I’m probably going to lose a few friends over this, but I don’t think the City to Sea Bridge is worth trying to save. As far as bridges go, it is honestly a just a little bit crap. And I’m a little bewildered and bemused by those who are weeping and wailing and kicking up a stink because it is due to be demolished. Let’s delve into that a little further, shall we?
The City to Sea Bridge (CSB? or just, the Bridge?) was built in the late 80s / early 90s and was part of the grand scheme to convert a rumpty old Council street area into what became, for a while, the golden beating heart of Wellington, which at that stage was Absolutely Positively without doubt on its way to becoming the coolest little capital in the world. The Civic Square, as it was then, became the Heart of Wellington, because New Zild had never had a public square before, without traffic, but just for people. Aotea Square in Auckland still had traffic and so did Cathedral Square in Canterbury. So Wellington had this amazing new concept of an actual square just for Civic functions, and people, with an oh-so-clever solution of underground parking. The Square was surrounded by a new Athfield-designed Library, and a Stuart Gardyne / Arch + Art Gallery in the old Library, and of course the Council buildings, both old (MOB) and new (CAB), which was pink and curved in best possible PoMo fashion. Ooooh, and the Old Town Hall, as well as the newish Michael Fowler Centre. Everything was turned around and turned back in on itself, with Old becoming New and New being repurposed for something else. There was even the continuation of a vital sight line through the Square right from Willis Street and across Mercer Street and right out to sea, in an amazing visual trick.
All was rosy and light and all was well with the world, except for a near-motorway along the foreshore, which no-one was allowed to put a pedestrian crossing across. The Civic Square was finished off with a giant set of stairs leading up to a pointy stone pyramid which somehow incorporated a children’s adventure playground indoor exploration thingy somehow within it, and some bright spark put windows into the pyramid so that you could peer in through the pyramid and spy on the children frolicking within. Somehow (that just sounds pervy and nasty now), so the windows were soon painted over with black paint, depriving both the children within of sunlight, and the pedophiles the chance to ogle small boys and girls having fun. And so it remained for years. And yes, the windows always leaked, so there was that too….
The big feature at this end of the Square was of course THE BRIDGE, which not surprisingly, was designed to go from the City, right over the Motorway, to the Sea. The Bridge was (and still is) a rather unsophisticated thing, not a great piece of architecture, or engineering, or sculpture, although it did have on top of it a great interactive piece of sculpture by a Hawkes Bay artist Paratene (Para) Matchitt. Much as the sculpture was fun, and had iconic arty emblems on poles at the top, and people could hide in the walls of the bridge and smoke dope (no i haven’t), or have lazy sex when no one was looking (not saying), the timber was slowly / steadily rotting and kept having to be patched up. The timber top was covered with a membrane to stop people slipping, but the surface kept wearing out and looking bad. The Bridge was good because you could get over the motorway without having to push a button and cross the road, plus you could sit up there high up, and survey out over the Lagoon and the local surroundings. But the Bridge was also a bit of a sad thing, because it blocked the entire view of the Harbour from the Square, and so sort of negated the entire point of having a maritime city town square anyway. And certainly Para is a wonderful sculptor, but is a bit dodgy these days and no one likes to mention why, although now that he has died we can perhaps be more honest.
Our local rag has a piece in it last week saying that Lesleigh Salinger and one of the original architects John Gray were on the warpath, trying to save it, but honestly guys, it ain’t the Sistine Chapel. John Gray noted that it did two things well, connecting the city to the waterfront, and also being a place that welcomes people. Absolutely right, yes, it does those two things well. Lesleigh Salinger sounded rather huffy, saying that she wanted the City Council to this, that or the other, but honestly Lesleigh, I don’t think that the Council has the capacity to do more than hold a weekly meeting and talk. Certainly can’t run a city very well these days, and I doubt they would have the artistic nous to adjudicate on the aesthetic nature of a 40 year old timber bridge clad in eagles or seagulls.
When I arrived in this town last century I was a bit amazed and bemused by the Bridge in Wellington. I had just come from a visit to London where there was a new bridge, across the Thames, that was (and still is) a technological marvel, and a thing of beauty, strength and intelligence that the public loved. Yes, on day one it had that dodgy wobble thing, that had to be remediated at a cost of millions, but oh my goodness, it is a sexy beast. As you walk across it you can feel how highly strung is the Millennium Bridge, stainless steel cables pulled taught and sharp. If your fingers were strong enough you could probably play it like a guitar. Aluminium decking that hums if you ride a bike over, but makes a pleasant metallic distant clang if you walk over in hard soled shoes. It is, believe it or not, a suspension bridge, and not only that, but: it is the flattest suspension bridge in the world. This is truly a bridge for the ages, and every inch of its soul screams out how carefully considered and well designed it is.
But the C2SB is none of that. It is a series of awkward and untidy concrete slabs and rib beams, unrefined concrete planks, nothing particularly aligned with logic, a wedge shape overtopped with a preponderance of timber shapes and forms, some lovingly sculpted as an eagle, other carved with arty symbols. It is therefore doing two things – one is crossing the road, albeit not very gracefully, and two is being an artwork and a sculptural form. Wellington is not London, or any of the other great world cities, but it is a quirky loveable city with many faults and many natural highlights. For the most part though, our architecture is a bit rough and awkward and dare I say it – ugly. I mean, the Majestic Centre – honestly, really? What is that spiky head-dress doing up there? And the brown and the silver grey granite – it really is an awful looking ugly building, isn’t it? In fact, if you were asked what the best architectural work was in the capital, what would your answer be? We have no Gherkin or Shard, no Empire State or Chrysler. And for that matter, no Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate Bridge either. In fact, all our waterfront bridges are a bit naff, not helped by the Council putting up a million temporary barricades to try to stop drunk idiots falling off and drowning themselves.
Back to THE Bridge then. The ill-fated concrete slab and rotting timber edifice so loved by Gray and Niven and Salinger is apparently an earthquake hazard, not helped by being positioned smack bang above the main road (not, apparently, a motorway). If it collapses and falls, then MPs will have to take a detour on the way to the airport. Buildings (or Bridges) that collapse across the major roadways are taken very seriously – Wellington being so short-changed on major routes into and out of the city, that this one potentially collapsing is being taken very seriously. And yes, as always in our modern risk-averse world, the issue is not so much the bridge collapsing, as the ground collapsing from underneath the Bridge. Given what we have seen with the ground conditions they found underneath the Old Town Hall (mud, ooze, and old crap that was dumped to make the land reclamation), and given that the site for both sides of the bridge supports are likely to be much the same or much, much worse, then I think I would agree that the bridge supports are quite likely to be compromised in the case of a big quake. Lateral spread, tsunami risk, all that: Yes, I see the danger.
The thing is, this particular Bridge is just not worth expending the issue on trying to save. More to the point, the question we should be discussing is: Do we want a bridge here at all, and if so, what would THAT look like?
Do we want a level crossing (which would give us the advantage of being able to see the sea from our Civic Square at last), or do we really think that a raised platform such as the existing Bridge is the only answer that will satisfy? Do you remember the Grassy Knoll? Teeth were gnashed and tears were wept when that was swept away – but is it really missed now? Is it that we are really saying: Give us a place to sit up outside and view the world? Is that it?
Its fairly safe to say the Bridge is Toast,
But the Council do appear to be reading the room a bit more,
In September the “Single Vision” replacement options has a bridge that was very skinny,
https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2024/09/te-ngakau-plan
But the “new” consultation has a monster wide replacement heading from the MFC across the road :)
https://wellington.govt.nz/news-and-events/news-and-information/our-wellington/2024/10/te-ngakau-precinct-development-plan
Although the artists in their building renders should be taken out and flogged,
As always they want the development shown in the “Golden” hour light of a low sun angle with long lingering shadows, usually the evening,
But Civic Square doesn’t get evening sun, so they have rendered them with the morning sun, but with squillions of people million around as if it was a summer evening…..
I can hear the Head Creative saying “I don’t care that the sun does go that way,make the it set in the west” :)
Ummmm, Greenwelly, hate to tell you this, but the sun actually does set in the west…
yeah, meant east,
There’s a great letter in today’s Post (https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360459999/post-letters-editor-october-23) talking about “the pure pleasure of being able to make one’s way over this interesting structure, in peaceful freedom from the dominance of traffic, choosing one’s path from a happy mix of textures, angles and views, even reading a piece of sculpted poetry along the way.”. I totally agree; the view from the top (much better than any view from the Square, unobstructed or otherwise) is breathtaking and one of my Wellington highlights.
Hi Owen – yes, so, my point exactly. The view is great. But what about the Bridge?
Indulging the luxury of quoting myself from Scoop Wellington,
“Whatever happens, please re-design the lagoon end so that it doesn’t decant pedestrians onto an unfriendly, narrow walkway with all the charm and panache of a 1920s suburban zigzag”.
Access to Frank Kitts Park and the waterfront generally desperately needs improving, and here’s a chance to do it.
All very good points Mr Filth. The routes down to the water’s edge are badly designed, awkward, and honestly: we could do better.
On the other hand, Helene Ritchie says this:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350454140/wellingtons-city-sea-bridge-should-not-be-demolished
Helene Ritchie is a former deputy mayor and is chair of the Wellington Civic Trust
“OPINION: Once again, council has stuffed up. The officers’ recommendation to consult on demolition of the City to Sea bridge should be withdrawn by Wellington city councillors ‒ the chair and committee ‒ this Thursday when they meet. Instead, the three options – retention, or two demolition, or demolition with a new narrow inaccessible bridge ‒ should all go out as part of the amended long term plan for public comment….”
Has she got a point? I haven’t got access to the rest of her article.
Something like the Harcourt Park Bridge but a tad wider would be good
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/K5GGW2maiy8/maxresdefault.jpg
It looks better IRL than the pic
Also given our standings in global infrastructure costs, shouldn’t we invite quotes from Spanish and Italian companies?
The bridge is ugly. Always has been. Won’t miss it.
If it’s another bridge, let’s have a statement one.
B*gger any “statement” bridge . Let’s just have a selection of well-designed access ways to the waterfront.
Why not a statement bridge Henry? If you’re going to do something, why not do it with style?
Because they put the focus on the statement, not on the function. The current bridge is a case in point.
Agree with Henry noting the statement appears to be “This is an ugly bridge”
Style dates itself. Function is forever
You can’t really compare the Bridge situation with the Millenium Bridge because getting across a river effectively at grade is quite different from getting across a road. Are we going to have three lots of traffic lights in about 300 metres? It brings to mind this Hamilton debacle https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350425979/hamilton-street-10-crossings-350m but at least that’s only a two lane road. I imagine the police will still want traffic light access off Harris Street and there’s already a traffic light crossing from the defunct MFC carpark to the St John’s Bar, which is to be a building at some point (probably not imminent given the state of the economy), just up the road. The publicity for that https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/projects/te-ngakau-civic-precinct-programme/mfc-carpark showed a piazza pedestrian crossing in about the same place as the current one. Perhaps the WCC goal is to turn Lambton Quay into a busway and Jervois Quay into a pedestrian mall. Or is there just no joined up thinking?
Fully agree the bridge is not worth all the hubbub. Basically anything the council suggests nowadays is going to be torn apart by The Dom Post though so I’m not surprised.
Aesthetically pleasing bridges are made by having a structure that is slender, suitbable for purpose and sympathetic to the surrounding environment. You typically do this by having a simple structural form, with clean lines that show the load path. ie. cable stay bridges, network arch bridges etc.
You don’t get a good looking bridge by putting lipstick on a pig, which is what you get when you get an oversized, overwidth precast slab and try to make it look nice by attaching sculptures to the top.
I do hope they replace the link however, as we need as many pedestrian friendly links to the waterfront as possible. I’m just saying this one can be improved, and when the issue is that the foundations are insufficient, on the edge of the harbour, I definitely tend towards demolition rather than retrofit.
The sculptures can be reused in the new civic square, or perhaps on the new Petone to Wellington Cycleway. They would make a nice entrance to the city.
“The sculptures can be reused in the new civic square”
With Para Matchett’s conviction in 2001, no one is going to go out on a limb for these “sculptures:,
They are destined to spend the rest of their life as best rotting away in some remote part of the council estate., or simply abandoned…
I’m still waiting for Stuart Niven, Helene Ritchie and John Gray to join in this discussion. Come on in ! The water’s fine ! We won’t bite ! What I’m really keen to find out is:
Is the Bridge liked just because it is up there, and offers great views out (undeniable positive point) ?
or
Is the Bridge liked in itself, or can we admit that it is an awkward, badly built, badly designed lump?
and also
What would be better – a new bridge, or a level pedestrian crossing?
Dear blogger,
Ruby Gray here, John Gray’s daughter. Grateful for your engagement and initiative in sparking some debate on this.
I have some points to add here, particular in response to the comment that the bridge is unsophisticated.
The bridge is core part of the the 1990-1994 development that was gifted a ‘bicultural’ brief from Dr Ihakara Puketapu, who was a revered Māori leader of national significance and local decent (mana whenua).
The architectural and artistic components of the square and the bridge contributes to a shared narrative that is conceptually and symbolically rich. Each element cannot be considered in isolation from each other.
This is why the Civic square and the bridge together are part of what Māori arts writer Anna-Marie has informed me a marae ātea, “an open area in front of the wharenui where formal welcomes to visitors takes place and issues are debated. The marae ātea is the domain of Tūmatauenga, the atua of war and people, and is thus the appropriate place to raise contentious issue.”
Globally renowned Māori architect, Rewi Thompson, was employed alongside Ian Athfield to design Capital Discovery Place. Rewi contribute the important sculpture, Te Aho a Māui, which symbolically references the Māori creation story of Aotearoa. Te Aho a Māui is a pyramid, representing a mountain, split in two. “The paved walkway between the two sides of the pyramid represents Māui’s fishing line, unravelling from the mountain to the sea.”
It is said that Rewi held together the narrative vision working with three prominent Māori artists contributing artistic architectural components, and a number of sculptural works, collaborating closely with Ian Athfield (the square) and John Gray (the bridge).
Globally exhibited artist, Toi te Rito Maihi, designed the brick tiling at the base of Rewi’s split pyramid structure, representing the fishing line mentioned above. Her designs extend down the steps, and into the square, which can only be fully appreciated from an aerial view above (not possible at present and hasn’t been for a while as the arena has been covered by fake grass for the last many years.)
Matt Pine was a figure who alongside Ralph Hotere, pioneered the intersection of Māori art and minimalism, and “made an important contribution to the canon of contemporary Māori art and the wider art history of Aotearoa.” His sculptural work, Prow & Capital,
at the base of the amphitheatre style steps, are carved out of Oamaru Stone and represent entry to the bridge, marking departure from civic cultural life as one moves upward to view the expansiveness of the ocean, where accordingly, materials become increasingly natural and organic looking. An online description of these sculptures state; “‘Capital’ is based on Euro-classical architectural elements while ‘Prow’ depicts the prow of a waka with Taniko woven edge motif” — a poetic syncretism of Māori and European cultural elements that reflect the ‘bicultural’ spirit.
Para Matchitt’s sculptural works on the top of the bridge reference the creation story of Wellington (the redwood whales) and the Pou, a famous artefact — flag stolen by Te Koori — which represents celestial navigation and the bleeding heart of the Māori people.
The aspect of the bridge at the point of these Pou, which in Māoridom mark places of importance, is significant, and extends outward from the centre intentionally design as an open-armed embrace, symbolising welcome and manaakitanga, and is said also, with the celestial navigation theme atop the pou, to pay respect to the power of the ocean, and its significance to the Māori journey here and the unique coastal landscape of New Zealand as a whole.
The last thing I will say is that the cement zig zag structure with the accessible ramp leading down to the lagoon metaphorically reference the topography of Wellington’s landscape and the dramatic uplift those who first arrived here encountered prior to the reclamation of the land, which extends to the bottom of the steep terrace.
It is true these stories have not been told well and it makes sense that there is lack of public understanding. Art can be difficult and challenging, and it takes work to understand and interpret, which is part of its joy, alongside the intuitive and joyful response it can also hopefully evoke.
Arguably, everything that I have shared above makes the bridge and the civic square more broadly, as significant, if less well known, than the architectural works you mention in your post. They are the type of creation that could only be found in one place on earth, Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ruby Gray – what an absolutely fantastic and wonderfully informative response. Thank You so very much for all that fresh dialogue to the debate – really good to hear all that. I hope that John is OK and doing well? He is a lovely man and I have no doubt that he will have been itching for someone to post the information about the design genesis of the bridge. Thank you.
Thanks so much, Ruby. Please try to get our councillors to understand the story the bridge tells. I suspect they are oblivious.
Personally, I would like to see a replacement wide bridge in mass timber to the south of the current one and another connecting the Square to Frank Kitts Park. Until then, keep the existing one because a crossing at Jervois Quay is a terrible option.
Okay Nemo, I accept your challenge! But you do set me up don’t you. The killer ability of a blog author is always to position what might follow as “replies” exactly where the author wants them!
Well I won’t play that game!
I don’t think I ever claimed the Bridge as a “thing of beauty”……….it’s more part of that collection of idiosyncratic objects that have come to be identified with the quirky nature of this terrific little city (the bucket fountain in Cuba Street comes to mind).
What it does do – very effectively – is – through its cascade of steps on the city side (and the curved pedestrian ramp with its equally idiosyncratic procession of stylised nikau palms it provides the rationale for) provide great physical definition to complete the essential amphitheatre form of the Square itself and its role as the focus of the precinct. Getting rid of of the stairs and the ramp
reduces that fundamentally important rationale to a collection of public objects more or less scattered around a widened walkway from the edge of the lagoon to Mercer Street – a much lesser composition in the overall life of the city.
Yes it does “open up” the waterfront at the lagoon to the city behind, but good luck with that view of the harbour!
And – the Quays we still have to cross? Well I see, conveniently, you’ve forgotten to mention the status of second class citizen that any pedestrian wanting to cross the street on foot to the waterfront gets assigned – no matter how much greenery you plant or paving you install. When it comes to the intersection of car and pedestrian we all no who wins here – and it isn’t the pedestrian!
So – the Bridge – actually more a “public place” in its own right than a “bridge” – the only prospect and outlook we’re given of the waterfront as a separately important public space – free of cars (in fact free of any sense of the road beneath) – and a fine prospect it is!
My point was, essentially, that of urban design not whether or not the Bridge is some kind of architectural trophy.
But, Nemo, I expect you know that.
And did I mention that the “you beaut” new Te Ngakau Development Plan laid before is for our public delectation – is missing one key feature – The Square!!!!!!
……..but perhaps you knew that too?
I agree. The bridge is wonderful not because it is the slender apogee of some brilliant structural engineer’s career, it is wonderful because it is a natural, effective, and occasionally exciting extension of the ground plane from the square to the waterfront. Most times you don’t even realise there is a road down below, which is the point. The road disappears and the pedestrian experience is prioritised, elevated even – as it should be.
Fantastic, thank you Stuart – really appreciate your comments. See you at the Public consultation on the Square soon !
Stuart, you’ve rather neatly summed up the puzzle that is the City to Sea Bridge. On the city side it’s more than a simple bridge – it’s a useful part or semi-extension of Civic Square. And on it’s own structure, it’s a collection of interlocking yet independent niche spaces. A beautiful blend of form and function
But on the other side? Oh dear! It’s like the Church Street Steps laid flat – all function and no form. Downhill all the way.
Henry – as I said – a thing of beauty – maybe not – in it’s entirety – but, for me, the waterfront side is all about standing on the edge of a promontory and surveying the waterfront with just enough elevation to take in quite a lot – and then 2 options – ramp or steps to quickly descend to the waterfront – that’s what it’s all about on the waterfront side – and all it requires – and not entirely without form.
When I look at what the Draft Development Plan offers there isn’t even a competition – a long narrow snake of a bridge which is all about walking from A to B with little opportunity to pause and survey – or that difficult, contended space of the street crossing – I know where my vote goes.
If the bridge was demolished would you be able to see the water from the square?? I really suspect not. You would see a row of trees, then a row of traffic, then the side of the boat shed if you’re lucky. It would be opening the square up to a 6 lane road, not a body of water, and it wouldn’t be any good. We would get the noise, the movement, and the visual charm of a mini-motorway to define the most important side of our most important square.
The most important thing the bridge does is provide a sense of enclosure to civic square. Squares are defined by their sides, and we remove one of them at our peril. More public space isn’t better public space. If you make Civic Square too big, and especially if you let it bleed out onto a major arterial road you make it worse. There is a proper size and proportion to public squares and we need to pay close attention to this part of the question.
Those big civic steps are brilliant. They provide a stage, an edge, a focal point, as well as a clear path of travel to somewhere important. Once you’re at the top the ‘bridge’ you’re given then one of the most memorable views of Wellington there is, which allows you to orient yourself with regards to both the city and the water.
I think we should retain the steps and lead up to the bridge on the Civic Square side (where it presumably can’t fall onto the road), and replace the bridge bit with an equally wide, but lightweight structure supported on a minimal number of piles driven to bedrock. There should be a stingray viewing deck cantilevered over the lagoon, and improved access from there down to Frank Kitts Park and the St John’s side. As ever, we should preserve those bits that work really well and improve the bits that don’t.
Jesse – my argument is that while the steps are brilliant, we could build a better bridge, that also has these things. The current bridge is not the only possible bridge…
Absolutely, I think we’re in agreement on that. I am just gently railing against either of the options presented in the WCC consultation documents – a massive windswept at grade pedestrian crossing that compromises the enclosure of the square, or the same but with a skinny apologetic little bridge off to the side (in fairness, obviously no one has designed that bridge showing in the render and it’s a very loose imagining only). My point is that the current city-sea bridge does a lot more than simply providing a way of getting across the road.
Kia ora Nemo. I have been too busy writing on Wellington Scoop to read this rave of yours until now…I could say lots..I will only say here…you are mistaken if you think you will have a view of the harbour from a pedestrian crossing. You will not. There are buildings in the way. P.S. Sorry about the “rave” accusation. I often agree with you, but you seem off beam (pun) today. Jesse’s contribution above is brilliant.
Hi Helene, I’m just trying to get a conversation started / keep it going. Its all one way if we just have people saying it MUST be saved – we need views on both sides of the fence. So I’m very happy for you to express your view.
Re views etc – I sort of tried to explore that a bit back here:
https://eyeofthefish.org/ngakau-nui/
Good to see that those school kids have taken up that baton as well:
https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=164998
and
https://saveourcivicsquare.org/
Nemo you do make a great contribution. A long time ago, late 80’s, I fought as (deputy mayor) Chair of the Civic centre project, at its inception helping to create the concept, followed by the miracle of the creation of the most architecturally important civic project ever achieved in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and in addition to have this civic centre become a sheltered public open space, green, water flowing within it with a waterfall and pools decorated with art, and the architectural reality which it was for thirty years.. until Council and came to town with bulldozers. Your comment here, “The City to Sea Bridge (CSB? or just, the Bridge?) was built in the late 80s / early 90s and was part of the grand scheme to convert a rumpty old Council street area into what became, for a while, the golden beating heart of Wellington, which at that stage was Absolutely Positively without doubt on its way to becoming the coolest little capital in the world. The Civic Square, as it was then, became the Heart of Wellington, because New Zild had never had a public square before, without traffic, but just for people.” is very apt.
I made sure as a councillor that the civic precinct then became listed on the District Plan, (and therefore protected) as a heritage precinct, only to have the Council recently lift that (and have now only a minor part of it protected in two buildings). We on the Civic Trust have over many years made extraordinary effort, held seminars and many submissions to have the heart of our city remain as the civic heart, that it now no longer will be. The democratic civic part (The Council), moved out to the Terrace and Council has now taken a long term lease outside Te Ngakau/Civic square, and will no longer. be there. It is painful to watch the Council so destructively with no vision, no history including architectural history of our Capital, demolish all and in a completely unaffordable and destructive way. I could say much more, but this has consumed enough of my and our life. Council is not listening and does not understand, preferring instead to go on its currrent demolition rampage.
Not another pedestrian crossing. Not another set of traffic lights.
But a new bridge, no doubt, is unaffordable …
I’ll just slip my tongue into my cheek and idly wonder whether they couldn’t simply slip a set of base isolators under the existing bridge. . .
Mr Filth – good question, but it is not an available answer. Go directly to Jail. Do not connect $200.
The reason is, I think, that the ground is at fault. You can’t put in base isolators unless you have good foundations, and as the foundations sit atop the edge of a big lagoon full of seawater, and are liable to slide sideways in a big quake, then it is no use putting a base isolator there until they have done something to the ground there first. And that is where the big problem lies. To strengthen the ground there would, i presume, mean having to do some large scale deep piling there. Only problem is, you cannot do that there, as there is a bloody great highway there, and a large bridge over the top…. So the answer is, to them, remove the bridge, then you don’t need to do so much work to the wall as it no longer has quite the load any more.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/19-11-2024/windbag-on-the-city-to-sea-bridge-and-the-power-of-letting-go
You are Joel McManus and I claim my $5.00.
I wish !! Joel is younger, better looking, and much more connected than I – his writing is coherent and carefully argued. My writing, sadly, is a bit of a rant at time, and I am old and weary and my eyes are dim and my legs are bent. But I do agree exactly with Joel – he echoes my thoughts on this subject, exactly. Not necessarily, but definitely on some things, including this bridge. It is, indeed, time to let it go, and to build something better.