I read an article on MSNBC.com about the new I-35W bridge. Some people in the community, like Jerry Foss, feel that the bridge could have looked nicer and an opportunity was missed. He said, "We had an opportunity to build a signature bridge, and we didn't take it. They chose an average bridge, and we got an average bridge." On the other hand, some believe that making the bridge beautiful would have taken away from the surrounding buildings. One such person, Ann Calvert, who is a Minneapolis city official, said, "This new bridge could have been something wildly dramatic, but it also might have distracted from some of the historic and interesting features in the area." I agree with Calvert that the bridge would have been distracting but for different reasons. I don't think it would take away from the city but from the victims and the families affected by the bridge collapse. I feel it would have been rude and disrespectful. I think it is good that the bridge design is simple. After all, a bridge is a bridge and the only thing I care about is the quality of construction so that it doesn't fall down again.
article link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26704864/ >>>> i would recommend reading it because it shows different perspectives on an issue we have all experienced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree. It was possible to make an extremly elaborate bridge but they chose to make an average one. HOwever i think that the quality is much more important than how flashy the bridge is.
I believe that it's right, the bridge didn't need to be attractive, it needed to be supportive, and strong. And because the crash happened it wasn't.Imagine if the bridge collapse happened but there was a thinner brige, but it was more attractive.More people could have been hurt. If they can make a strong and safe bridge thats atractive , great.Untill then let it be as safe as possible
I can see that the look of the bridge could be important to some people, for they might think it couldv'e been something to be proud of. But I don't think we need another monumental site; we have a lot of those already. It should be obvious that we always put safety first before all else. Also, it would be more expensive, which is a problem we can avoid. People need to be more aware of what's best for our community.
I think your rite; if we would have rebuilt the bridge all flashy and nice, people would definetly get offended. It's like saying that the brige collapse was a good thing because now we can make it pretty. That's like rebuilding the world trade center into the world's biggest casino after 9/11; just straight up disrespectful.
Post a Comment