Boston - BU Bridge, What makes it an "Eyesore"?
Elmer
it an "eyesore":
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1015263
Certainly the bridge is neglected and screaming out for repairs or
just simple maintenance, but calling it an "eyesore" is like calling
the pyramids of Egypt or the Colisseum in Rome eyesores because they
too show deterioration.
It's proportions may not be as asthetically pleasing as say, the
Bourne bridge, but the BU bridge still posesses a great amount of
beauty. Labeling it an "eyesore" is truly a disservice to the bridge,
implying that we'd be better off tearing it down. Even with rust and
crumbling concrete, the BU bridge is infinitely more beautiful than an
ugly modern bridge across the Charles, like for example, the Leverett
Connector.
The three concrete arch bridges at River St., Western Ave., and
Harvard St. are also shamefully neglected. Up close, driving or
walking across, they're very sad. But at a distance, all these bridges
are quite beautiful. I just don't think "eyesore" is the right word to
brand them with.
Elmer
Ron Newman
Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Boston Hearld ran an article today deriding the BU bridge, calling
> it an "eyesore":
It's an "eyesore" because it is visbly deteriorating in a way that is
obvious to anyone who rides a bicycle or walks across it. I find it
scary to be able to see the Charles River through holes in the pavement
or the curbing.
Elmer
> In article <1186336323.565641.197...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Elmer <Elmer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Boston Hearld ran an article today deriding the BU bridge, calling
> > it an "eyesore":
>
> It's an "eyesore" because it is visbly deteriorating in a way that is
> obvious to anyone who rides a bicycle or walks across it. I find it
> scary to be able to see the Charles River through holes in the pavement
> or the curbing.
Yes, but "scary" does not equal ugly. Overall, can't you look beyond
the surface and see the artistry of the original design? Imagine it as
an old painting by a great artist, poorly cared for and in need of
restoration. Sure, the painting is not looking it's best. Parts of it
may be tragically damaged, but there's still great value in the
classic beauty that endures beneath the neglect.
Elmer
John S
Elmer wrote:
> The Boston Hearld ran an article today deriding the BU bridge, calling
> it an "eyesore":
>
> http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1015263
>
> Certainly the bridge is neglected and screaming out for repairs or
> just simple maintenance, but calling it an "eyesore" is like calling
> the pyramids of Egypt or the Colisseum in Rome eyesores because they
> too show deterioration.
The article makes it clear why it is so labeled, by describing the bridge
as "an urban eyesore of rusting metal, crumbling concrete and perilous
sidewalk cracks." I cannot disagree. Massachusetts's neglect of critical
infrastructure maintenance has done everyone a disservice and at best will
merely end up costing taxpayers far, far more than what proper care would
have. The problem is getting worse each month. Even attempts to actually
fix broken bridges, such as Winter Street overpass of I-95 in Waltham end
up dragging on for years extra due to lack of competence and contractor
oversight. But hey, it's only been a decade or two since that bridge was
severely damaged, so who's counting? It only took the Turnpike Auth 4
years to fix the short and simple Market Street overpass in Brighton, but
thank goodness everyone was well paid to sit and watch the traffic backups
everyday, including the police collecting their "detail" ransom.
While the Boston University bridge may be a nice feature crossing the
Charles (from a distance), I wouldn't compare it to the Pyramids or
Coliseum.
Joe the Aroma
"John S" <joh...@no.spam> wrote in message news:46B6162F...@no.spam...
> The article makes it clear why it is so labeled, by describing the bridge
> as "an urban eyesore of rusting metal, crumbling concrete and perilous
> sidewalk cracks." I cannot disagree. Massachusetts's neglect of
> critical
> infrastructure maintenance has done everyone a disservice and at best will
> merely end up costing taxpayers far, far more than what proper care would
> have. The problem is getting worse each month. Even attempts to actually
> fix broken bridges, such as Winter Street overpass of I-95 in Waltham end
> up dragging on for years extra due to lack of competence and contractor
> oversight. But hey, it's only been a decade or two since that bridge was
> severely damaged, so who's counting? It only took the Turnpike Auth 4
> years to fix the short and simple Market Street overpass in Brighton, but
> thank goodness everyone was well paid to sit and watch the traffic backups
> everyday, including the police collecting their "detail" ransom.
>
> While the Boston University bridge may be a nice feature crossing the
> Charles (from a distance), I wouldn't compare it to the Pyramids or
> Coliseum.
The BU bridge is a marvel of upkeep compared to the Harvard Ave. bridge,
which is literally crumbling into the river. I've actually seen pieces of it
fall into the river. The way Boston neglects it's infrastructure is a crime
and a testimony to the morons the idiot voters keep returning to office
around here. It's amusing that Boston funds a "hip hop roundtable" and then
let's it's infrastructure crumble into the river.
Robert Coe
: The Boston Hearld ran an article today deriding the BU bridge, calling
Just ignore the article. The Cottage Farm ("BU") Bridge has been around much
longer than the so-called "Boston Herald" has. It's laughable to suppose
they'd know anything about aesthetics anyway. Their newspaper is about as
aesthetically pleasing as the National Enquirer.
Bob
John S
Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:52:03 -0700, Elmer <Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : The Boston Hearld ran an article today deriding the BU bridge, calling
> : it an "eyesore":
> :
> : http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1015263
> :
> : Certainly the bridge is neglected and screaming out for repairs or
> : just simple maintenance, but calling it an "eyesore" is like calling
> : the pyramids of Egypt or the Colisseum in Rome eyesores because they
> : too show deterioration.
> :
> : It's proportions may not be as asthetically pleasing as say, the
> : Bourne bridge, but the BU bridge still posesses a great amount of
> : beauty. Labeling it an "eyesore" is truly a disservice to the bridge,
> : implying that we'd be better off tearing it down. Even with rust and
> : crumbling concrete, the BU bridge is infinitely more beautiful than an
> : ugly modern bridge across the Charles, like for example, the Leverett
> : Connector.
> :
> : The three concrete arch bridges at River St., Western Ave., and
> : Harvard St. are also shamefully neglected. Up close, driving or
> : walking across, they're very sad. But at a distance, all these bridges
> : are quite beautiful. I just don't think "eyesore" is the right word to
> : brand them with.
>
> Just ignore the article.
Sort of like how Massachusetts has been ignoring the bridges?
> The Cottage Farm ("BU") Bridge has been around much
> longer than the so-called "Boston Herald" has.
I'm not sure I follow how that would be relevant.
> It's laughable to suppose
> they'd know anything about aesthetics anyway. Their newspaper is about as
> aesthetically pleasing as the National Enquirer.
In the eye of the beholder, but I believe the issue is the deteriorating
condition.
Robert Coe
:
:
There's just no humor left in this newsgroup, is there? Is that what riding
the MBTA every day does to a person? If so, I guess it should have done it to
me too?
Bob
Ron Newman
"Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The BU bridge is a marvel of upkeep compared to the Harvard Ave. bridge,
> which is literally crumbling into the river.
Are you referring to the Larz Anderson Bridge, which connects North
Harvard Street in Allston to JFK Street in Cambridge?
> The way Boston neglects it's infrastructure is a crime
> and a testimony to the morons the idiot voters keep returning to office
> around here. It's amusing that Boston funds a "hip hop roundtable" and then
> let's it's infrastructure crumble into the river.
This one can't be blamed on Boston -- it's owned by the state.
Joe the Aroma
"Ron Newman" <rne...@thecia.net> wrote in message
news:rnewman-B9C134...@spr2-walt2-6-0-cust63.asfd.broadband.ntl.com...
> In article <pO-dnV-GlIsstyvb...@comcast.com>,
> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The BU bridge is a marvel of upkeep compared to the Harvard Ave. bridge,
>> which is literally crumbling into the river.
>
> Are you referring to the Larz Anderson Bridge, which connects North
> Harvard Street in Allston to JFK Street in Cambridge?
Yep. The corners are literally crumbling into the river and onto the street.
>> The way Boston neglects it's infrastructure is a crime
>> and a testimony to the morons the idiot voters keep returning to office
>> around here. It's amusing that Boston funds a "hip hop roundtable" and
>> then
>> let's it's infrastructure crumble into the river.
>
> This one can't be blamed on Boston -- it's owned by the state.
What's the difference?
Free Lunch
I thought the MDC owned everything.
Elmer
You got that right. The Herald is the real "eyesore".
I guess what got me stirred up to begin with is the lack of respect.
Perhaps it has to do with our "youth-centered" culture, where anyone
or anything that's not young and beautiful is deemed worthless. A few
wrinkles, some grey hair, a bit of rust here and there... Oh how
unsightly! Some people would prefer not to even look. And then well,
out-of-sight, out-of-mind, replaced by a pennywise/pound-foolish
mentality where nobody wants to spend anything for something so
unglamorous as preventive maintenance.
Elmer
John S
Elmer wrote:
Yah, go back to reading the NY Times's Globe and their aesthetically pleasing
"factual" stories about soldiers raping, Longfellow bridge design, Canadian seal
hunts, etc.
Joseph Houk
On 08/05/2007 1:14 PM, in article
1186337682.5...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "Elmer"
<Elme...@gmail.com> wrote:
A Picasso won't cause you to fall to your death or cause great bodily harm.
Unless, of course, we're talking about the work of art in front of Chicago
City Hall.
Ron Newman
"Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This one can't be blamed on Boston -- it's owned by the state.
>
> What's the difference?
Different funding mechanism, for one thing.
threes...@hotmail.com
> "Ron Newman" <rnew...@thecia.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rnewman-B9C134...@spr2-walt2-6-0-cust63.asfd.broadband.ntl.com...
>
> > In article <pO-dnV-GlIsstyvbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>,
> > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The BU bridge is a marvel of upkeep compared to the Harvard Ave. bridge,
> >> which is literally crumbling into the river.
>
> > Are you referring to the Larz Anderson Bridge, which connects North
> > Harvard Street in Allston to JFK Street in Cambridge?
>
> Yep. The corners are literally crumbling into the river and onto the street.
>
> >> The way Boston neglects it's infrastructure is a crime
> >> and a testimony to the morons the idiot voters keep returning to office
> >> around here. It's amusing that Boston funds a "hip hop roundtable" and
> >> then
> >> let's it's infrastructure crumble into the river.
>
> > This one can't be blamed on Boston -- it's owned by the state.
>
> What's the difference?
Simple: The City of Boston is one entity responsible for some things,
but not the bridges over the Charles River. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (through its agency, the DCR) is another which is
responsible for some other things, including the bridges over the
Charles.
threes...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:42:28 -0400, in misc.transport.road
> <rnewman-B9C134.21422705082...@spr2-walt2-6-0-cust63.asfd.broadband.ntl.com>:
>
> >In article <pO-dnV-GlIsstyvbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>,
> > "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The BU bridge is a marvel of upkeep compared to the Harvard Ave. bridge,
> >> which is literally crumbling into the river.
>
> >Are you referring to the Larz Anderson Bridge, which connects North
> >Harvard Street in Allston to JFK Street in Cambridge?
>
> >> The way Boston neglects it's infrastructure is a crime
> >> and a testimony to the morons the idiot voters keep returning to office
> >> around here. It's amusing that Boston funds a "hip hop roundtable" and then
> >> let's it's infrastructure crumble into the river.
>
> >This one can't be blamed on Boston -- it's owned by the state.
>
> I thought the MDC owned everything.
The MDC, a state agency, ceased to exist about four years ago. It
merged with the DEM (Mass Department of Environmental Management)
which created the DCR, which is responsible for Storrow Drive,
Soldiers Field Road, Memorial Drive and most of the bridges over the
Charles.
Elmer
> The MDC, a state agency, ceased to exist about four years ago. It
> merged with the DEM (Mass Department of Environmental Management)
> which created the DCR, which is responsible for Storrow Drive,
> Soldiers Field Road, Memorial Drive and most of the bridges over the
> Charles.
"A rose by any other name...", though in this case an offensive weed
would be more appropriate. Merging with another ill managed department
and splitting off again under another name hasn't changed a thing.
Whoever they are, they're spending more effort making new signs than
doing anything useful to maintain the infrastructure they've been
entrusted with. To many if us, there's no perceiveble difference
between the what the MDC was and what the DCR is. We'll continue to
call it the MDC, just as some of us continue to call the Yankee
Division Highway route 128.
Elmer