I'm sure we could, if we were willing to spend the money. I think the (correct, but unfortunate) perception is that most people here don't see things like this as part of "history," or as worth preserving if they have to shell out a few dollars for it.Ok, so how is it that Europe has managed to keep and maintain many Roman era buildings and viaducts and we can't save a bridge that's not even a century old? I'm seriously stumped but open to clear ELI-5 explanations from the more engineeringly-inclined.
It is why I made an earlier comment about a difficult demolition. There is NO reason why the bridge had to be destroyed from an engineering perspective -- and certainly not from an aesthetic one. It would certainly have been a much less expensive repair (even if it had to be twinned with an alternate design for pedestrian and wheelie use). Another cruel and non-imaginative example of short-mindedness in the order of Edmonton's attitude to history and the sweeping away of substantial structures. I can categorically say that bridges from that era (including the High Level Bridge) were substantially over designed from a structural perspective.I'm seriously stumped but open to clear ELI-5 explanations from the more engineeringly-inclined.
Nearly of all Europe has a MUCH milder climate than here and, of course, concrete does not appreciate freeze-thaw weather, which we get about a third to a half of the year, here. Build anything well in a mild climate and it'll last for centuries with proper maintenance.Ok, so how is it that Europe has managed to keep and maintain many Roman era buildings and viaducts and we can't save a bridge that's not even a century old? I'm seriously stumped but open to clear ELI-5 explanations from the more engineeringly-inclined.
Not just respectful but also far more playful. The modern infill in my old city, and pretty much most European cities, that I've seen is fantastic. Not trying to copy the old timey esthetic but bringing in gorgeous, edgy, and very adventurous new architecture that contrasts beautifully with the old. Here, we overdesign our LRT (compare the Valley Line to pretty much any tram system in any European city FFS) and underdesign our buildings.I lived for 4 1/2 years in Europe and I can say from personal experience that freeze/thaw (and especially with higher levels of humidity) is no better through most of Europe than the experience in Alberta. It is true however that they are much more respectful of their architectural/cultural history.
Rehab is generally more expensive compared to a new build. Also this bridge was quite narrow for its current use. Edmonton's 102 ave bike path ended abruptly at this bridge, see below:Ok, so how is it that Europe has managed to keep and maintain many Roman era buildings and viaducts and we can't save a bridge that's not even a century old? I'm seriously stumped but open to clear ELI-5 explanations from the more engineeringly-inclined.
We are such a city of history destroyers/vandals and it is one reason we do not have a great reputation elsewhere. We think others don't notice but they do. We really need to shape up.We bike here all the time and yeah, it was a pain in the butt, but I'm sure it could have somehow been managed without destroying a beautiful piece of our city's history. If you look at the Past vs Present thread you can see how much history we've already lost, because, apparently, it's the most Edmonton thing you can do. The original library? Heartbreaking! The majority of Jasper Avenue? Criminal! It's just the general attitude that is seriously dispiriting.




