[jollyllama]

Everything I can find about it is overwhelmingly positive but I'd be interested to hear some counterarguments. I've never seen it in person, but to me, it is a bit too angular and brutalist. Something with a more arched styling could have been nice, if it was technically feasible.

[kergonath]

It is difficult to appreciate without seeing it in person, but considering its absolutely massive scale and that everything about it is just humongous, it blends in the landscape much better than it should. Sure, it is visible, but not overpowering. Norman Foster explained how he tried to blend it with the horizon and the sky and I think he did a fairly good job. The straight lines are unobtrusive. They are there, but they do not command attention.

[dtagames]

It's remarkable to think of a 100 story skyscraper towering over a town of 20,000 people. Yet that's what it is!

I agree that's surprisingly graceful and elegant and doesn't detract from the environment, which is quite an achievement. And audacious in the extreme.

[alexey-salmin]

I like and appreciate bridges in general and I'd say in a clear weather it's "just" a big beautiful bridge. However when the clouds fill the valley the view becomes unreal (like the photo in the referenced article).

First time I was there it was sunny. Second time it was so cloudy that I couldn't see the bridge. But as I drove away I saw the fog clear up, so I went back, paid the toll second time and enjoyed an absolutely stunning view.

[Mistletoe]

I could see people objecting to ruining the look of the countryside and nature with the bridge. It cost almost $500 million in the 2000s. And the village would probably benefit from all that traffic if you consider more traffic good.

[kergonath]

Some restaurants and bars lost out when the traffic went away, but the city as a whole did not really. It is in a very scenic place in a very touristic region, and very well connected thanks to the motorway.