127m being meters, not millions (although heaven knows how much this thing costs).
And the dismantling being limited to temporarily removing the center span of the bridge as well, in case that was ambiguous.
I don’t have any affection for Bezos, but this doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. The municipality wants the jobs that come with building yachts, the trade off of having to sometimes adjust infrastructure to make it happen seems reasonable.
What sounds a bit ridiculous is that they apparently are only noticing this problem now - I mean, they knew the dimensions of the yacht when they accepted the order to build it, but they waited until it's almost finished to say "oops, we have this huge almost finished yacht worth $$$$$$ and we can't deliver it to the customer unless you dismantle a bridge"?! And the municipality, out of the goodness of their hearts, will probably use taxpayer money instead of billing the shipbuilder for it?
What's even more puzzling is that the problem is only with the masts, and it's apparently not possible to detach the masts and reattach them later? If I were Jeff Bezos, I would be worried about what this means for future repairs to the yacht...
This is common for large items, all kinds of products need special permits to move them due to their size.
I'm sure they knew, and had a mitigation plan in place. Almost sounds like there weren't a lot of options.. "this is such a large project that there are hardly any locations where this work is finished."
And even if the municipality were to pay for it "Rotterdam has also been declared the maritime capital of Europe. Shipbuilding and activity within that sector are therefore an important pillar for the municipality." Seems like a fee they would be willing to pay to hold that title, or would be required for it. How is it any different than a state subsidizing a business district to generate jobs and taxes?
They knew the issue when they got the order. They probably ran it by the city informally then. Anyone routinely engaged in this kind of heavy industry is going to have an understanding of the city's disposition to these sorts of things and know who they need to run these things by. Now that all the details have been tentatively agreed on they're formally asking.
Alternatively, it may have been a case of "if we get permission great, if we don't then we'll install the masts elsewhere for an extra several mil."
Well, not always. And sometimes many stone-cold, rational people flash money. Just to improve business.
A friend of mine was perfectly happy with his shit of a car even though he could afford something much better.
Then he started a business. A business that involved communicating and meeting with people very outside of our tech or liberal/vegan/minimalist/generic-dominant-fad bubbles.
These people cared about the car he drove. They did not want to be seen or meeeting or seen with someone with a shitty car or using a cab. Perception mattered, and business was hurt.
Then, that friend bought a BMW just to drive it to meetings. He also keeps his old car and drives for personal use.
There might be some people, important to Bezos's business that care about where they meet with him. Bezos wants it to be a yatch.
Can't blame him without more information.
He might be a money-flashing, wealth-displaying rich asshole. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why do you think so? Isn't it much cheaper and easier on the environment to dismantle a bridge (that was probably built with that in mind) than to move an entire city of professionals+the infrastructure around them away to a more suitable place?
Can someone summarise what exactly makes a yacht cost so much? Solid gold taps everywhere? A similarly sized luxurious house would be a fraction of this (and yes appreciate it has to float and has engines and such, but similar yachts are vastly cheaper).
> I don’t have any affection for Bezos, but this doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. The municipality wants the jobs that come with building yachts, the trade off of having to sometimes adjust infrastructure to make it happen seems reasonable.
I dunno, the article states that it's only the masts that are a problem, so can't they tow the boat through and attach the masts after it's passed by the bridge?
Serious question as I know next to nothing about yachts.
Agreed, just so long as Bezos paid for the deconstruction and reconstruction of the bridge along with any associated effects from the bridge being out of commission for a time.
The title is really misleading. Bezos isn’t sailing through the bridge and having it dismantled to get it out of his way. A Rotterdam shipbuilder _assembling_ the yacht has specialized requirements and needs to do part of the assembly on one side of the bridge.
But it’s a lot funnier imagining a Duke or Lord riding atop his minions (literally on their backs) and nonchalantly waiving to have trees and villages be destroyed to accommodate his path. Oh, and that whole going to space thing in a giant dick shaped rocket.
The way I see it, a 500 million dollar yacht is being built in my country, and in return we have to dismantle a bridge, that isn't even in use, for a single day and we don't have to pay for it.
Although I find the super yacht industry rather disgusting, in this particular instance it sounds like a pretty good deal for Rotterdam honestly.
This is perhaps a somewhat unpopular opinion, but I'm always pleased when I hear ultra-rich people spending exorbitant amounts of money on something.
Without going into the discussion of whether or not people should be able to accumulate huge fortunes in the first place, given the fact that they exist, such spending means that they are putting huge sums of money back into the hands of "the people": In exchange for this boat, Bezos is moving 500M$ from his bank account to the bank accounts of many, many people working on it directly and indirectly thus moving the pendulum a tiny bit towards financial equality. Considering that the real-world alternative was for him to not have done this, remain under the radar, and keep 500M laying around, I think this is the better option.
The alternative isn't that the money sits in a bank account. The better alternative would be that those 500M went to Amazon employees instead of the CEO. The employees could have used it to buy nice winter boots for their kids. Probably a lot more useful than yet another boat dumping tons of toxic waste into the ocean.
Money sitting in a bank account is fine. It's not using any real resources sitting there. Of course, he might spend it sooner or later, which would probably be bad for everyone except him. So even better (for everyone but him) would be if he converted the money to paper bills, and then burned them all. That would benefit millions of people. (Exactly who would depend on which country's currency the bills were in.)
Boat or bank are the only two current realistic alternatives I see. At least the boat builders & associated kids get some new boots. There are thousands of nicer alternatives that aren't going to happen
It may not be. The bridge (https://rotterdampages.com/architecture-de-hef-rotterdam/) has a movable deck that can be taken out and hung back, so if the opening between the pillars is wide enough for the yacht, it should be a fairly easy operation.
What annoys me about this isn't that it's Bezos building a ridiculous yacht. Eat the rich and all that aside, let's talk about the arrogance of Oceanco.
They knew the height of the bridge. They knew the planned height of the yacht. The started building anyway without first asking. They simply presumed they could get what they wanted. How? Well the article explains how very well.
> He added: "From an economic perspective and maintaining employment, the municipality considers this a very important project."
The veiled threat being "Oh, you like having jobs here? Would be a shame if something happened to that."
And of course they could just not put the mast on here, and do it elsewhere, but:
> it was "not practical" to partially finish the vessel and complete the build elsewhere. "If you carry out a big job somewhere, you want all your tools in that place. Otherwise you have to go back and forth constantly. In addition, this is such a large project that there are hardly any locations where this work is finished."
IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge.
And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way.
> E: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge
No not really.
My father works for a company that builds large yachts company in the UK. He has built yachts for F1 drivers and team owners for the last 20 odd years. These yachts while large aren't on this size and it is true that the number of places where this work can be done is limited (there are literally only a few places left in the UK itself).
With something of this size there is probably only a few places where it can be done in the whole of Europe if not the entire world.
You are assuming the worst intentions here.
> And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way.
The number of jobs that were provided by building this large yacht probably has enriched everyone in the city. Working people understand the trade-off.
EDIT: Other people have noted that the bridge itself doesn't carry traffic.
I agree with all of that, but on the other hand doesn't Oceanco have some pressure on it to actually deliver the product?
If Rotterdam's government went all "sure we'll hack the bridge for you, but it's going to cost €15 million, and we need to know 3 months in advance" or whatever [1], I wouldn't expect Oceanco to go "no way, we're moving out, you can say bye-bye to N jobs and some high-profile on-brand industry presence" because then the actual customer paying Oceanco €450M or whatever will be like "cough cough excuse us, but where is our yacht?". I imagine the contract-breaching fines on not delivering a yacht in this price range are in the "hefty+" range. Right?
(Edited for brevity believe it or not.)
[1] Numbers taken straight from the air, I know nothing. I've been to Rotterdam vacationing for one day, built zero luxury yachts.
>IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge.
The bridge is a monument and does not carry traffic.
If it did carry traffic they would almost certainly have said no or required it be an overnight job. Overnight temporary removal of infrastructure like that is common in the world of hauling very bulky industrial things.
Well either the jobs are worth it or they are not. This actually does seem like a clear cut case of "if you won't do this for us we can't keep building here".
Despite the headline the details seem eminently reasonable. The bridge isn't going anywhere. They just asked the town if they can R&R the middle section of the bridge because the boat can't pass under it. This is a movable railway bridge so the R&R procedure is very, very simple and non-intrusive compared to any sort of bridge with a static span where the middle may be integral to the strength of the rest.
This sort of temporary removal of infrastructure is bog standard in the "hauling absurdly large and heavy things" world. It'll probably be a 9pm-5am closure or something like that and the locals will get to look at a larger than usual boat moored just upstream of the bridge and a large marine crane moored downstream in the days leading up to it.
It's a monumental bridge dating back to 1878, being the first of its kind in Europe. It was one of the first bridges to be reconstructed after the heavy bombardment of Rotterdam during WWII, and is a national monument. It holds significant value to the people living in the city. Any damage to it would be unacceptable.
Meanwhile, the yacht-under-construction was partially constructed at a different boat wharf, and moved to the current location for finishing - including installing the masts. They could have chosen to finish it downstream of the bridge but chose not to due to convenience.
Partially deconstructing a historic landmark to make it more convenient to build a billionaire's toy is not a good look.
I’m sure it’ll be fine.
Bridges and especially metal drawbridges like this need constant maintenance and inspection.
Have the shipyard pay for this work is properly a great deal for the port.
That's worse, it implies with enough money, something designated historical for cultural reasons can be bought, modified, commodified, or changed to accommodate the whims of one exceptionally wealthy man.
Readit News
And the dismantling being limited to temporarily removing the center span of the bridge as well, in case that was ambiguous.
I don’t have any affection for Bezos, but this doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. The municipality wants the jobs that come with building yachts, the trade off of having to sometimes adjust infrastructure to make it happen seems reasonable.
What's even more puzzling is that the problem is only with the masts, and it's apparently not possible to detach the masts and reattach them later? If I were Jeff Bezos, I would be worried about what this means for future repairs to the yacht...
I'm sure they knew, and had a mitigation plan in place. Almost sounds like there weren't a lot of options.. "this is such a large project that there are hardly any locations where this work is finished."
And even if the municipality were to pay for it "Rotterdam has also been declared the maritime capital of Europe. Shipbuilding and activity within that sector are therefore an important pillar for the municipality." Seems like a fee they would be willing to pay to hold that title, or would be required for it. How is it any different than a state subsidizing a business district to generate jobs and taxes?
No, Bezos is paying for it.
Alternatively, it may have been a case of "if we get permission great, if we don't then we'll install the masts elsewhere for an extra several mil."
It is just a poor choice of resource allocation, any way you look at it. Personally for Bezos, or as a society
Well, not always. And sometimes many stone-cold, rational people flash money. Just to improve business.
A friend of mine was perfectly happy with his shit of a car even though he could afford something much better.
Then he started a business. A business that involved communicating and meeting with people very outside of our tech or liberal/vegan/minimalist/generic-dominant-fad bubbles.
These people cared about the car he drove. They did not want to be seen or meeeting or seen with someone with a shitty car or using a cab. Perception mattered, and business was hurt.
Then, that friend bought a BMW just to drive it to meetings. He also keeps his old car and drives for personal use.
There might be some people, important to Bezos's business that care about where they meet with him. Bezos wants it to be a yatch.
Can't blame him without more information.
He might be a money-flashing, wealth-displaying rich asshole. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And the folks hired to built that yacht (versus a home or a new company) are probably pretty happy to get the business.
If rumors are to be believed, it’s over three times that, at €430m.
(https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/10/25/jeff-bezos-has-a-n...)
I dunno, the article states that it's only the masts that are a problem, so can't they tow the boat through and attach the masts after it's passed by the bridge?
Serious question as I know next to nothing about yachts.
The way I see it, a 500 million dollar yacht is being built in my country, and in return we have to dismantle a bridge, that isn't even in use, for a single day and we don't have to pay for it.
Although I find the super yacht industry rather disgusting, in this particular instance it sounds like a pretty good deal for Rotterdam honestly.
Without going into the discussion of whether or not people should be able to accumulate huge fortunes in the first place, given the fact that they exist, such spending means that they are putting huge sums of money back into the hands of "the people": In exchange for this boat, Bezos is moving 500M$ from his bank account to the bank accounts of many, many people working on it directly and indirectly thus moving the pendulum a tiny bit towards financial equality. Considering that the real-world alternative was for him to not have done this, remain under the radar, and keep 500M laying around, I think this is the better option.
They knew the height of the bridge. They knew the planned height of the yacht. The started building anyway without first asking. They simply presumed they could get what they wanted. How? Well the article explains how very well.
> He added: "From an economic perspective and maintaining employment, the municipality considers this a very important project."
The veiled threat being "Oh, you like having jobs here? Would be a shame if something happened to that."
And of course they could just not put the mast on here, and do it elsewhere, but:
> it was "not practical" to partially finish the vessel and complete the build elsewhere. "If you carry out a big job somewhere, you want all your tools in that place. Otherwise you have to go back and forth constantly. In addition, this is such a large project that there are hardly any locations where this work is finished."
IE: We do have other places we could do this work, but just not as cheaply as we can do it here, by inconveniencing the local population for days by removing their bridge.
And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way.
No not really.
My father works for a company that builds large yachts company in the UK. He has built yachts for F1 drivers and team owners for the last 20 odd years. These yachts while large aren't on this size and it is true that the number of places where this work can be done is limited (there are literally only a few places left in the UK itself).
With something of this size there is probably only a few places where it can be done in the whole of Europe if not the entire world.
You are assuming the worst intentions here.
> And Rotterdam will probably do what they say. Because they're right- the corporations do control them this way.
The number of jobs that were provided by building this large yacht probably has enriched everyone in the city. Working people understand the trade-off.
EDIT: Other people have noted that the bridge itself doesn't carry traffic.
If Rotterdam's government went all "sure we'll hack the bridge for you, but it's going to cost €15 million, and we need to know 3 months in advance" or whatever [1], I wouldn't expect Oceanco to go "no way, we're moving out, you can say bye-bye to N jobs and some high-profile on-brand industry presence" because then the actual customer paying Oceanco €450M or whatever will be like "cough cough excuse us, but where is our yacht?". I imagine the contract-breaching fines on not delivering a yacht in this price range are in the "hefty+" range. Right?
(Edited for brevity believe it or not.)
[1] Numbers taken straight from the air, I know nothing. I've been to Rotterdam vacationing for one day, built zero luxury yachts.
The bridge is a monument and does not carry traffic.
If it did carry traffic they would almost certainly have said no or required it be an overnight job. Overnight temporary removal of infrastructure like that is common in the world of hauling very bulky industrial things.
Deleted Comment
Oceano and Bezos will reimburse the costs: https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/02/rotterdam-bridge-taken-apart-l...
This is much ado about nothing.
This sort of temporary removal of infrastructure is bog standard in the "hauling absurdly large and heavy things" world. It'll probably be a 9pm-5am closure or something like that and the locals will get to look at a larger than usual boat moored just upstream of the bridge and a large marine crane moored downstream in the days leading up to it.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=koningshaven+bridge&id=...
Meanwhile, the yacht-under-construction was partially constructed at a different boat wharf, and moved to the current location for finishing - including installing the masts. They could have chosen to finish it downstream of the bridge but chose not to due to convenience.
Partially deconstructing a historic landmark to make it more convenient to build a billionaire's toy is not a good look.