders a yacht, is quoted a price, pays that price. The dismantling of the bridge is included in the price, because the yacht building company wants his business and has made a deal with the city council to make that happen. How is he still a bad guy here, outside of being so obscenely rich to afford a yacht? Why is everyone complaining about him, instead of: 1) the company that accepted the order knowing full well they would need to dismantle the bridge to deliver it 2) the city council for allowing this to happen Like yes, I get it - he's a billionare so he's automatically a bad guy. And a lot of it is deserved. But in this case some of this hate really should be directed towards people and institutions that made this plan and those that approved it.

Grustaf 5y ago
Obviously if Bezos didn't know it's not his fault. Then it's only the city's fault. That's a pretty strange retort, if that's what it is.
- gambiting 5y ago
  But then again, even if he knew, how is that his fault? If the company said "Mr Bezos, to deliver your yacht we'll have to dismantle a bridge, but don't worry, we asked the city council and they agreed already" - then again, how is he the bad guy here? Why is no one blaming the city council for agreeing to this???
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    I don't know about no one, but I think the city council is the biggest culprit. But he can still be an entitled buffoon. Rich people will always try to get their way, that is not new or surprising. But that is precisely why we have laws and governments, to offer some protection for the weak, so we're not just ruled by might is right.
    - Grustaf 5y ago