New York builds skyscraper-bridges?

1_19.jpg
NzQuanBn.jpg
811f276769a173a1328c163fdf738da7.jpg


I recently came across this proposal, and it honestly fascinates me.


It was proposed by Raymond Hood, a well known architect in New York and elsewhere at the time (1920s). In his mind it would have increased density without unduly increasing traffic, as one of the main drivers of his idea was to combat the rising congestion (I have my doubts as to whether this would actually work, but the bridges would have to already be built to get a definitive answer...)

Architecturally, it was definitely feasible, and Hood hoped to build at least a dozen. Could we have seen tens, even hundreds of thousands of citizens living suspended over the water? Or was this just a pipe dream that could never realistically have come to fruition?

Quotes;

"Not to embrace this opportunity is to neglect the very pick of metropolitan locations."

"Land has often been reclaimed from water for purposes of habitation and agriculture. What is so extraordinary about creating land over water?"
 
The central pillar looks easy, a building with a bridge going through it, but how do the sides work?

How wide and tall could those side buildings be?
 
The central pillar looks easy, a building with a bridge going through it, but how do the sides work?

How wide and tall could those side buildings be?
The towers were intented to be 50 to 60 stories, so I imagine the side building/s would be around 10, 15 at a stretch stories themselves (if the concept art is to be believed, that is).

The bridges in practise wouldn't be anything new or challenging in terms of distance, but they would definitely have to he far wider than your average. I could see them being 2, maybe even closer to 3 times the width, depending on just how spacious the living areas were meant to be.
 

marathag

Banned
The central pillar looks easy, a building with a bridge going through it, but how do the sides work?

How wide and tall could those side buildings be?
I don't see how the weight could be supported by materials around at the time.
Or now, really
They had a hard enough time doing two decks
 
In Amsterdam I saw a 3-4 story apartment building built over a smaller river (or canal). No where near as grand as the buildings depicted in the posted drawing.
 
Had this happened, New York City would look very different from OTL. Might resemble one of those dystopian or sci-fi media of a fictional city with skyscraper bridges.
 
What kind of residents would live there?
It looks like they were aiming high end, but would it stay that way or slowly fall down the real estate market?
 
There are a few bridges around with the old toll man's cottage in the pillars that have been rented out once tills have ended. Apparently the major problems are road noise/vibration and where to store your vehicle.
 
I don't see how the weight could be supported by materials around at the time.
Or now, really
They had a hard enough time doing two decks
Yeah. I think that the closest we would have gotten would have been skyscraper towers/abutments, with conventional suspension/truss spans.
 
There are a few bridges around with the old toll man's cottage in the pillars that have been rented out once tills have ended. Apparently the major problems are road noise/vibration and where to store your vehicle.
If I remember right, it was intended that you would park somewhere off the bridge, and the "ground" (not sea level, but on line with where the bridge is) level would be largely for transit, maybe a tram of some sort, and commercial property.

The bridges were meant to be multi-functional, having not only residential but commercial and even office blocks. Keep in mind there were intended to be many bridges of this sort, so I imagine each one would have a somewhat different ratio between zoning.

What kind of residents would live there?
It looks like they were aiming high end, but would it stay that way or slowly fall down the real estate market?

I could see them being very polarising. You could have certain bridges play into the novelty and become quite expensive to live/work out of, and others not quite work out the way they were intended and become cheaper and cheaper until it's even seen as a 'bad part of town'.

There are a few bridges around with the old toll man's cottage in the pillars that have been rented out once tills have ended. Apparently the major problems are road noise/vibration and where to store your vehicle.

There already buildings in NYC built just feet from major roads or railways, noise pollution be damned.
 
1642513076870~2.jpg


Another pic I found, showing the intended sites for the bridges to be built. Seems I was off even with saying they wanted a dozen, this is a hell of an ambitious amount.
 
It would be interesting how all those towers would effect the flow of the rivers, especially sediment build up. Also is there enough accessible bedrock to support them?

ric350
 
It would be interesting how all those towers would effect the flow of the rivers, especially sediment build up. Also is there enough accessible bedrock to support them?

ric350

Most of NYC is perfect for building tall structures, as the bedrock is very strong. The only place where this is lessened is between midtown and wall street, where the buildings don't go quite as high. It's still a much better foundation than a lot of cities (cough, Mexico City, cough), and could be worked around if the funding was there.

Even cutting out this section, we still have over a dozen viable bridge sites.
 
Putting aside the architectural and economic feasibility of this, I do think these bridges would be attractive enough real estate to prove their worth. On top of the appeal of the unique architecture, you’d be living in a dense area where a lot of businesses are presumably operating, so everything you need is (ideally) in walking distance, not to mention that you technically live on waterfront property. And from the standpoint of businesses operating on the bridges, anyone who wants to drive in or out of Manhattan has to go by your business on their way, so I’m guessing these would prove to be highly desired real estate for businesses wealthy enough to afford it.

TLDR; while bizarre on paper, a skyscraper bridge comes off like an idea that’s just crazy enough to work the more I think about it, and assuming they were implemented in NYC, I’d be curious to see if other large cities build such structures ITTL.
 
There’s a definite “world of tomorrow“ vibe, something that wouldn’t look out of place in say, Bioshock or some sort of Sky Captain film. I’d imagine they’d be awesome but impractical though.
 
View attachment 711564View attachment 711565View attachment 711566

I recently came across this proposal, and it honestly fascinates me.


It was proposed by Raymond Hood, a well known architect in New York and elsewhere at the time (1920s). In his mind it would have increased density without unduly increasing traffic, as one of the main drivers of his idea was to combat the rising congestion (I have my doubts as to whether this would actually work, but the bridges would have to already be built to get a definitive answer...)

Architecturally, it was definitely feasible, and Hood hoped to build at least a dozen. Could we have seen tens, even hundreds of thousands of citizens living suspended over the water? Or was this just a pipe dream that could never realistically have come to fruition?

The architecture aspect is quite fascinating I think rivaling the "Roadtown" Linear City concept but I'd be wary of the actual practicality of building viable 'buildings' along a bridge. I suspect the "suspension" aspects would be non-working as the bridge would have to support vastly more mass that is likely possible with a suspension design. The "buildings" following the "suspension" lines would likely be impractical and I think the second illustration, (which I note does not have the tower-buildings?) is the more likely actual pattern. I'd also suspect that the 'buildings' would have to be of lighter construction than you'd normally see because of the mass issues.

Quotes;

"Not to embrace this opportunity is to neglect the very pick of metropolitan locations."

"Land has often been reclaimed from water for purposes of habitation and agriculture. What is so extraordinary about creating land over water?"

The first quote is often used for any project where the proposer is not feeling they are getting "due" attention and the second actually points up WHY some of these concepts don't get more attention because while i may make 'sense' to the person proposing the idea those with a bit more grounded in reality can actually tell you why this may not make as much sense as you think it does :)

On the other hand I'd like to have seen a good examination of the idea from relevant quarters.

Randy
 
Top