Talk:Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
The references in this article would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. |
Contents |
[edit] Frank Lloyd Wright
Given all the trouble with the sagging cantilevers at Fallingwater, which actually have more reinforcement than Wright initially thought necessary, I believe not considering a design of his may have been the wise thing to do.
--MWS 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Butterfly Bridge
This passage:
What is amazing is that an innovative design both beautiful and practical, produced by the architect Frank Lloyd Wright for another bay area location was not even considered. That design was for a "Butterfly" bridge intended to replace another span crossing the bay, the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge. There was a similar fight over the design of that bridge, with Caltrans initially proposing what was called by critics a "Rip Van Winkle" design, a two deck truss similar to the obsolete eastern span of the Bay Bridge or portions of the "roller coaster" Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
is very much out of context with the rest of the paragraph. Should it also be mentioned that the beautiful and innovative design for the Hangzhou Bay Bridge wasn't even considered either? Also, according to the linked website, the bridge was not intended to replace the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge, but as a new span just to the south of the current Bay Bridge. --Kiiron 00:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is out of place and POV; I removed it. -- Beland 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Northern vs. Southern Alignment
This article seems to be missing the early history of the span regarding a northern vs. a southern alignment. If I recall correctly, Willie Brown wanted a southern alignment for redevelopement or historical purposes on TI. Brown halted construction somehow (possibly via the Navy) but was overturned via some old legal documents.
- This seems to have been added since the above anonymous comment was made, though the addition lacks references. -- Beland 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why Does This Entry Exist?
Out of curiosity, why does this page exist? Much of this is in the Bay Bridge page, which could certainly be expanded to include anything that is uniquely here.--Fizbin 13:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg
Image:SFOBB Rendering.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
