The Preservation of Historic Bridges

For my research I will be looking into what should be done with bridges of historical significance once they have reached a point when they are no longer safe.

What prompted this idea was in a way by pure accident. I was sitting in an apartment and happened to pick up a copy of the New York Times that was on a coffee table, as I flipped through I noticed a few pictures of some old damaged covered wooden bridges. These bridges, or lack thereof, were what was left of some old wooden bridges after Hurricane Irene had destroyed much of what was left of them.

Bridges have always amazed me, not only how they look, but their structure, how they stay standing, and how humans have taken such a simple concept of creating a path from one point to another and turning it into art, history, and at times feats of human ingenuity. But time takes its toll on just about everything; like the buildings we are studying in class, bridges also go through some wear and tear, weather, and harsh use by humans, maybe even more so than some buildings. This led me to wondering if bridges can be submitted as pieces for historical preservation. Turns out there are quite a few, especially the old covered wooden bridges along the east coast that were so detrimental in connecting the first few colonies in America. But what happens when these bridges get to a point when they are unsafe to cross? Should they be destroyed? What can be done to prevent them from getting to that point? Does the reconstruction of such bridges take away from the historical aesthetic of the bridge? These are a few items that I hope to discover while researching my topic. I not only hope to look into wooden bridges, but also bridges made of man-made materials such as iron that have been exposed to the elements and not properly treated over the years. Along with human use, and material decay I would like to address the problem that the New York Times article brought to attention; what should be done with bridges that have been damaged by natural disasters.

Personally I would imagine that human safety should come first, so once a bridge has reached that point it should be taken down and replaced with a safer one. I would imagine that bridges are different from buildings in the way that most likely when a bridge is present it is there for some sort of transportation purpose and is used more often that a building may be. For instance you may have one hundred people crossing a bridge every day, but that does not mean those same one hundred people are going to the same place. My point being is that bridges should be watched and in turn preserved more thoroughly than buildings, not because they are more important, but because they are used in greater quantities and therefore should be watched more closely, not only for safety of those crossing the bridge but also to ensure that the bridge is preserved in such a manner that its original structure can used year after year with having to be reconstructed to preserve it.