That's just what the waterfront looked like back then. Before containerization, New York was one of the world's largest ports.
New York builds skyscraper-bridges?
- Thread starter BirdyWard
- Start date
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.
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
Another quote;
"Serious minds have claimed that the project is not only structurally sound but possessed of unusual advantages, financially,”
It seems the architects did consult with others on whether the bridges could even feasibly stand under their own weight, and came up with good results. Admittedly, from the concept art we have it can be hard to see that given how it's supposed to be a suspension bridge, but if you ask me it's still definitely doable with some clever engineering (even for the time).
It does look like an interesting take on The Big Apple. I also doubt that it would work anywhere as well as the Idea Man thinks. When I first saw it I thought it was some storyboard concept art for Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Looks neat on film, but I don't think many will want to live there.
I am also pretty sure most civil engineer types will be fantasising about this should they need to implement that skyskraper bridge thing.
I am also pretty sure most civil engineer types will be fantasising about this should they need to implement that skyskraper bridge thing.
Resonance is a problem too. Would be embarrassing if your fancy Skyscraper Bridge fell down because of that.
They look glamorous certainly, but wouldn't they be rather... well, smelly?
I know the Hudson River has had serious problems with pollution in the past and I can't imagine the water was especially clean in the 1920s. Would the well heeled want to live immediately above water like that?
(Also I know rats can get everywhere but these places sound like rodent utopias.)
I know the Hudson River has had serious problems with pollution in the past and I can't imagine the water was especially clean in the 1920s. Would the well heeled want to live immediately above water like that?
(Also I know rats can get everywhere but these places sound like rodent utopias.)
There are bridges between skyscrapers such as the Petronas Towers in KL.When I saw the title I thought that it would only be about bridges between skyscrapers, so that people could cross from one building to the next at the same high level instead of having to go all of the way down to the ground & then back up again... but this is MUCH cooler!
Also very common in Hong Kong:
I feel like transportation would be an issue. Exceptionally long walks and no conceivable parking without massive traffic snarls. They would have to reimagine the entire transport network
People movers are old technology, and you could limit the bridge-skyscrapers to either end of the bridge instead of the middle. Or maybe have another bridge for pedestrians connecting to the bridge-skyscraper(s) in the middle. The one in the middle might be apartments or offices while the ones on either end might include parking, retail, restaurants, etc.
Water lines already go under rivers, and if sewage becomes an issue.... theres a great big flowing drain right below you 👀
Meh, that one's almost at street level anyway. I was thinking of ones say 20-50 storeys up.There are bridges between skyscrapers such as the Petronas Towers in KL.
Also very common in Hong Kong:
Since this was the 1920’s I would guess they would do exactly that. Then later on have to come up with a way of redirecting that to a water treatment plant. Or even putting on in on the bridge.
As to the water, sure, but now you can’t just run it deep under the water, you need to create connections in it so that these massive buildings can draw from it. Assuming they could put them under the river in the 20’s, without undermining the base for the towers.
And now, you have to maintain connections on a riverbed. If you thought digging up a frozen main was hard normally, imagine doing it on this?
Timelordtoe
Monthly Donor
Resonance shouldn't actually be too much of an issue, and it's arguably less of an issue for a bridge like this than a conventional bridge. The go-to resonance disaster is the Tacoma Narrows bridge, but it's important to note that resonance (likely) wasn't the only real cause there, as the elasticity of the wind amplified the bridge's oscilaltions (like pushing on a swing). A lot of research was actually done in that field in the immediate aftermath. Such a thing could happen to a Skyscraper Bridge's span, depending on how it's built. If you build in passages that allow air to pass through or use a truss-based deck, so the wind isn't forced to go solely above or beneath, you'll almost certainly sidestep the problem. However, that might reduce how high you can have buildings on the span.
The artists impressions do seem to favour a more solid design, as opposed to a truss, though. Installing strakes on the span on the bridge might alleviate the wind problem, though, as is common for large chimneys and the like, just horizontal instead. It would hamper the Art Deco design somewhat, though.
But a "skyscraper bridge" that has buildings on its span is going to be much wider and heavier, and therefore should be less likely to suffer the same fate. Your two main culprits for resonance issues are wind and people walking in step. For something of that size, as long as you don't march the whole US Army over it in step, you should be fine, and you can always put a "Soldiers Must Break Step" warning on either side as many other bridges have.
Structurally, I think a Skyscraper Bridge would be sound, (and any issues like that would near certainly make themselves known during construction, though whether nature's warnings are heeded is another thing entirely). If nothing else, having skyscrapers for the towers should work.
Noise pollution for the residents would be a problem, though (not that that's stopped NYC in the past). It'll drive property prices right down, which isn't ideal, and limiting what kind of vehicles can use it is going to reduce its effects on congestion. That being said, if you're building a dozen of these, each reducing congestion a little bit might actually result in a decent sized net change.
But I can't really see anything like this taking off outside of NYC. Aside from the fact that the city itself is unusually well suited to having skyscrapers due to its bedrock, I don't really see the practicality for most cities. Granted, the truth of the matter for most skyscrapers is that they're good basically for prestige and little else, and yet they remain prolific. Skyscraper Bridges would be pretty darn costly to build and maintain, and I'm skeptical as to how useful they'd actually be in the long term. I doubt they'd remain more than a curiosity (at least, for ones with buildings on the span; tower buildings could take off), and would provide yet another tourist attraction for the alt-NYC. That universe probably has a Tom Scott video on them, I'm guessing.
In short, while cool and (most likely) architecturally sound, they're probably impractical in practice.
Oh most definitely "doable" though I have to smile at how many people of the time, (and still today frankly) that worry about auto 'congestion' toss out solutions that simply involve building more roads/buildings without actually addressing the root cause
On the more practical level I'd assume the disposition of the buildings on the bridge would pretty well match the second illustration on the original post in that the bottom two levels would likely be access and parking while the bridge span themselves (anyone notice they have @20 lanes of traffic there
) would be sturdy and expansive enough to allow pretty substantial buildings to line them. I've no doubt "serious minds" though they would be structurally sound, damn near have to be vastly over-engineered to work Randy
