The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:31, 30 May 2009 [1].

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Vauxhall Bridge/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... The Wikipedia currently has 2,889,825 articles, and not a single one mentions "sailing in a washtub towed by geese". This is shameful systemic bias! There is clearly a conspiracy to suppress the truth about the limitless source of Free! Energy!! that could be made available if the so-called "internal combustion engine" were replaced by goose propulsion – no doubt the result of collusion on IRC by The Wikipedia's blinkered hivemind cabal of administrators and their lackeys, probably in the pay of intelligence agencies, sinister multinational oil companies and Marxist infiltrators. I humbly submit this article to correct this great injustice and show the world the truth.

Seriously, this is another in the "Thames bridges" series and, aside from Mister Barry and his ansermobilistic washtub, there's not much to see here. No elegant Palladian architecture; no striking modernist design; no Great Artists painting seminal paintings of it; no poems and songs that will take a thousand years to die written about it. This is a functional steel-and-stone bridge, that replaced a functional iron-and-stone bridge, both of which are notable mainly for the impressive ineptitude of the many engineers the pair of them went through before anyone managed to come up with a design that would stay upright. However, it's also a forgotten landmark in the history of industrial engineering, as the first iron bridge over the Thames, as well as one of the most significant physical links between North and South London. I think it says all that ought reasonably to be said on the topic, and I can't see any obvious way to say it better. So please, take a gander at it; I'm hoping I can goose it to Featured Article status. – iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know one of the "statue" photos is looking out of the page. I think it's important to have images of two examples of the statue designs, and taking a photo of either of them from the opposing angle would involve levitating 30 feet above the river, and it's IMO more important to keep them attached to the section discussing them, than to comply with one of the more obscure parts of the MOS that has no impact on the readability/usability of the article. striking this, found one facing the other way. Also, there's one potentially unreliable source – a university thesis – cited; this serves only as the citation for the proposed width of the unbuilt Crystal Span project. As all other facts given in the thesis can be verified from reliable sources, I'm willing to accept the reliability of this one; it's only used to cite this single uncontroversial and relatively trivial fact, for which I can't find another source (everything else I've found gives the length but not the width, for some reason). – iridescent 13:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hi Iridescent, that was an interesting read. But a few minor points:
  • Some photo captions could do with expansion, for example "Vauxhall Bridge in 2009" to "Vauxhall Bridge in 2009 viewed from downstream" (I'd have made the change myself but I'm only 95% confident of the side viewed from).
  • I was wondering a little about the sequencing of the article, with the pre Roman bridge being covered in Vauxhall Bridge#Vauxhall Bridge today, and I hope you don't mind but I've extracted a usage section from one on sculpture.
  • If available some info on clearances and thereby what size of ship could pass under the bridge would be nice. - Not sure if the 8/9metres is at low or high tide, but a sentence to the effect that it has sufficient clearance to take any boat that can pass under London Bridge would probably suffice.
  • Usage could do with stats on numbers of vehicles/people/cyclists etc to give more sense of the importance of the bridge.
  • Watchlisting ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to keep the photo captions as short as possible except on points like the first map where an explanation is necessary. If you think they need expanding, feel free to expand them (yes, File:Vauxhall Canoeists.JPG is from downstream). – iridescent 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Bronze Age bridge in the "modern" section looks jarring, but there isn't really another obvious place to put it. It wasn't a precursor of the current bridge in that it didn't span the river, so having it at the start of the article would be misleading in implying that a bridge has existed at this point for centuries, but it needs at least a passing mention. As it was only discovered in 1993, I've used the discovery date, as opposed to the construction date, as the "anchor" within the roughly chronological structure.

I really dislike single-paragraph sections, but if you think a separate "usage" section is warranted I won't argue.

As with all London bridges, the clearance will be about 8–9m (I can get the exact figure if you think it's necessary). Aside from Tower Bridge (which opens for shipping), there are no bridges in the Pool of London (the stretch of the river open to shipping), and the low London Bridge (the easternmost bridge other than Tower Bridge) prevents anything tall coming upriver, so clearance height isn't an issue for any of the bridges.

Regarding usage figures, this has come up with the first two in this series and will no doubt come up with the next 17, so get used to seeing this answer cut-and-pasted: Transport for London don't publish AADT figures for most of the bridges, so except for occasional cases where local boroughs' traffic departments or the Highways Agency have published surveys, usage statistics aren't available. In any event, usage figures would be very misleading as the creation and expansion of the Ring of Steel, the bombing of Hammersmith Bridge, and repeated changes to the London Congestion Charge zone boundaries recently are wildly distorting traffic patterns year-on-year. – iridescent 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can't add what we can't get, but I think it important for FA that we considered such things so thanks for your explanation. Also after looking at London Bridge I've added a reference to the A202, and I think it would be worth stating who owns the Bridge - probably the London Borough of Lambeth in accordance with the convention that London bridges are owned by the Borough containing the place they are named after. Also I'm not sure about "In anticipation of the areas surrounding the bridge becoming prosperous suburbs," as I thought the idea was to open up the South bank for an expanding London and this wording implies both banks. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bridges are owned by whoever they're named after" is an urban legend (what would happen to Albert Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, Millennium Bridge etc?); the five bridges into the old City of London are owned by the City Bridge Trust and the remainder by Transport for London's Street Management Unit. As with all the bridges except London Bridge, the formal boundary between borough jurisdictions runs down the invisible midpoint between the Mean High Water marks on both banks. If you think it's warranted, that fact can certainly be added, but I've been leaving it out of all these bridge articles as I doubt it's of interest to most readers.

Although the main reason for the building of the bridge was the regeneration of the south bank, the plans foresaw the development of the north bank as well; at the time it was built the north bank was virtually empty (see this map of 1746 – the future bridge route is labelled as "Huntley Ferry"; remember, the London mainline stations other than Liverpool Street were all built outside the built-up area of the town). It was assumed by the developers that both banks would develop into residential suburbs of a growing Westminster; in the event the north and south banks were taken up by Millbank Prison and the Royal Doulton ceramics factory, respectively. – iridescent 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) Found a source for the AADT figure for 2004 – now added – iridescent 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the location on a southern bend of the river is worth mentioning both in terms of the views and also the greater amount of land accessed on the south bank. Also the inner London ring road is surely relevant - it can be quite prominent in the signage - see File:Vauxhall cross from Wandsworth rd.jpg. Is it also worth mentioning the views from the bridge? ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion: I don't think the location on a bend is particularly relevant in this case. It's not a sharp curve that formed a traditional fording point, as in the case of Battersea or Hammersmith bridges, and the "greater amount of land on the south bank" thing would be misleading – it's Westminster Bridge, already open long before Vauxhall Bridge was built, that opened up the whole northern half of Lambeth for development. Regarding views, I don't really want to go down the tour-guide route; every bridge by definition has views, those from Vauxhall aren't particularly notable in Wikipedia terms (it's Waterloo Bridge that has the famous views – there's no equivalent Vauxhall Sunset or Vauxhall Bridge (film), and Wikipedia is not WikiTravel). Regarding the "Inner Ring Road" thing, while (as discussed) notwithstanding what Lambeth Council's road signs say I'm unable to find a single mention in any reliable source of any entity officially called the "inner ring road", other than as a term-of-convenience when describing the boundaries of the Congestion Charge zone. I certainly don't think it's worth arguing about, and if you can find a reliable source for this term an official designation certainly wouldn't argue against including it. – iridescent 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and comments (because now I've read a few now). 1) I think the image in "Background" could possibly be moved up a paragraph (formatting, plus it is only a 2nd level header, so a left image could go right under). 2) "The Act stipulated that the proprietors of Battersea Bridge" Any more background that could be included? It might be too complicated to do, however. 3) "13 arches, but soon after the 1809 Act was passed, he" The "but" and "soon after" seem awkward together. Perhaps change it to "13 arches. However, he was dismissed by the Vauxhall Bridge Company soon after the 1809 Act was passed." 4) "On 9 May 1811" - comma needed after this. 5) "Act,[6], and a new Act" - there are two commas surrounding the footnote. 6) "Waterloo Bridge station (renamed "Waterloo Station" in 1886), and the terminus at Nine Elms was abandoned" - I think it would help to note the distance of the Waterloo Bridge, as I had to manually hunt it down and piece together how the situation was. 7) "early hot air balloon flights" early to what? It could read as either "in the day" or "in the history of air balloon flights". 8) "Hundreds of bags of cement were laid around" Too many "of"s makes it awkward. Perhaps - "Bags of cement were laid by the hundreds around"? 9) "However, by this" Use of however just prior. Just start off with "By this". 10) "The new bridge was eventually opened on 26 May 1906" - Remove the "was". 11) Information in "Vauxhall Bridge today" is good, but it seems like much of it could belong up in the "New Vauxhall Bridge" sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding moving the image, I agree that it would decrease clutter, but I dislike images directly under headers even when the MOS permits it – I find it makes articles look a bit like illuminated manuscripts and makes them harder to scan. Anyone else have any thoughts on this one?

The proprietors of Battersea Bridge were (imaginatively) the Battersea Bridge Company. I went with "the proprietors" to avoid the repetition of the name (as it would still need to be explained that the Battersea Bridge Company were the owners of Battersea Bridge and not, for example, a firm of bridge-building engineers based in Battersea).

Reworded the "13 arches, but", and fixed the minor edits

Reworded to "a new railway terminus was built 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) closer to central London, at Waterloo Bridge station" to give a frame of reference. I don't want to be too precise with the distance, as the road, river, rail and as-the-crow-flies distances will all be different.

I've taken out the "early" altogether regarding the balloon flights – "early" is such a relative term, and by the time the bridge opened the technology was already over 20 years old.

Reworded to "Large quantities of cement in bags" & removed one of the "however"s.

I've used the "New Vauxhall Bridge" section to cover the design and building of the new bridge, and the "Today" section only to cover the recent (e.g., last 20 years) changes to the area. I think this chronological structure is least confusing; otherwise, the 1980s/90s property developments would be covered before the 1940s "backup" bridge and the 1960s rebuilding proposals.

Hope that helps… – iridescent 14:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even think about the people who owned the Battersea Bridge, instead, I was thinking about location and why they would care about a new bridge. :) The only thing that bothered me about the "Today" section is it following what appears to be a few sections not directly dealing with the bridge. This created a divide between the two sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the mention of Battersea Bridge being the next bridge upstream in the same paragraph would make the reason they'd be affected by a new bridge implicit; I've expanded the section slightly to hopefully make it clearer that they were concerned about a loss of customers. Regarding the "Today" section, per Wehwalt's suggestion I've retitled it "Recent history" which should hopefully solve the other problem. – iridescent 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight oppose due to some image niggles that need to be fixed (just to be perrrrfect...):

• File:Vauxhall 1847 Joseph Cross map detail.jpg: where does it state that this be Joseph Cross's 1847 work?

I had to "fix" the paintings; the worst being the 1829 engraving which was wrongly attributed to Samuel Bentham (this not be taken in angry tone, tis but a rant). Otherwise, all images except the above are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paintings were inherited from the stub article I took over and from Samuel Bentham; I wanted to keep them but couldn't find out anything better regarding their origins. Thanks very much for cleaning them up!

I took the map from our Nine Elms railway station article, but have no reason to doubt the attribution. Cross has a distinctive style, and I've no reasonable doubt that it's from a Cross map (I can't find his 1847 map online, but compare the design to the equivalent section of his 1851 map; the overprinted blue line is the new rail line to Waterloo, built between the publication of the two maps). Even were it not a Cross map, given that it shows Nine Elms station (closed 1848) and Millbank Prison (demolished 1890) I think that it's beyond reasonable doubt a {{pd-old}} image. – iridescent 14:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this level (FA), the images have to be verified as what they claim to be (a link that points out what the site claims the image to be would suffice unless the site is known to be greatly unreliable). MapCo does have the map (http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cross/cross19.htm). However they deem they can copyright a scan and paste those watermarks over it... Nevertheless the issue has been resolved (link added). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try taking a screen grab of this 1828 Cross Map from the Crace Collection at the British Museum (zoom in to the bit you require) - although it does not include the Nine Elms station. --DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really want one that includes Nine Elms station, as it's intended to illustrate why the station caused a growth in bridge usage due to its position. I think the Cross map is adequate enough. – iridescent 19:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Interesting article, and probably will eventually support, but ...

• I think the lede could use a good solid rewrite, presently it is going too much in depth about the history of the site, and too little about the Bridge today, other than the fact it has a bus lane (or had). Perhaps mention number of lanes, whether it is one way only, that kinda thing. You have an extra paragraph in reserve, you know.

• "the design and appearance of the current bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." Suggest shorten to "the bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." If true.

• Background:

• "With the exception of the New Spring Gardens (later Vauxhall Gardens) pleasure park, opened in around 1661,[3] the land at Vauxhall remained sparsely populated into the 19th century," excepting some teenagers, people don't live in pleasure parks, suggest alter to "sparsely developed".
• Battersea bridge: Maybe expand for a sentence, mentioning it was a toll bridge, the only bridge between X and Y, which might suffer because of the opening of the Vauxhall Bridge.
• "and to keep all profits from any tolls raised.[6][7] The Act stipulated that the proprietors of Battersea Bridge were to receive tolls as if Vauxhall Bridge did not exist, with any loss in revenue to be compensated from the profits of Vauxhall Bridge" Two points here, I'm not sure what it means that they kept all revenue as if Vauxhall Bridge did not exist. Obviously, VB would be a competitor, but the fact that it is mentioned means something more is impled. Second, keeping all profits and making good the losses of Battersea seem contradictory. Can you clarify?

• Old Vauxhall Bridge: Suggest you expand "George, Prince Regent" to "the future George IV, then known as the Prince Regent. Allows you to link to man and office. Note that he became Prince Regent in 1810, so the timeline is slightly muddled here.
• Financial difficulties: Looks to me like they weren't allowed to raise more than 300 grand without leave of Parliament. I'm gathering the problem was cost overruns, it might be wise to say so. The Napoleonic Wars were probably a bad time to be building something anyway, financial instability and high labor prices (relatively speaking).
• "costing only half the price of the original stone design." 150K pounds? Or are we saying after cost overruns?
• "Walker's report " What'd it say?
• "Regent Bridge – soon renamed Vauxhall Bridge" Officially? Or did everyone just call it Vauxhall Bridge and eventually officialdom threw in the towel?
  • Pleasure gardens compensation: After telling us of the 24 men, good and true, the least you can do is tell us their decision.
• Usage: If you are discussing a sliding scale, I would list the higher toll first, thus "sliding" to the lower. Purely stylistic. Suggest linking 2s 6d to "half crown"
  • You might want to say why the Doulton factory and the Millbank penitentiary were a problem. Obviously to me, the users didn't cross the Thames much, but you should probably set that up someplace by saying what they "expected". Also, it might be helpful to the reader less familiar than London to mention what bridge travelers to/from Waterloo would use.

More later. Very good article.

• New Vauxhall Bridge: No need to have "steel superstructure" twice in one sentence. Also, the diverted flow image isn't showing up for me. Problem?
  • "and many influential architects had complained about the lack of consultation from any architects". Awkward. I'd rephrase to use the word "architects" only once.
  • "Frampton resigned from the project through pressure of work" Is this a Britishism? I'd probably say "because of pressure of work" or "due to lack of time" or the like.
  • "downstream" and "upstream". Earlier in the article, you used cardinal directions, north and south (the underground river). Suggest you you pick one way of referring to directions and stick to it. I know it is not a true north south, but you refer to it as such, since you state the actual direction, I think it is simplest for the reader if we go north, south, east, west. And at one point, you can mention which way is downstream for those who might think the Thames estuary exits at Bristol!
  • "A202" for sure this should be in the lede, see above.
• Millbank Bridge: I'm not clear on why it was built. As a ready made sub in case bombers hit the VB? As a decoy? Was it actually used?
• Vauxhall Bridge today. WP:HEAD says we should not repeat the name of the article in a section header. Suggest "Recent history".

That's all I have. Fine article and I look forward to supporting. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with you regarding the lead. The four paragraph limit isn't a quota that has to be filled, and there's no point going into detail just for the sake of it, especially on such a short article. The history of the bridge is far more important than the current usage.

Regarding shortening "the design and appearance of the current bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907." to "the bridge has remained almost unchanged since 1907.", I don't have a very strong opinion on this but mildly disagree; this would then involve a longer subsequent explanation. The design and appearance of the bridge hasn't changed; the bridge has changed (resurfacing, removal of the tram rails, pavement narrowing…).

This was the 17th and 18th century; people lived in or near their place of work (you can see the housing estate just northwest of the amusement park on the 1746 map). I've reworded the offending sentence to "With the exception of housing around the New Spring Gardens pleasure park" to make it clearer.

The Vauxhall Bridge Act empowered the company to take all profits from the tolls (e.g., they didn't have to split the profits with the local authorities, the Church, the River Commissioners et al.); from these profits, they were obliged to compensate the Battersea Bridge Company for any drop in revenues on Battersea Bridge. As those who remember the tontines on Richmond Bridge will remember, 18th and early-19th century civic funding mechanisms are based on concepts that are a bit tricky to explain to modern readers, as they're based on concepts of equity that aren't used any more; in this particular case I can't see an obvious way to explain things more clearly. Does this rewording make it clearer?

I don't see the point in spelling "the future George IV, then known as the Prince Regent" out in full. It's reasonable to assume that most readers of this will be in Britain, and know who George was; the remainder can click on the link. I agree that the name was out of place, and have moved the bit about the naming down to the "opening" section to avoid breaking the timeline.

The original bridge cost £175,000 to build. Although "only half" is a direct quote from one of the sources (Matthews) I agree it confuses the issue and have reworded it to the vaguer "far less".

Walker's report raised technical issues about the stability of the piers of Bentham's design. I can add it if you think it's warranted but it seemed too specifically technical to be of interest to most readers.

It seems that the bridge was never formally renamed and that everyone just called it Vauxhall Bridge; at any rate, I can't find a source anywhere for an official renaming. Straying into OR territory, it's probably reasonable to assume that by the time of George's death in 1830 he was so universally loathed that the bridge owners were happy to lose the connection.

I don't actually know the exact amount awarded by the 24 Good Men. The total incidental costs (building the approach roads, compensating the ferry owner and buying land on the banks) came to £122,000 (with the £175,000 building costs, bringing the total in at just under the £300k allowed), but there doesn't seem to be a breakdown anywhere in a secondary source. The figures will still exist but, quite aside from the issues with using primary sources (gasp), my dedication to the Wikipedia project does not extend to wading through 19th-century account books in the Public Record Office.

For sliding scales of tolls, I've used cheapest → most expensive as the ordering throughout this series. Aside from anything else, this is almost always the ordering modern tollbooth signs use.

I think linking to shillings and pence is more useful than linking to Half crown (British coin). It's the unit of currency that readers are likely to need explained, not the actual design of the coin.

I've expanded slightly on why the opening of factories stopped the Vauxhall area from developing into a wealthy suburb. Regarding the northern bank, while I can expand it if you really deem it necessary, I would hope it's fairly obvious why a prison, (later replaced with a biological warfare research facility) would discourage the rich from moving there.

Not sure what you mean by "to mention what bridge travelers to/from Waterloo would use" – could you clarify? The station in this period was called Waterloo Bridge Station and was as the name suggests at the southern end of Waterloo Bridge, opposite London. Other than the (re) route of the railway line there was (and is) no particular connection between the two areas.

The diverted flow image (File:Effra vauxhall 1.jpg) is showing up for me but it may be that it's in my cache. It's only 116kb so there shouldn't be any "overwhelm the browser" size issue. Are you still having problems with it?

I've removed the second "steel". Even though it means duplication, I think the second "superstructure" is necessary to make it clear exactly what is being designed by whom ("it was decided to build a steel superstructure onto the existing piers, and a superstructure […] was designed").

Can't think of a way to rephrase the "grumbling architects" without using the word "architects" twice. It needs to be clear both who's complaining and what they're complaining about – a formulation like "Architects complained about the lact of consultation with them" would imply the complaint was "you didn't ask me", not "you didn't ask anyone". Suggestions welcome.

The north/south downstream/upstream is confusing here; although the Thames flows west-to-east, the bridge is built on a meander so at this point it's flowing north-south (see the maps). There isn't an obvious way round this short of an explanation of the type I've used on Richmond Bridge, which I was trying to avoid.

Yes, Millbank Bridge was built as a ready-made replacement should any of the bridges in the area be bombed and was just used as an "extra" bridge during the war; five were built in all. (I can't find a PD image of Millbank Bridge, but it would have looked very similar to the temporary bridge further upriver at Walton.)

Agree; retitled the section.

Think that's all of them… – iridescent 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, admire an editor who stands up for his article against kibbitzers. I may look closer at some of the things like the double architect, but see no reason to withhold support. Agree, if there's no PD photo of Millbank Bridge, let it go, might be worth having an article on it someday, key word being someday. I'll have to take a closer look at the bridges next time I am in London.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and comments:
  • Public Ownership
    • "Despite early setbacks and the construction in the 19th century of three nearby competing bridges" - suggest move "nearby" to after "construction".
    • The Metropolitan Board of Works could be abbreviated to MBW or just "the board".
    • London County Council and LCC are both used more than once although LCC is not defined.
  • The Crystal Span - I love the barking made ideas of the Glass Age Development Committee. There is an article in The Times of 27 September 1963 on the Crystal Span, including an illustration (which looks rather like someone floated the Oxford Street John Lewis store down the river). It does say that the Committee's ideas were "intended to be thought provokers only" although the Crystal Span might be economically viable. Additional facilities that are mentioned in the Times article are a parking deck for 300 cars and moving pedestrian walkways each side of the road (very Jetsons).
  • Recent history
    • There is a slight chronological disparity in that you talk about the land at the southern end of the bridge remaining empty "Following the closure of a number of the area's industries, in the 1970s and 1980s" but follow that with discussion of the 1979 Green Giant proposal which falls in the middle of the period identified earlier rather than following it. Also, Land is never really "empty", although it might be out of use.
    • Although they're only a sentence apart, you ought to define GLC after the use of Greater London Council.
    • Final paragraph: "removal of the cast-iron balustrades with low box-girder structures", For the sentence to make sense, I think "removal" should be "replacement".--DavidCane (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree about "nearby"
• I've tried to spell the titles out in full the first time they're used in each section, and use abbreviated forms in subsequent appearances in the same paragraph. Fixed a few that have slipped through, and clarified what the abbreviations mean
• I've tried to keep the tone of the Glass Age proposal section appropriately sceptical, although it's mentioned in enough sources (all cited) as a proposal that was at least seriously considered that I think it warrants covering as such, and not as just a harebrained scheme. (In hindsight, some of the GADC crazy ideas just seem ahead of their time, not crazy – Demolish every building in a half-mile radius and replace them with glass-and-steel towers? A glass shell containing a hotel, art gallery, and shopping mall? A giant glass box built on an offshore artificial island?)
• Oops, you're absolutely right – fixed – iridescent 19:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.