38 minutes ago
It could be worse, you could have a grotesquely over-sized Triumphal Arch in Trafalgar Square, Number 10 could be decked out with gold cherubs and eagles everywhere, with a series of plaques honoring former Prime Ministers by insulting them, and Big Ben could be officially renamed "Big Andy".
Then you'd really know you've lost your mojo.
an hour ago
Maybe that is the mojo, spending 250M and making something ugly. It’s like a rich person buying a banana stuck to the wall as art for $1M. They are showing the world they can do it not that they think the banana is delicious or pretty.
7 hours ago
"Man, architecture nerds, amirite? Let's click and see how...OMG!" Yeah, that is ridiculously ugly for what it is. Like someone went out of their way.
5 hours ago
A regular remainder that brutalism, despite what many people think, was originally invented in the UK.
5 hours ago
They had to down tools because they found roman ruins or something and consult archeology to proceed.
Whats interesting is that this bridge build effectively partitioned the city. You had to drive to the city limits to the ring road, drive around the edge to access that area. The local council found this agreeable, and they rolled out an entire traffic policy, which also reached international attention, that effectively splits the city into sectors, forcing drivers to drive around the crust to get into their destination slice.
33 minutes ago
Not quite, but the Spectator goes into quite some detail: https://spectator.com/article/why-does-it-cost-237-million-t...
tl;dr, there was a ton of stuff down there that no-one really knew about, and each bit of the stuff was covered by a different authority, none of whom could agree with each other over how to handle it.
9 hours ago
wow "a quarter of a billion dollars" for that.
My guess is that with modular precast forms, it would be something $500k max!
Somebody pocketed some big amount of cash, I would guess.
6 hours ago
It's " a major element of a £237m scheme to upgrade Oxford rail station". Most likely it is more expensive than it should be, but not to that extent
4 hours ago
$237 million to upgrade a rail station.. The number is up there but at least it is not the cost of the bridge; that explains it to me to some degree; must have been some structural issues; something must have caved in; water problem; who knows.
20 minutes ago
It's a bit more than that — rebuilt platform, a new platform (so new track and signalling), a new entrance in the station, rebuilding another bridge, preparing to connect to two other railway lines (the newish East West railway and the old line out to Cowley in the suburbs which is being returned to passenger use).
All of this happens in the middle of a busy, very old city. The £237M figure includes work scheduled in 2029.
9 hours ago
Not impossible, but they did have to deal with gas leaks and a WW2 grenade, and this is a rail bridge on an actively used line.
Still, there's an undeniable sense of "why is this more expensive to replace than it was to build in the first place?" with a lot of infrastructure in the modern world.
9 hours ago
Some firms prebuild bridges and slide them in. 20-30% more expensive apparently but a lot faster. Lets say $2M by quading it. Gas line is a nothinger, they would need to shut it down and reconnect it anyways. Grenade removal, they do it in war zones and it is not that expensive in my opinion.
5 hours ago
Going to go out on a limb and say, without reading the article and based just on the domain name and the headline, that the story is not going to be as simple as that, and the WSJ, not exactly a stellar publication at the best of times, is merely furthering the typical American business cultural loathing of the UK, or regulations, or some other nonsense.