A 'Ludicrously Ugly' Bridge Is Exhibit a That Britain Has Lost Its Mojo

Commenters argued about the bridge’s appearance, cost and context. mikestew and silverFork called the structure “ridiculously ugly” and questioned the eye-watering price tag, with silverFork alleging someone “pocketed” a large sum. ajb and ben_w pushed back, noting the span is part of a £237m Oxford station upgrade and that work encountered complications - gas leaks, a WWII grenade and live rail operations - which they said plausibly raise costs. oh_fiddlesticks added that archaeological finds and an unusual traffic policy had effectively partitioned the city and complicated access, while Joker_vD reminded readers that brutalism has British roots.

Opinion divided over who or what to blame and how realistic cost expectations are. silverFork and others advocated modular, prebuilt bridge methods as cheaper and faster, while ben_w and ajb emphasized the premium of working on an active rail corridor and hazardous discoveries. dofm accused the WSJ of a simplistic, possibly culturally biased take on UK infrastructure, and estearum sarcastically contrasted grenade removal with war-zone work. Overall the debate split between aesthetic outrage and suspicion of profiteering, versus pragmatic acceptance of higher costs given technical and historical constraints.