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?
