I support a rational restoration of the Northern Avenue Bridge, but I’m concerned that preservationist zealotry will actually kill the project (“Steampunk in the Seaport,’’ Alex Kingsbury, Opinion, Jan. 28). While Greg Galer, of the Boston Preservation Alliance, isn’t demanding that every rivet be preserved, there’s reason to doubt the willingness of preservation advocates to compromise in ways that reduce the time and cost it takes to do a restoration.

The Longfellow Bridge reconstruction is an example. The original method of construction is being preserved in the areas of the structure that are visible so that we can see all those lovely rivets. It would have been possible to use welded bolts that look like rivets throughout, rather than only in hidden areas, which would have been less expensive and time-consuming. Instead, we’re reinventing the methods that were used when the Longfellow was built, between 1900 and 1906.

We have another example in Brookline, with the controversy over restoration of an 1894 truss footbridge over the MBTA tracks on Carlton Street. This has been a battle that has bitterly divided advocates of restoration and preservation and their opponents for more than 15 years.

If we’re gong to get a rebuilt swinging truss bridge suitable for bikes, pedestrians, and perhaps even cars, compromise will be needed, especially with regard to passenger cars. I hope the Globe advocates for reasonableness in the preservation effort, not for bringing back the past in its exact glory.

Mike Sandman

Brookline

The writer is the former chairman of the Brookline Transportation Board.