They don't make 'em like this anymore...
-
@EssExTee
Cincinnati -
@BicycleBuck said in They don't make 'em like this anymore...:
And now we have grant programs to tear them down or develop user-friendly ways to reconnect the communities split by the interstates. Baton Rouge is a great example. I-10 divides it north and south, I-110 divides it east and west. Major east-west roads further subdivide it and the state actively fights any attempts to make them more pedestrian & bicycle friendly. They don't even want to add pedestrian crossings since they mess up the optimized traffic flow.
They completely destroyed a lot of communities. The damage done can never be repaired.
-
I have no problem with the concrete bridge. It's very minimalist and IMO does the least amount of intrusion on the viewshed/horizon. The arches underneath can be dressed up pretty nicely and no cables to worry about.
This is objective and not considering the expectation that the bridge needs to be aesthetically pleasing or historically accurate, just functional and as low-profile and low-maintenance as possible.
@svend I have a couple old film photos of myself exploring some of those Bronze Age short-span stone bridges in Somerset and Devon. So low-tech, but I can imagine the idea of keeping your feet dry was a big leap forward in the era. Or not having to balance while walking across a log or stepping stones.
Iron Bridge might be the worldwide symbol of the very earliest days of the Industrial Revolution.
Motorin! What's your price for Life? About $3.99? We'll eat alright tonight
-
@Arch-Duke-Maxyenko ew gross don't make me look at ohio
The person reading this is a doo-doo head
-
Interesting. It looks like a twin to the Julian Dubuque bridge opened in 1943 in Dubuque Iowa
https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=iowa/juliendubuque/#photosvideos
-
@EssExTee It's mostly Kentucky in the picture if it makes you feel better
-
@Svend — Amen. You can spend public money to put up a thing of beauty or a thing of ugly; either way we'll all have to look at it for a long time.
And in the appreciation department, let's not forget the giant pair of solid brass ones that it takes to build (and maintain) them! We've figured out how to do that without killing as many people as in the old days, but a lot of people, even a lot of construction workers, nope out of that pretty hard.
-
@Ad-absurdum-per-aspera said in They don't make 'em like this anymore...:
@Svend — Amen. You can spend public money to put up a thing of beauty or a thing of ugly; either way we'll all have to look at it for a long time.
And in the appreciation department, let's not forget the giant pair of solid brass ones that it takes to build (and maintain) them! We've figured out how to do that without killing as many people as in the old days, but a lot of people, even a lot of construction workers, nope out of that pretty hard.
No kidding. Our bridge group has inspection contracts. They've posted some real hair-raising photos taken from the bridges.
-
Locally, we've got the St. George's Bridge, opened in 1942 by USACE, and now the oldest crossing of the C&D Canal.
It was supposed to have been closed and demolished after the Senator Roth Bridge opened right next to it in 1995, however, it's toll-free and is the only direct connection between the two parts of the town of St. George's, which is on both sides of the canal, so local community pressure kept it open.
It underwent a refurbishment from 1998-2001 to extend its service life, then another refurbishment in 2018-2019 that resulted in it reopening looking somehow exactly the same. I'm not sure what they did, exactly, but painting/rust repair and repaving were not part of it. So, it's now closed for 18 months for another round of more substantial repairs that's supposed to make it good for at least a few more decades before needing that again.
Statewide, "only" about 5% of our bridges were rated "structurally deficient" in the last review, which is less than half the national average, and less than a quarter of Pennsylvania, for example, and this was one of them.
-
@EssExTee Ah, I was just grabbing a pic! The central trio are known as the Three Sisters, all built at the same time (1924-'28) with the same design. Originally called the 6th, 7th and 9th Street Bridges, they've since been renamed for Roberto Clemente, Andy Warhol and Rachel Carson (but no one save the media and government use those names).
There are 446 bridges in Pittsburgh, 4th highest in the world. We've got an example of every major bridge type except for a movable bridge.
Wingnut. Aviation geek. Aircraft enthusiast. A plane freak.
-
@Skyfire77 said in They don't make 'em like this anymore...:
but no one save the media and government use those names
Their moms use their proper names when they're in trouble
-
@ash78 said in They don't make 'em like this anymore...:
I have no problem with the concrete bridge. It's very minimalist and IMO does the least amount of intrusion on the viewshed/horizon
From a pragmatic standpoint, sure you want the least visually impactful design. Thing is though, after nearly a century of greeting visitors and residents alike these bridges have become landmarks in their own right. For me and untold hundreds of thousands of others it means that I'm home. After time away the sight of the Bourne Bridge coming around the bend is as much a cathartic release as pulling into my own driveway. Replacing it with a boring cookie cutter design would do a disservice to all the folks who live and die by these bridges.
The person reading this is a doo-doo head
-
@EssExTee Yeah, that historical/cultural context counts for a lot. I was imagining it as if it were a clean-sheet design.
I have a general dislike of cable-heavy designs on bridges. They always feel like a necessary evil on very long spans in order to keep the weight down. Steel arches are pretty classic and timeless (even if they still use cables to suspend the roadway)
