Clearly you are missing my point. I am not saying it's bad economics. And yes, a wind turbine would be seen as a less frivolous reason to take down the bridge.

Clearly you are missing my point. I am not saying it's bad economics. And yes, a wind turbine would be seen as a less frivolous reason to take down the bridge. Do you really not understand that most people are more sympathetic towards clean energy than to billionaire toys? You are talking as if everything revolved around money, but money is only a means to an end, and it's not the only measure of things. You also seem to think that legality is the only measure of good and bad. > If city of Rotterdam doesn't want their historical bridge dismantled then it simply....shouldn't have allowed for the project to go ahead. Yes, the entire point is that they _should have_ said no.