Photo taken by Steve Conro in January 2012
BH Photo #222840
Clark Vance you've lost it. That picture you have is of the Fremont Troll in Seattle. The bridge he lurks under IS a Historic Bridge ... one that IS ON the NRHP!
As Dr. Phil might say about this, "You understand you've got a real credibility problem."
FYI, posing such a absurdity, regardless of you probably posing it for the sake of being humourous, only makes you look like an inept twit, something I'm fairly certain you're not.
Everytime a MOB is erected, the terrorists win. Either you are with us, or you are with the MOBSTERS. MODERNE/NON HISTORIQUE!
I had the misfortune of walking over this bridge during my photo-documentation of historic bridges in the area for HistoricBridges.org. I took several photos of this bridge; however the only use I intend for my photos is in presentations contrasting the qualities of reusing a historic truss bridge versus mail-ordering a modern truss like this. It is my opinion that the solid, heavy beams of this bridge obstruct the view of the river, where as the lighter and more open beams of a historic bridge would not obstruct the river as much.
While the stresses are minimal on a pedestrian bridge that carries only a fraction of the weight that a traffic bearing span does... I am not at all convinced that a welded tubular truss would react the same as a pinned one of built-up members. And while I don't have a problem with people liking these modern structures, I don't feel like they belong in the same classification as the historic ones...whatever they might truly be.
Ah - but it seems to me that it _is_ a bowstring truss, and not an arch. Just because it's very modern (or as "Anonymous likes to shout "MODERNE") does not mean the design description needs to change.
Others may disagree, but my definition of a bowstring truss:
* a non-segmented, curved top chord
* must be a truss (that is, not a tied arch)
This particular bridge satisfies those requirements, so I would classify it as a bowstring. And while my intrest is far greater in historic bridges, I also would much rather see this style than a pre-stressed, pre-cast, concrete stringer.
All that Mr. Anonymous needs to do (if he has an account) is to go in settings and check not to show bridges built after 1970. I did this because I don't prefer to see them, but also have no desire to inflict my opinion on others.
I do think we need to watch how these modern pedestrian bridges are categorized, as they are not and should not be labeled as bowstrings. Maybe "Welded, arched pedestrian truss" would fit the bill.
SOMEONE'S GOTTA DO IT! THIS AIN'T MODERNE/NON-HISTORIQUE BRIDGES OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND IN CASE YOU FORGOT...THIS BRIDGE IS...
Why thank you, "Anonymous" I would never have guessed seeing it was built in 2010. So good to have you here watching out for these things.