It's not really any less ‘heritage’; the original GRR bridge there was plain and functional.
No, there's not, I'm just pointing out the inherent contradiction, where council will demand heritage fit, style, size from developments, no matter the cost in terms of finishes or potential units foregone.
But when they are constructing a far more visible object in a protected viewscape, they toss those constraints right out the window.
Instead of a simple bridge, they should build a space for people to enjoy the river. Think of the piers around LA or in Florida. Build it wide enough (at least in a segment of the bridge) to be able to have kiosks, snack bars, etc. Those things provide a revenue stream towards the cost and attract people.
I'd be happy if they just used a regular old girder bridge like you find on railways all over. Would be a nice shout-out to its former use.
Would it be possible to put up the no-frills version of the bridge first, and add some enhancements later? I think as time goes on it may become more popular and accepted, and thus more politically feasible to upgrade.
The bridge is kind of a waste, there is a bridge 3 minutes walk from there and the main street bridge is 5 minutes away.
It's in a rapidly urbanizing section of the core that could benefit from the connectivity. It also helps that it will not carry vehicles - pedestrians can have a more peaceful river crossing and enjoy the downtown experience more.