Jellison Bridge

Sometimes I feel like no one uses the ratings unless they feel very strongly. Few bridges, even the near great, have ten votes. Overall, I think you can count on those with five or more votes and up in the 80+ range being ones to show our less interested friends. Anything less may interest some of us but possibly lacks universal appeal.

I try to rate when I visit a page. Some I don't open based on the thumb, others I abstain out of politeness--"If you can't say something nice...." I rarely rate ones without a picture or street view, and never rate lost bridges.

Although we all have opinions on what does or doesn't belong here, James has the final say. I try to enjoy my visits to his site and don't worry if there are a few bridges here that I find uninteresting.

This Jellison bridge is a local landmark and is something people may look up, and in doing so they may find on this site all of the other really beautiful bridges around them. This may lead to the birth of another preservationist.

If you want the masses to decide comments that get deleted; I propose everything with 10 votes and an average of less than 2 stars gets bumped to uglybridges.com.

Begin ridicule

I agree with Bill & Robert-no more anonymous posting. I'm signing my real name from now on (although I liked my "handle").

Carolyn Susor, AKA "Spanfan"

Hi Chelsea The Imposter: I wanted to let you know that I have just discovered a long-abandoned Pratt through truss in Dickinson County, Kansas. I will be adding it in your honor.

Hundreds of the pages on this site has no pictures. Just because they do not have photographic documentation does not mean they are not historic, or excludes them from being historic. Only a dolt would believe in something so inept.

NO PICTURE=NOT HISTORIC

...it also in Kansas

With the rate Elder posts this site will turn into a bridge inventory for Kansas. Agree with me or not but anything 50 years and older could be historic but it definitly dilutes the site. Heck, if 50 years qualifies as historic where can I post my picture.

All joking about my car aside, I would be in favor of getting rid of anonymous posters. Sure, it is an extra step to get a log-in, but this has become SOP for websites these days. Real names are good.

But Bill...then I could not post here anymore...

I'd be one in favor of doing away with the ability to post anonymously in here. Why allow trolling?

Well put Bill!... Maybe they only have half of one!

Thanks to everybody for the feedback. I have also been using 50 years as a guide, though I make some very limited exceptions for newer bridges that represent engineering significance. (ie actually engineered for a specific location, not pre-fabricated, etc).

I generally apply the same rule to pedestrian bridges such as this one.

Nathan:

Good thought on the original material idea. This is one issue that I have had with covered bridges as well. Granted, being from Kansas, I don't have much opportunity to document them as we have no "traditional" covered bridges anymore with the last one burning in 1958.

Oh, and welcome back Half-Star Bandit. I know that I have added a good one when you take time out of your busy day to rate it!

A 1934 bridge counts as historic no matter what someone thinks who hasn't got the balls to sign his name to his comments.

I know next to nothing about covered bridges, but word on the street is that the older covered bridges often suffer from a nearly complete loss of original bridge material, and moreover many are no longer functioning as trusses, with load-bearing stringers under them. This being the case, if a 1934 covered bridge had original material and no load-bearing stringers, one could argue that the 1934 bridge would be more significant than most older covered bridges, if historic integrity were a consideration.

Historic is certainly subjective but this bridge is a well known landmark on campus and in the town. Its age is comparable to the CCC works that I think most people agree are of historic interest.

I wonder about the design and construction. Was the bridge seen as special when it was build?

78 years in existence definitely qualifies this span as being historic. In studying historic bridges for nearly 35 years I have learned to follow a basic guideline that defines historic as any span over 50 years old. There is certainly some wiggle room depending on significance, but I have generally stuck to it.

Now as for interesting...that's a totally different story. And is certainly subject to each individuals preferences.

1934 ≠ modern.

This bridge is putting me in a Depression alright

MODERN/NOT HISTORIC

...strikes again

Before anybody charges this bridge with being MODERNE/NON-HISTORIQUE or MODERN/NOT HISTORIC, the bridge was reportedly built in 1934. Thus, even though it is not a traditional covered bridge that you would find back east, it would appear to have some significance as a Depression Era structure.

Comments? Feedback?