Photo taken by Bill Eichelberger in April 2008
BH Photo #127145
Though it might seem odd to some, I stand with Nathan on this issue - And share his opinion that a a false sense of history is inappropriate and flouts the Secretary's Standards.
More than that, I despise faux covered spans - The "House' is supposed be akin to the paint on a steel truss, there to protect a Through Truss from the elements. I like to put it this way - If it (the added dead load) ain't there to help hold things up, it can only be pulling things down.
Beyond that, when it comes time to maintain a needless maintenance item, it can only add to the mythology accepted by some that covered spans are silly and expensive to maintain.
12 Angry Men: My comment was not made due to my dislike of covered bridges, I would say the same if some fake modern metal truss was added on top too. The Secretary of Interior's Standards For Rehabilitation makes the following statement:
"Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken."
Adding the structure that makes it look like a covered bridge creates this false sense of history. In the interest of offering some positive commentary, I will add an example of a bridge's sense of history being maintained. The following railroad bridge was redecked for pedestrian bridge, but special red colored concrete strips were incorporated into the deck. They trace the lines of the removed railroad rails, to remind people that it was originally a railroad bridge, but also not creating a tripping hazard that leaving the actual rails in place might have done: http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowse...
Personally, I think the 'makeup' isn't a big deal as long as the original bridge remains. It can always be reversed when tastes change. It would be nice if there was an interpretive plaque explaining the history of the bridge and what has been done to it.
Oh, and in response to 12 Angry Men: only a coward throws insults anonymously.
Regards to all,
So I would have to agree that adding a cover takes away from the original bridge. I'm personally happy that they have preserved the bridge but could have been done just by adding a deck with some railing. It also takes away from the natural view the bridge would provide with out the cover. Just a thought.
I agree with Robert. If you want a shelter, build a shelter. If you want a covered bridge, that's fine - but please don't make a "fake" covered bridge by putting a roof over an existing bridge.
But that's my opinion. Yours is probably different. *smiles*
We dream of when your pointless comments are removed.
Everyone knows you hate covered bridges. You don't have to say it every time somebody puts up a picture. Put those comments where they belong--on your own website.
I can understand the need for a shelter. My main concerns with adding wooden covers to non-covered bridges are two-fold.
1. Modern wood coverings can conceal historic elements. Granted this is a much bigger concern with truss bridges that plate girder bridges as trusses are much more interesting and complex.
2. These coverings re-enforce the idea that non-covered bridges are uninteresting and non-historic. It is not unusual for a early 1900s covered bridge (with multiple modern components) to be preserved while an 1870s-1900 wrought-iron truss bridge nearby is demolished without any regard to its history. All too often the metal trusses are just regarded as eyesores. Usually, because they are unpainted.
Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a historic covered bridge, but they are not the only structure type worth preserving.
As far as the need for a shelter is concerned, I would prefer a shelter separate from a bridge.
As it stands right now, it is useful as not only a bike trail bridge, but also a shelter in the event that the weather takes a bad turn while biking or hiking. It's also something of a tourist draw. Take the roof off and it's just a nameless old rail bridge that the bikers and hikers care about, but no one else.
Maybe one of these days, the public will realize that a bridge does not have to have a wooden cover to be significant...
I dream of when the pointless covering is removed.
Rode along the trail today (9/14/2013). We encountered heavy gun fire in the area. Machine gun or Gatling gun fire. On the way back thru the bridge, we heard cannons and quads. Even the Amish bike riders asked us what was going on. It scared horses and riders alike. A beautiful peaceful ride? I don't think so
This is a very beautiful bridge