Famous Los Angeles bridge to be replaced

[AlienTwo]

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.

The results of this sound great, as what was done to a lot of downtown areas in Denver and Times Square in New York. What I wonder about though, as I don't know in any of the cases, is what was done to with the former residents? I get how the homeless/crime will just migrate to more seedier areas, how were the former tenets paid for their properties? Well? Or where they given rock bottom prices which they couldn't refuse because they were that poor.

[Raavi]

The results of this sound great, as what was done to a lot of downtown areas in Denver and Times Square in New York. What I wonder about though, as I don't know in any of the cases, is what was done to with the former residents? I get how the homeless/crime will just migrate to more seedier areas, how were the former tenets paid for their properties? Well? Or where they given rock bottom prices which they couldn't refuse because they were that poor.

 

Well the renovation project started in late the 1950s and through the 24 odd years that it lasted people were gradually more or less 'forced' to move, the more capable found employment and moved to a lower than low cost working class neighbourhood. Others who didn't have the tools to find employment and were classed "asocials"; think the illiterate, prostitutes, people with mental deficiencies and/or problems etc they were housed in so called "residential schools" where they were given their own house against a ridiculous low rent rate but also were 'reeducated', given medical/mental care and taught the necessary tools to find employment, manage the household, personal hygiene etc. It was sort of like a precursor of social housing, a far more intrusive failed precursor at that, rather unsurprisingly it went tits up right around the time the renovation of the neighbourhood was finished. It did help some percentage of those enrolled, some climbed the social ladder, some managed to find gainful employment and with it new housing, those less fortunate transitioned in to new social programs.

[AlienTwo]

 

The results of this sound great, as what was done to a lot of downtown areas in Denver and Times Square in New York. What I wonder about though, as I don't know in any of the cases, is what was done to with the former residents? I get how the homeless/crime will just migrate to more seedier areas, how were the former tenets paid for their properties? Well? Or where they given rock bottom prices which they couldn't refuse because they were that poor.

 

Well the renovation project started in late the 1950s and through the 24 odd years that it lasted people were gradually more or less 'forced' to move, the more capable found employment and moved to a lower than low cost working class neighbourhood. Others who didn't have the tools to find employment and were classed "asocials"; think the illiterate, prostitutes, people with mental deficiencies and/or problems etc they were housed in so called "residential schools" where they were given their own house against a ridiculous low rent rate but also were 'reeducated', given medical/mental care and taught the necessary tools to find employment, manage the household, personal hygiene etc. It was sort of like a precursor of social housing, a far more intrusive failed precursor at that, rather unsurprisingly it went tits up right around the time the renovation of the neighbourhood was finished. It did help some percentage of those enrolled, some climbed the social ladder, some managed to find gainful employment and with it new housing, those less fortunate transitioned in to new social programs.

 

That sounds like a great way to do things. Very definitely not the way they do things over here... I would be willing to bet that if this bridge re-design goes through and people are re-located, it;l be in a much less socially-conscious fashion.

[GTA3Rockstar]

 

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.

 

 

You can't compare a landmark icon like the Statue of Liberty to something that provides transportation and endangers people around it if its lacking stability. The Golden Gate Bridge is really the only bridge that has significant meaning.

 

Show someone that bridge and show them the Golden Gate Bridge. 99% of people will know the Golden Gate Bridge and probably <1% will know that LA bridge.

 

 

Just because it's been around a long time doesn't mean it should stay. If it imposes danger, than it should be demo'd and a replacement shall be built.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Bridges are as much a landmark as a building or a statue and should be preserved as a piece of history, no matter where it is....

 

I think the problem is modern society is too disposable, architects work in the same way and too many of them destroy what are already notable structures.

 

The LA bridge does have a high maintenance issue and needs to be replaced as it is a concrete structure and, sadly, concrete does deterioate over extended periods. With buildings you can renew in sections and reinforce where you are working, but since bridges are free-standing and delicately balanced structures, there's nowhere to mount reinforcement in their case.

 

However, most Californians know and admire that bridge as a landmark in the same way most UK people admire the Forth Rail Bridge or the Humber Bridge. If it has to be demolished, it should be rebuilt as a modern structure with a concrete outer skin, so it would appear identical, but be repairable for centuries to come.

 

Architects don't see that however.

[darthYENIK]

I don't know if you guys outside of California know, but we have a little problem with earthquakes. Crazy, I know. But with that LA, San Francisco, and any other old city also have some old buildings and structures. Such structures were built during a time when people didn't take earthquakes into account. They learned how to build cities in New York and Chicago, then came out here thinking the same buildings would be just as good. Over time, hundreds of thousands of earthquakes later those structures have been shaken. They are no longer safe. They pose serious danger if a large earthquake occurs near them. One of the most dangerous type of structure is bridges and roads. Especially mile long slabs of concrete. This bridge will fall. It's not a matter of "if", but "when". It maybe won't fall today, but give it a few decades or a big enough earthquake, and it will fall.

 

Edit: here are some bridges that have collapsed after large earthquakes...

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by darthYENIK

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The fact that the Sixth Street Viaduct has stood earthquakes for so long is testament to the design.

 

By rebuilding it in the same way with modern materials and just the concrete skin it will become even more survivable. It will continue to stand proud, as it should do.

[Mr.Nedich]

The fact that the Sixth Street Viaduct has stood earthquakes for so long is testament to the design.

 

By rebuilding it in the same way with modern materials and just the concrete skin it will become even more survivable. It will continue to stand proud, as it should do.

Here is the problem with your sentiment though. As new designs for a bridge and its safety codes rise, the problem comes of its cost. Iconic bridges are a financial burden. Sure, it's iconic, but to keep a bridge like that stable and in its original structure requires constant repair as well as retrofitting. Constantly fixing that bridge is more trouble than it's worth. It's a familiar scenic icon of LA, yes, but it's a hazard and needs to be replaced with something much more sound to withstand SoCal's earthquakes. The logic of 'It doesn't need fixing, it's lasted this long!' attitude is complacency in past performance. It's survived so far, but how long until it does finally break? That's the problem. Personally I think the new bridge design is too stupid looking personally. Too much artsy stuff on it, but whatever.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

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?

The former residents just wind up in the same situation, or worse, somewhere else though. That's kind of the issue with gentrification.

[GN 92]

 

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!)

 

After reading your post, I see that you're right. The Statue doesn't need to hold tons of vehicles every minute..

 

Maybe they should "reform" the bridge, not completely change it, for "historic" reasons.

[Dingdongs]

 

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?

The former residents just wind up in the same situation, or worse, somewhere else though. That's kind of the issue with gentrification.That's why you do something like Raavi discussed and move them to somewhere that is subsidized by the government so they can get meaningful work and education. If they can't then too bad. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. What is the point of leaving people in f*cking broken down housing continuing to perpetuate a cycle of endless poverty Edited February 11, 2015 by Irviding

[IveGotNoValues]

Bridges are as much a landmark as a building or a statue and should be preserved as a piece of history, no matter where it is....

 

I think the problem is modern society is too disposable, architects work in the same way and too many of them destroy what are already notable structures.

 

The LA bridge does have a high maintenance issue and needs to be replaced as it is a concrete structure and, sadly, concrete does deterioate over extended periods. With buildings you can renew in sections and reinforce where you are working, but since bridges are free-standing and delicately balanced structures, there's nowhere to mount reinforcement in their case.

 

However, most Californians know and admire that bridge as a landmark in the same way most UK people admire the Forth Rail Bridge or the Humber Bridge. If it has to be demolished, it should be rebuilt as a modern structure with a concrete outer skin, so it would appear identical, but be repairable for centuries to come.

 

Architects don't see that however.

I'd say that's fair enough. If they have no choice but to demolish it due to safety regulations and what not, they should at least make it identical with maybe a slight modern twist...slight. Instead they're just throwing away a big chunk of LA history and replacing it with something that looks like it belongs in some type of art museum. Most people around the world don't care at all and probably don't even know about this bridge, but being from LA, I see it as a major loss for the city.

Edited February 11, 2015 by IveGotNoValues

[Mister Pink]

The new bridge doesn't appeal to me at all. It looks like 90% of all new bridges you see here in Europe. It's got this very generic modern style. It seems to stand out like a sore thumb. I'm all for modern design, I love it but If they were replacing this bridge to fit in the the landscape I would have like to have seen something that honours it in an old way like some art-deco style or something. Well, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, really, lol but I'm just spouting my stupid opinion

[Finn 7 five 11]

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.

That does not look like a river, that looks like a stormwater channel, aka sewage, I assume they'll just put it underground.

 

That sounds like a great way to do things. Very definitely not the way they do things over here... I would be willing to bet that if this bridge re-design goes through and people are re-located, it;l be in a much less socially-conscious fashion.

Gentrification? It's a f*cking bridge, 3 hobos and some pigeons will have to move, woopdeedoo.

----

 

 

 

This New bridge design is pretty stupid though, looks entirely ridiculous. Honestly I love the gritty look in many areas, this bridge reminds me of San Andreas a lot, and I am very fond of that, but at the same time, a bit of a neater, smarter design should take its place, it's not as safe as it could be and eventually the area will modernise a little more, so this bridge being a pretty permanent structure should lead the way in a way so it can fit in now, and in the future.

--- -

 

I'm very against preserving sh*tty old stuff right now because in Newcastle Australia, there's an Old train station running right into the city which they've just closed down because the extra 1km of railway is unnecessary because free buses traverse the area, and it takes an enormous amount of space in the city centre, but people are lobbying saying it shouldn't be destroyed because it's a landmark yada yada and it's dumb because there isn't much space because the city is on a point right by the ocean and is divided by this railway.

 

 

Hunter street is the main street here, and the railway runs alongside it as you can see by the blue icons.

 

 

 

[PhillBellic]

 

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.

That does not look like a river, that looks like a stormwater channel, aka sewage, I assume they'll just put it underground.

 

That sounds like a great way to do things. Very definitely not the way they do things over here... I would be willing to bet that if this bridge re-design goes through and people are re-located, it;l be in a much less socially-conscious fashion.

Gentrification? It's a f*cking bridge, 3 hobos and some pigeons will have to move, woopdeedoo.

----

 

 

 

This New bridge design is pretty stupid though, looks entirely ridiculous. Honestly I love the gritty look in many areas, this bridge reminds me of San Andreas a lot, and I am very fond of that, but at the same time, a bit of a neater, smarter design should take its place, it's not as safe as it could be and eventually the area will modernise a little more, so this bridge being a pretty permanent structure should lead the way in a way so it can fit in now, and in the future.

--- -

 

I'm very against preserving sh*tty old stuff right now because in Newcastle Australia, there's an Old train station running right into the city which they've just closed down because the extra 1km of railway is unnecessary because free buses traverse the area, and it takes an enormous amount of space in the city centre, but people are lobbying saying it shouldn't be destroyed because it's a landmark yada yada and it's dumb because there isn't much space because the city is on a point right by the ocean and is divided by this railway.

 

 

Hunter street is the main street here, and the railway runs alongside it as you can see by the blue icons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a Novocastrian, Finn?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The new bridge doesn't appeal to me at all. It looks like 90% of all new bridges you see here in Europe. It's got this very generic modern style. It seems to stand out like a sore thumb. I'm all for modern design, I love it but If they were replacing this bridge to fit in the the landscape I would have like to have seen something that honours it in an old way like some art-deco style or something. Well, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, really, lol but I'm just spouting my stupid opinion

It does not affect me either, but I understand what local landmarks mean to those that live around them. It is sad that the new, proposed design does look like it belongs in Dubai, Europe or Japan, not LA at all!

 

Classic American architecture is in short supply since the entire country is still young when compared to other areas of the world and I feel that destroying every trace of a landmark like this is not in the best interest of that history. The new bridge looks nothing like the old one and it will become another generic bridge.

 

I am not doubting the old bridge needs renewing and thus demolition is sadly inevitable, but please, let the new bridge look like the old one! I can understand if it will be wider to handle more traffic, built of new, earthquake proof and renewable components, but it has to look like it was always there originally or the character of the area will be gone forever.

[Acehilm]

Why not just keep it? Don't fix something that isn't broken.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Why not just keep it? Don't fix something that isn't broken.

It cannot be fixed sadly, the concrete structure is beginning to fail and it is becoming too dangerous to renovate, especially since LA is on a major earthquake hotspot. It will collapse in the next 50 years if it is not replaced according to the structural reports.

 

I wish they could keep it myself, but human lives have to have priority and no one can argue against that.

[GTA3Rockstar]

Bridges are as much a landmark as a building or a statue and should be preserved as a piece of history, no matter where it is....

 

I think the problem is modern society is too disposable, architects work in the same way and too many of them destroy what are already notable structures.

 

The LA bridge does have a high maintenance issue and needs to be replaced as it is a concrete structure and, sadly, concrete does deterioate over extended periods. With buildings you can renew in sections and reinforce where you are working, but since bridges are free-standing and delicately balanced structures, there's nowhere to mount reinforcement in their case.

 

However, most Californians know and admire that bridge as a landmark in the same way most UK people admire the Forth Rail Bridge or the Humber Bridge. If it has to be demolished, it should be rebuilt as a modern structure with a concrete outer skin, so it would appear identical, but be repairable for centuries to come.

 

Architects don't see that however.

 

That's not how it works, a deteriorating bridge puts more lives at risk than a statue or a building.

 

It's not up to the architects if something needs to be replaced and they definitely don't destroy them. They simply are just designing the structure. Construction workers are told to build or demolish something.

[Kampioen]

I would say keep the old one if people have such a connection to it and apperantly value that ugly thing, and just build the new one somewhere else. It's not a bad thing to keep one of your biggest and most important cities looking a little modern.

[Dingdongs]

Why not just keep it? Don't fix something that isn't broken.

Have you read the thread? The bridge is very much broken...

[I cucked Alex Jones]

 

 

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?

The former residents just wind up in the same situation, or worse, somewhere else though. That's kind of the issue with gentrification.

That's why you do something like Raavi discussed and move them to somewhere that is subsidized by the government so they can get meaningful work and education. If they can't then too bad. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. What is the point of leaving people in f*cking broken down housing continuing to perpetuate a cycle of endless poverty

 

All your doing is displacing the poor. Forcing them from their homes and businesses won't end the cycle of poverty, and their is no way the locl government will subsidize their education. We can hardly get higher education and healthcare subsidizes without someone throwing a bitchfest.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Eris

[darthYENIK]

 

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.

That does not look like a river, that looks like a stormwater channel, aka sewage, I assume they'll just put it underground.

It's really a river. Run off from the Angeles mountains. It's very small because there's not much rain here, and not much snow in the mountains regularly, but there's a major drought going on, so it's extremely low. It also works as storm runoff, but we don't often get storms around here.

 

As for the people saying this is like the Statue of Liberty, I'd say even if it was (which it's not, a bridge is an essential part of infrastructure and the statue of liberty is a useless statue on an island), the Statue of Liberty isn't constantly bombarded by significant seismic activity.

[Spaghetti Cat]

You guys crack me up with the gentrification comments, it's a bridge ffs.

 

The new design looks kinda like a giant McDonalds commercial. IDK modern, but kinda outa place with the neighborhood. I'm actually a fan of the 30's style design. Looks modern and historic at the same time. Sad to see this torn down. Good idea would be to turn this into a bike/pedestrian path, and have the new bridge build alongside. But considering this is LA nobody would use the old bridge.

 

I just remember playing LA Noir and coming across all these old buildings and landmarks that are no longer there. Maybe in 50 years people will play V to see the old stuff that was paved over for new.

[ddyoung]

I like the bridge, but it doesn't fit into LA. It looks like it should be in Europe, maybe like Amsterdam or Berlin or Paris. It just doesn't fit the vice of LA, which is pretty far from "modern".

[mr quick]

*removed because I was furious and let the anger get the better of me*

Edited February 11, 2015 by Marwin Moody

[Mv6]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

I didn't see anyone protest Silver lakes gentrification. No one cares

[PhillBellic]

Would any of you see this as a valid compromise? Replace the entire bridge, with what has been proposed, and for that centre span over the river construct 'like' arches using modern construction materials, techniques, and accounting for seismic activity.

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

 

 

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.

That does not look like a river, that looks like a stormwater channel, aka sewage, I assume they'll just put it underground.

 

That sounds like a great way to do things. Very definitely not the way they do things over here... I would be willing to bet that if this bridge re-design goes through and people are re-located, it;l be in a much less socially-conscious fashion.

Gentrification? It's a f*cking bridge, 3 hobos and some pigeons will have to move, woopdeedoo.

----

 

 

 

This New bridge design is pretty stupid though, looks entirely ridiculous. Honestly I love the gritty look in many areas, this bridge reminds me of San Andreas a lot, and I am very fond of that, but at the same time, a bit of a neater, smarter design should take its place, it's not as safe as it could be and eventually the area will modernise a little more, so this bridge being a pretty permanent structure should lead the way in a way so it can fit in now, and in the future.

--- -

 

I'm very against preserving sh*tty old stuff right now because in Newcastle Australia, there's an Old train station running right into the city which they've just closed down because the extra 1km of railway is unnecessary because free buses traverse the area, and it takes an enormous amount of space in the city centre, but people are lobbying saying it shouldn't be destroyed because it's a landmark yada yada and it's dumb because there isn't much space because the city is on a point right by the ocean and is divided by this railway.

 

 

Hunter street is the main street here, and the railway runs alongside it as you can see by the blue icons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a Novocastrian, Finn?

Perhaps, why?

[PhillBellic]

 

 

 

 

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.

That does not look like a river, that looks like a stormwater channel, aka sewage, I assume they'll just put it underground.

 

That sounds like a great way to do things. Very definitely not the way they do things over here... I would be willing to bet that if this bridge re-design goes through and people are re-located, it;l be in a much less socially-conscious fashion.

Gentrification? It's a f*cking bridge, 3 hobos and some pigeons will have to move, woopdeedoo.

----

 

 

 

This New bridge design is pretty stupid though, looks entirely ridiculous. Honestly I love the gritty look in many areas, this bridge reminds me of San Andreas a lot, and I am very fond of that, but at the same time, a bit of a neater, smarter design should take its place, it's not as safe as it could be and eventually the area will modernise a little more, so this bridge being a pretty permanent structure should lead the way in a way so it can fit in now, and in the future.

--- -

 

I'm very against preserving sh*tty old stuff right now because in Newcastle Australia, there's an Old train station running right into the city which they've just closed down because the extra 1km of railway is unnecessary because free buses traverse the area, and it takes an enormous amount of space in the city centre, but people are lobbying saying it shouldn't be destroyed because it's a landmark yada yada and it's dumb because there isn't much space because the city is on a point right by the ocean and is divided by this railway.

 

 

Hunter street is the main street here, and the railway runs alongside it as you can see by the blue icons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a Novocastrian, Finn?

 

Perhaps, why?

 

It's just a hunch. Furthermore, outside of Newcastle, and NSW to a lesser regard, probably not many people would know that it is happening.