Search Results
!MT5GearsOc/n/2035410#2037558
3/28/2025, 5:09:25 PM
>>2035410
Sure makes for a good ragebait, but if you bother to look into it a little deeper than the english wikipedia entry (just the german one will be enough) you'll find a few more reasons than
>reeeeeeee cars
1) The bridge was too low. The part they kept was raised by 2.5m during the rebuild to accomodate the ships passing beneath it. That alone would've made keeping the towers a very costly endeavour.
2) The towers, while pretty, served 0 practical purpose. They also had no historical significance besides being part of a 72 year old bridge at the time. These didn't precede the bridge, they were just there because when the bridge was built, someone needed it to be extra pompous, which was also not exactly considered stylish in the 50s.
3) The bridge was 72 years old. This is unfortunately about the age where you get to do a major overhaul or build a replacement. The similarly constructed railway-bridge next to it had to be replaced in the 20s already due to being too weak structurally. The towers made of brick and sandstone would also have required a pretty fat maintenance budget, given how well that stuff held up in adic rain at the time. Money was a limited ressource.
4)This bridge was not in a particularly scenic part of the town. Pretty was nice but ultimately optional. See pic for reference.
5)A proper rebuild allowed for a separate ROW for the tram through the '29 part (bus-lane later). Do note how the 'new' bridges were 8 lanes + bike/pedestrians as opposed to previously 2. That's a lot of extra capacity.
If it hadn't been absurdly expensive to keep the old bridge it would've been way easier to just slap the extra lanes next to it. But inbetween the old parts of the bridge being up for a major overhaul and the need to raise it beyond what the portal-towers would allow, that didn't make sense. People didn't want to pay multiple times as much money for a bidge that didn't come close to the required capacity.
Sure makes for a good ragebait, but if you bother to look into it a little deeper than the english wikipedia entry (just the german one will be enough) you'll find a few more reasons than
>reeeeeeee cars
1) The bridge was too low. The part they kept was raised by 2.5m during the rebuild to accomodate the ships passing beneath it. That alone would've made keeping the towers a very costly endeavour.
2) The towers, while pretty, served 0 practical purpose. They also had no historical significance besides being part of a 72 year old bridge at the time. These didn't precede the bridge, they were just there because when the bridge was built, someone needed it to be extra pompous, which was also not exactly considered stylish in the 50s.
3) The bridge was 72 years old. This is unfortunately about the age where you get to do a major overhaul or build a replacement. The similarly constructed railway-bridge next to it had to be replaced in the 20s already due to being too weak structurally. The towers made of brick and sandstone would also have required a pretty fat maintenance budget, given how well that stuff held up in adic rain at the time. Money was a limited ressource.
4)This bridge was not in a particularly scenic part of the town. Pretty was nice but ultimately optional. See pic for reference.
5)A proper rebuild allowed for a separate ROW for the tram through the '29 part (bus-lane later). Do note how the 'new' bridges were 8 lanes + bike/pedestrians as opposed to previously 2. That's a lot of extra capacity.
If it hadn't been absurdly expensive to keep the old bridge it would've been way easier to just slap the extra lanes next to it. But inbetween the old parts of the bridge being up for a major overhaul and the need to raise it beyond what the portal-towers would allow, that didn't make sense. People didn't want to pay multiple times as much money for a bidge that didn't come close to the required capacity.
Page 1