It doesn't really compare to the bridges in Pittsburgh or New York, but it's not that bad, is it?
It's not the prettiest structure, but UNESCO's reaction was just extreme.
The Ponte della Costituzione in Venice, although not exactly the same style, is another example of modernist architecture that makes a rather jarring contrast with the historic surroundings. And while it certainly has its critics, I haven't heard UNESCO threatening Venice. Something more is going on that we aren't privy to -- maybe a feud between officials in Dresden and UNESCO?
I don't think Dresden actually got money from UNESCO. They fund mainly Heritage sites in poor countries.
Yes, that's pretty much what happened. It's really complicated (German wikipedia has a loooooong article on the whole thing).
The funny thing is that the city didn't want to build the bridge in the end, but since there was a plebiscite about it in 2005 (before UNESCO said anything), they had to.
It's not that bad. I mean, if it were transplanted into my city (known for the beauty of its river, certainly not of its architecture) it would probably be above-average compared to the beauty of the other bridges here.
It looks like a fine, sturdy, structurally sound bridge. It's a little bare-bones and lacks any sort of fussy facade, but we're talking German engineering here, folks.
Could they have made the thing more baroque, to match the surrounds? Sure, why not? Well, aside from the cost, of course.
I dunno. Looks to me like a smaller version of a bridge we have over the Colorado in Austin. I always thought it looked nice.
I agree it's more complex than direct funding.
Although courts have ruled that a UNESCO treaty cannot prevent the project, a report by federal counsel maintained that Saxony is bound by Germany's treaty undertakings, she said.
I thought Dresden was a Heritage Site because of the horrendous loss of life in the 1945 firebombing of the city. It's nice to know that one ugly bridge undoes all that.
What a stupid decision. I visited Dresden a number of years ago and it definitely deserves to be a Heritage Site. It's a city, not a museum, and it has done a tremendous job of preserving all stages of its past. It shouldn't have to give up its future to be a heritage site (aesthetics aside, of course).
The area in which the bridge was built had (until then) no roads, bridges, or other noticeable buildings upon it. Sorta like a huge parkscape. The bridge and the road bisected that unique landscape, so UNESCO no longer considered it unique.
So UNESCO is saying they'd rather have people hurt the actual environment by driving around the long way than hurt somebody's view?
Because, seriously, big picture people. Not CAMERA picture. Is that the bit they didn't get?
Edit: Yes, it really was that simple, and apparently that was the bit they didn't get. sigh
Seriously, is NOTHING salvageable? Aren't they supposed to be good guys?
I've lived in Dresden for a little over two years, and I'm just happy that the dang thing is finished. Traffic over the other bridges has always been an issue, and the bridge under construction was way more of an eyesore than the finished product, which kind of just looks like another bridge.
I do hate this trend though.
I live somewhere that's primary selling point is history. The place is draped in it. It's the only reason anyone visits the place.
Yet as soon as our incompetent council gets their idiot hands on any money they dump it all into stainless steel benches and Ikea lamp posts.
To be fair the ikea lamp posts are cheaper than the Restoration Hardware ones.
So one unremarkable modern-day bridge somehow hurt Dresden's claim to historically significant architecture more than the firebombing campaign of 1945?