Famous Los Angeles bridge to be replaced

[Elder Maxson]

I just came across this article that says that because of deterioration, the Sixth Street Viaduct that spans the LA River is going to be demolished to make way for a modern bridge. This bridge is a notable landmark in Los Angeles because it is mostly seen in movies and video games. It is even featured in GTA V (and I made a content creator map here.) Demolishing the bridge would be like raping a part of history. What's your opinion on the bridge? Should history be preserved or should it be demolished and replaced?

 

Link to article: http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/la-river/sixth-street-viaduct-to-become-a-memory.html

 

Old bridge-

 

Replacement bridge-

 

 

The bridge as seen in GTA V-

*title edit* -FAMOUS LOS ANGELES BRIDGE TO BE REPLACED

Edited February 10, 2015 by fap_fappington

[Flachbau]

wat

 

How the hell are they going to build that huge ass bridge in that tiny spot?

 

edit: nvm, just saw how large it actually is.

 

It looks meh to say the least. I think they should just renovate the current one.

Edited February 10, 2015 by android

[LightningLord]

Do we replace the Statue of Liberty because it's old? No.

Edited February 10, 2015 by LightningLord411

[IveGotNoValues]

Do we replace the Statue of Liberty because it's old? No.

Exactly. You said it perfect. This angers me to be honest. I see this bridge all the time. It's a historical part of LA...just as the Statue of Liberty is a historical part of NYC. I'm sure they could easily restore it instead of demolishing it and replacing it with that ugly, modern architecture piece of garbage. It doesn't fit in with Downtown at all. I love the way the old sixth street bridge looks running above the LA river...grimy with an attitude.

Edited February 10, 2015 by IveGotNoValues

[LightningLord]

 

Do we replace the Statue of Liberty because it's old? No.

Exactly. You said it perfect. This angers me to be honest. I see this bridge all the time. It's a historical part of LA...just as the Statue of Liberty is a historical part of NYC. I'm sure they could easily restore it instead of demolishing it and replacing it with that ugly, modern architecture piece of garbage. It doesn't fit in with Downtown at all. I love the way the old sixth street bridge looks running above the LA river...grimy with an attitude.

 

Yeah. I mean, look at the environment around it:

Having the new bridge doesn't seem right.

Edited February 10, 2015 by LightningLord411

[Reformed Squid]

I can see why there's no river at all in the concept image, as the way things are going in California right now there won't be any rivers in a few years.

[IveGotNoValues]

 

 

Do we replace the Statue of Liberty because it's old? No.

Exactly. You said it perfect. This angers me to be honest. I see this bridge all the time. It's a historical part of LA...just as the Statue of Liberty is a historical part of NYC. I'm sure they could easily restore it instead of demolishing it and replacing it with that ugly, modern architecture piece of garbage. It doesn't fit in with Downtown at all. I love the way the old sixth street bridge looks running above the LA river...grimy with an attitude.

 

Yeah. I mean, look at the environment around it:

 

Having the new bridge doesn't seem right.

 

I agree. It's sort of an insult to the historical nature of that area. I mean if you really have to replace the bridge then at least put something a little more modest that will blend in with the surroundings better. This looks like something out of some sci-fi futuristic utopia city, not grimy Downtown Los Angeles. It would be way too much of an eyesore.

 

 

 

[Testarossa]

Yeah, ehm no.

 

It doesn't look right.

[Reformed Squid]

 

Overkill much?

[LightningLord]

-bridge-

 

Overkill much?

It'd be better if the bridge were in a different environment. Having the bridge there makes it look out of place.

[Reformed Squid]

Remove the arches from every spot but the actual bridge over the water and it'll be dandy. The park, however, may be a good idea as it may encourage gentrification in the area.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

Nothing about gentrification is good.

[Reformed Squid]

Wrong wording on my part, but they're definitely doing this in part to try to bring new development and wealth in the area, at least that's the way I see it. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

[t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m]

I never really thought the old bridge looked that good. It just hasn't aged well. Games such as San Andreas and GTA V have sort of ruined it for me, and I can't help but associate it with the "ghetto." However, it sucks that L.A. could potentially lose a famous landmark that means a lot to its citizens. Definitely a lot of history associated with it, but if the bridge is structurally insufficient, then its probably best they tear it down.

 

I think the new bridge looks better, though it does strike me as sort of "generic." It seems like every new bridge built these days looks the same - solid white with large circular arches to support it. At least that's how they look here in Arkansas. They're going to construct one soon in Little Rock that looks somewhat similar to this one. The least they could do is design it so that it matches the surrounding cityscape.

[PhillBellic]

Is the old bridge seismologically unsound?

[t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m]

Is the old bridge seismologically unsound?

 

 

The current estimates are that the viaduct has a 70% probability of collapse due to a major earthquake within 50 years. That's just slightly greater than the 2% standard that bridges are designed for today.

Source.

[darthYENIK]

Nothing about gentrification is good.

That's nice, but this isn't gentrification.

 

Gentrification involves buying up businesses and housing in a poor neighborhoods and turning them into higher cost alternatives in an effort to force the the rest of the poor residents and businesses out.

 

This isn't that. This is the city replacing a city owned bridge with another city owned bridge.

[Dingdongs]

Good. The bridge is an old piece of sh*t. This is a functional piece of equipment that has to be replaced. Equating it with the Statue of Liberty is retarded. People don't use the Statue of Liberty to get from one side to another. Also, the Statue of Liberty for that matter along with pretty much any national monument is routinely redone and fixed. I live in Washington DC and monuments are always covered with scaffolding. Last year the Washington Monument was surrounded with it, right now the Capitol Building is.. fix broken sh*t, end of story.

 

Nothing about gentrification is good.

Come on, seriously? Would you prefer people to live in poverty, in sh*t buildings with sh*t stores and sh*t areas that perpetuate crime, drugs, and violence? Fix the sh*t and subsidize the people so they can afford it.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Irviding

[mr quick]

"Raping a part of history"

 

Are you f*cking kidding me? It's a bridge. A f*cking bridge. Why do you give a sh*t?

 

Help me mommy, change is scary!

 

 

Do we replace the Statue of Liberty because it's old? No.

 

This is one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard. The Statue of Liberty is non-functional, and this is a dangerous bridge; "Estimates are that the viaduct has a 70% probability of collapse due to a major earthquake within 50 years." (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Edited February 10, 2015 by Marwin Moody

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

 

 

 

Nothing about gentrification is good.

 

Come on, seriously? Would you prefer people to live in poverty, in sh*t buildings with sh*t stores and sh*t areas that perpetuate crime, drugs, and violence? Fix the sh*t and subsidize the people so they can afford it.

 

Gentrification doesn't fix poverty.

[Mr.Nedich]

Gentrification doesn't fix poverty.

It does for the city it's changing up. Gentrification isn't about fixing poverty, it's about revitalising downtrodden areas of a city and removing urban decay. It's there to help the city, not the people. In gentrification the poor are an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good of the city. It's not nice, but it's pragmatic.

[AlienTwo]

 

Gentrification doesn't fix poverty.

It does for the city it's changing up. Gentrification isn't about fixing poverty, it's about revitalising downtrodden areas of a city and removing urban decay. It's there to help the city, not the people. In gentrification the poor are an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good of the city. It's not nice, but it's pragmatic.

 

That may be how you look at human life in North Korea, but in the US we don't exactly find it acceptable to "sacrifice the poor" for the "good of the city". If that were the case, we would just execute people for being homeless.

[Mr.Nedich]

That may be how you look at human life in North Korea, but in the US we don't exactly find it acceptable to "sacrifice the poor" for the "good of the city". If that were the case, we would just execute people for being homeless.

You're being a bit narrow about what I'm saying and twisting what I'm saying out of context. Look at history and you'll see that every high density population area does this. People can preach that it's wrong to pick on the poor, but at the end of the day, it's always the poor who get the short end of the stick. They're the hanger-ons in society, expendable and easily replaced in the eyes of government. Any government. People don't WANT homelessness, but they also do nothing to try and reign in homeless people. And no, I'm not some lofty ivory tower rich guy, I'm poor too. I just realise what this means to be on this tier of the social scale. I'm not saying 'f*ck the poor, they're sh*t people.' But I'm telling it like it is, when a city wants to change an area, it's the poor who are the first to go. Know why? They don't have the money to push back when they're pushed, so their only choice is to leave broken spirited and disgruntled with the place they used to call home. That's the reality of urban life. You can pride yourself on being a Bostonian, New Yorker or whatever people in Los Angeles call themselves, but if you're poor, you'll get to see how unimportant you are to the city when a construction plan that raises the cost of living in your area comes up. People talk that bullsh*t of "This is unethical!" but do nothing to actually defend the poor when they're being pushed, empty cries of faux moral piety don't feed hungry mouths.

[AlienTwo]

 

That may be how you look at human life in North Korea, but in the US we don't exactly find it acceptable to "sacrifice the poor" for the "good of the city". If that were the case, we would just execute people for being homeless.

You're being a bit narrow about what I'm saying and twisting what I'm saying out of context. Look at history and you'll see that every high density population area does this. People can preach that it's wrong to pick on the poor, but at the end of the day, it's always the poor who get the short end of the stick. They're the hanger-ons in society, expendable and easily replaced in the eyes of government. Any government. People don't WANT homelessness, but they also do nothing to try and reign in homeless people. And no, I'm not some lofty ivory tower rich guy, I'm poor too. I just realise what this means to be on this tier of the social scale. I'm not saying 'f*ck the poor, they're sh*t people.' But I'm telling it like it is, when a city wants to change an area, it's the poor who are the first to go. Know why? They don't have the money to push back when they're pushed, so their only choice is to leave broken spirited and disgruntled with the place they used to call home. That's the reality of urban life. You can pride yourself on being a Bostonian, New Yorker or whatever people in Los Angeles call themselves, but if you're poor, you'll get to see how unimportant you are to the city when a construction plan that raises the cost of living in your area comes up. People talk that bullsh*t of "This is unethical!" but do nothing to actually defend the poor when they're being pushed, empty cries of faux moral piety don't feed hungry mouths.

 

I'm really not twisting your words, up there you just called the poor "expendable", and in societies that reach out to care for all of their members, there aren't any who could bear that label... and your arguments seems to be less agreeing with the statements you're making and more along the lines of unhappily just calling them out for what they are. If that's true, good, because you're right, the reasons the poor are pushed around and run out of areas is because they can't fight back, and it does sure suck that no one stands up for them. That's the reality, but that isn't how is has to be, or how it has to stay.

[MyName'sJeff]

New one looks ugly as f*ck. As usual, changes happening for the worse.

[universetwisters]

...I love the way the old sixth street bridge looks running above the LA river...grimy with an attitude.

 

I don't think the urban planners really want a city that looks "grimy". I think they want their cities to look clean rather than give off that image. It might've looked clean back in the 1930s when it was made, but now it seems to be time for a change. Of course, this doesn't really affect me much, since I live in Florida.

 

On a sorta related note, about ten years ago they got rid of all the drawbridges in the city I live in and replaced them with highass bridges like these and even though not many boats go through, it's pretty cool that I won't be sitting in traffic, idling my engine waiting for a ship to pass through.

 

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

 

That may be how you look at human life in North Korea, but in the US we don't exactly find it acceptable to "sacrifice the poor" for the "good of the city". If that were the case, we would just execute people for being homeless.

You're being a bit narrow about what I'm saying and twisting what I'm saying out of context. Look at history and you'll see that every high density population area does this. People can preach that it's wrong to pick on the poor, but at the end of the day, it's always the poor who get the short end of the stick. They're the hanger-ons in society, expendable and easily replaced in the eyes of government. Any government. People don't WANT homelessness, but they also do nothing to try and reign in homeless people. And no, I'm not some lofty ivory tower rich guy, I'm poor too. I just realise what this means to be on this tier of the social scale. I'm not saying 'f*ck the poor, they're sh*t people.' But I'm telling it like it is, when a city wants to change an area, it's the poor who are the first to go. Know why? They don't have the money to push back when they're pushed, so their only choice is to leave broken spirited and disgruntled with the place they used to call home. That's the reality of urban life. You can pride yourself on being a Bostonian, New Yorker or whatever people in Los Angeles call themselves, but if you're poor, you'll get to see how unimportant you are to the city when a construction plan that raises the cost of living in your area comes up. People talk that bullsh*t of "This is unethical!" but do nothing to actually defend the poor when they're being pushed, empty cries of faux moral piety don't feed hungry mouths.

 

I'm really not twisting your words, up there you just called the poor "expendable", and in societies that reach out to care for all of their members, there aren't any who could bear that label... and your arguments seems to be less agreeing with the statements you're making and more along the lines of unhappily just calling them out for what they are. If that's true, good, because you're right, the reasons the poor are pushed around and run out of areas is because they can't fight back, and it does sure suck that no one stands up for them. That's the reality, but that isn't how is has to be, or how it has to stay.

Why should people push back though? What benefit is there to continuing to allow them to live in sh*t, animal infested buildings that are rarely up to code? Why can't we do something better and gentrify the area and then subsidize the residents?

[Mr.Nedich]

I'm really not twisting your words, up there you just called the poor "expendable", and in societies that reach out to care for all of their members, there aren't any who could bear that label... and your arguments seems to be less agreeing with the statements you're making and more along the lines of unhappily just calling them out for what they are. If that's true, good, because you're right, the reasons the poor are pushed around and run out of areas is because they can't fight back, and it does sure suck that no one stands up for them. That's the reality, but that isn't how is has to be, or how it has to stay.

You're right, it doesn't. That's the kind of mentality people should have, but they should also have the drive to change that. Anyone can wish for a new reality, it's changing their reality people don't have the drive to. I admit, I have a strong disillusioned and cynical view of our country, but how can you not? In this day and age, being a liberal is the trendy thing to be. Yeah, it's well and good to support and help shape a more progressive society but as with any trendy thing, you see so many faux-liberal/progressives. Idiots who just do what's in because they don't have a genuine view or drive of their own. They're willing to hop on the Obama bandwagon, post a picture going "I support gay marriage." But few of them will make a push to drive for actual change. I'm digressing from the topic onhand, but you come off as a pretty smart guy so I think you get the gist of what I'm quasi-ranting about.

 

Back to the topic at hand on gentrification, those people I do feel pity for, but I also see the reality of people bullsh*tting about how 'bad' they feel for some poor kid who gets pushed out of their home on camera, but off camera they sit around taking selfies and drinking with their friends with no cares about the issue they claim was so pressing on their mind. If people want to change poverty, pouring money on a broke neighbourhood doesn't solve anything, it's a band-aid on the problem. In order to really make a genuine change for the greater good of the poor, people need to be driven to change. So many people think posting some "I stand against Poverty." photo on Facebook means they do their part, but who's that helping but your own ego? It's like gay marriage or inter-racial marriage or acceptance of women as equals in the workplace, we didn't just dump money on the issue, instead we changed the hearts and minds of the people as a whole. You change the minds of the people and you can tip the scales in the favour of change for the good of the poor.

[AlienTwo]

Why should people push back though? What benefit is there to continuing to allow them to live in sh*t, animal infested buildings that are rarely up to code? Why can't we do something better and gentrify the area and then subsidize the residents?

 

If there is a plan to upscale/improve the area while not pushing out the current residents and actually subsidizing them as you suggest, I would support that 100%. In the case of most gentrifications, this isn't what happens though, the poor get pushed out, forced to sell and are just relocated, still poor, still forgotten.

 

 

I'm really not twisting your words, up there you just called the poor "expendable", and in societies that reach out to care for all of their members, there aren't any who could bear that label... and your arguments seems to be less agreeing with the statements you're making and more along the lines of unhappily just calling them out for what they are. If that's true, good, because you're right, the reasons the poor are pushed around and run out of areas is because they can't fight back, and it does sure suck that no one stands up for them. That's the reality, but that isn't how is has to be, or how it has to stay.

You're right, it doesn't. That's the kind of mentality people should have, but they should also have the drive to change that. Anyone can wish for a new reality, it's changing their reality people don't have the drive to. I admit, I have a strong disillusioned and cynical view of our country, but how can you not? In this day and age, being a liberal is the trendy thing to be. Yeah, it's well and good to support and help shape a more progressive society but as with any trendy thing, you see so many faux-liberal/progressives. Idiots who just do what's in because they don't have a genuine view or drive of their own. They're willing to hop on the Obama bandwagon, post a picture going "I support gay marriage." But few of them will make a push to drive for actual change. I'm digressing from the topic onhand, but you come off as a pretty smart guy so I think you get the gist of what I'm quasi-ranting about.

 

Back to the topic at hand on gentrification, those people I do feel pity for, but I also see the reality of people bullsh*tting about how 'bad' they feel for some poor kid who gets pushed out of their home on camera, but off camera they sit around taking selfies and drinking with their friends with no cares about the issue they claim was so pressing on their mind. If people want to change poverty, pouring money on a broke neighbourhood doesn't solve anything, it's a band-aid on the problem. In order to really make a genuine change for the greater good of the poor, people need to be driven to change. So many people think posting some "I stand against Poverty." photo on Facebook means they do their part, but who's that helping but your own ego? It's like gay marriage or inter-racial marriage or acceptance of women as equals in the workplace, we didn't just dump money on the issue, instead we changed the hearts and minds of the people as a whole. You change the minds of the people and you can tip the scales in the favour of change for the good of the poor.

 

Yes. True. I've been to a few meetings and marches, but not a ton. I'm a tired old man and I don't have the energy I once did... I suppose, sadly, I am more of an armchair liberal than I used to be. Maybe it's time to change that....

[Raavi]

Whilst perhaps not strictly gentrification, In my city what from the late 1800s to the early 1950s used to be a depilated disease-ridden neighbourhood of mostly poor people, with lots of prostitution, alcohol abuse, slumlords and exploitation was restored and renovated to its original state and 're-opened' in the early 70s has ever since been one one of the prettiest and is now one of the most high-end areas within city limits, chockfull of high end shops, gourmet restaurants and town houses going for €1M+ a pop. The former inhabitants moved outside of city limits. I see nothing wrong with this, in fact I applaud it. sh*tty depilated neighbourhoods perpetuating the cycle of poverty help no one, in fact I'd argue it does the exact opposite.