“We had inspections before the work began, and found mortar that had crumbled, but the stones hadn’t moved. It was truly overengineered. It is so strong.”
UK: I use bridges and viaducts of this vintage everyday - train bridges, canal towpaths, road bridges. They over-engineered because of the fear of failure.
There is something to what you say, but it is also an example of survivor bias.
Yes you use things that haven't failed, because the ones that have failed have failed. We've always been prone to over-engineering, because of mistakes like this:
Not sure about UK, but in the US, they're occasionally overengineered because materials suppliers have a lot of say in determining the safety factor (think smoky rooms with bags of cash).
Do you have a citation for this? I studied mechanical engineering, and learned that there are tables of standard safety factor for most types of engineering projects (including bridges). The material suppliers can under-specify their products, in the hopes that more will be used, but this generally does not occur, as the engineers will select other suppliers with better specifications, or the under-speccing may result in design changes to eliminate that material. Before there were standardized safety factor tables, the project engineers determined appropriate safety factors, and were thereafter responsible for the results of their decisions (as they still are).
"In one famous case, a manufacturer of wire rope sold inferior material to the bridge company. The shady contractor, J. Lloyd Haigh, escaped prosecution. But the bad wire he sold is still in the bridge, as it couldn’t be removed once it was worked into the cables. Washington Roebling compensated for its presence, ensuring the inferior material wouldn’t affect the strength of the bridge."
I know a local man, fired as an inspector, because at a concrete-culvert installation the crane dropped the casing. It broke, revealing almost no rebar in the thing. He stopped the installation and started an investigation. Result: lost his job. Everybody but him was in the deal apparently.
It does rather get the question why the rich part never bothered reconnecting to the poor part for 40 years. I say poor but as I understand it 110th St is now well into gentrification mode.
It's not especially near 110th Street :-) It crosses from 173rd Street in Manhattan to 170th Street in the Bronx. Washington Heights has seen a fair bit of urban renewal and there's also been work on the river paths etc. on the Bronx side. The short answer is that neither side of the river is especially rich and there probably wasn't much impetus from anyone to reopen the bridge and do corresponding park and path revitalization while they were in the midst of fairly serious urban decay which they were for a long time.
Ha! Yeah, that'd be like an hour's walk from 110th St.
And subway connections readily cross-pollinate both sides of the bridge, in terms of actual human movement. Especially, given that Yankee Stadium is nearby. Not to mention that buses also offer a connection, but maybe someone would try to suggest that a bus isn't an option for some people.
Anyway, the George Washington bridge is actually much, much closer to High Bridge Park than 110th St. The next closest walkable bridge between The Bronx and Manhattan, open to pedestrians, is probably at 145th St. on the Manhattan side. It's not connected to a park, though.
Hmm not necessarily depending on the commerce it generates, the cost it'd take to let it crumble, and the cost the city would incur trying to build a new bridge. Luckily here where things are so population dense, opening a pedestrian bridge can have a really positive impact on the local communities. And to tear such an awe inspiring (at least to me literally every time I pass it) structure would be absolutely shitty.
In 1975 the city was close to complete and utter fiscal collapse. It was only averted at (literally) the last minute by the teacher's union agreeing to invest their pension fund in city bonds and creditors agreeing to a haircut.
They cut things to the bone. Where I grew up in Queens, a store was held up at gunpoint, and the police response time was something like 2 hours.
Great post that really gets to the heart of the issue. New York City was a shithole for a very long time and it's only recently that things have been this pristine here. Talking to my parents is like entering a time machine into the mega grungy when it comes to the city. You couldn't walk around Union Square after 7PM! I can't even imagine as I walk around Bushwick at all times of day and night now and couldn't care less. I've always been a bit reckless but while I may be dumb, I'm certainly not stupid and even I think I would be hardpressed to walk around this city in the 70s.
It is amazing how things have improved. I recall my dad working in the projects in Bushwick, and not getting home until late because there was a running gun battle going on outside. Many of buildings around there were boarded up or burned.
Another time, my dad and I were bringing some stuff to an elderly family friend somewhere around Greenpoint or Williamsburg. We stopped at some store on the way back to make a phone call, was gone no more than 5-7 minutes and "poof", wheels were gone from the car.
UK: I use bridges and viaducts of this vintage everyday - train bridges, canal towpaths, road bridges. They over-engineered because of the fear of failure.