3 ms·

I was always intrigued by the motivation for building houses on the bridge itself. It seems like one of those interzone areas that shouldn't exist but does[1].

by Lio 3y ago

I was always intrigued by the motivation for building houses on the bridge itself. It seems like one of those interzone areas that shouldn't exist but does[1]. The usually listed reason is that space inside the City walls was at a premium but I think the really interesting point is that the bridge itself was considered inside the City walls. Like a peninsular jutting out of the City. Also, it was said that with the amount of foot traffic, cattle, etc on the bridge it could take you 15 to 30 minutes to cross. So that kind of makes sense to have shops and pubs on there to service the 138 or so dwellings. - 1. That probably comes from reading William Gibson's Bridge Trilogy.

TomMasz 3y ago
Rochester, NY (where I live) had a bridge over the Genesee River that had buildings on both sides well into the 20th century. They were finally removed in the 1960s(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Bridge_(Rochester,_New_York) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Bridge_(Rochester,...
- Lio 3y ago
  That's a great example, thanks. From the timeline that bridge was built in 1857 so I guess still dominated by foot traffic. It might be better for traffic capacity but I think Rochester must have lost something special when they removed the bridge buildings.
wongarsu 3y ago
In modern times any street with so much foot traffic is lined with shops to take advantage of all the potential customers. Remember that when walking you have plenty of time to take in the shop window, and taking a quick detour into a shop or pub isn't much effort. Especially if traffic is moving slow anyways. It's not at all comparable to driving past in a car. I imagine the same reason made it attractive to have shops on one of the main streets into London, even if it happened to be a bridge. And once you are erecting a building for the shop or pub, why not add a couple stories to house the shop owner, workers, or anyone willing to pay rent for living inside the city wall?
dijit 3y ago
If you're interested in that, you might be interested in a weird fact about my home city. Coventry (also in the UK) was built on a river. I don't mean near a river.. I literally mean, on a river; the river Sherbourne which you would never know even exists today. What seems to have happened is that in medival times Coventrians built bridges, then homes on the bridges, then more bridges until eventually the river was sunken and runs underneath the modern day city center. It's still possible to glimpse the river as it hasn't been entirely covered, but you would have to go looking for it quite intently. https://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/tour/content.php?pg=sherbourne https://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/tour/content.php?pg=sherb... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Sherbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Sherbourne
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  It's not unusual. If a river is small enough, as the city grows the river often ends up completely culverted and buried underground. There are many in London, for instance: https://londonist.com/london/maps/london-s-lost-rivers-mapped-with-the-place-names-they-inspired https://londonist.com/london/maps/london-s-lost-rivers-mappe...
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    Similarly, Sheffield's railway station (fmr "midland"/"pond street") is built over one of sheffields rivers (the river sheaf - in fact, two rivers, since the Porter Brook and the River Sheaf join under Platform 5a)
ajb 3y ago
Bridge maintenance was funded by the rents of those houses, as well as bridge tolls. The maintenance charity still exists, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Bridge_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Bridge_Foundation
muyuu 3y ago
when traffic is sparse and/or mostly pedestrian those houses likely added more than they impeded, and then they stayed there vestigially until the incentive to remove them was strong enough this happened in many other places as well as business and housing were strongly integrated into the 20th century, and to some extent right next to traffic is still prime location in most of the world that will perhaps leapfrog the era of strong segregation of business and residential

by Lio 3y ago

TomMasz 3y ago

Rochester, NY (where I live) had a bridge over the Genesee River that had buildings on both sides well into the 20th century. They were finally removed in the 1960s(!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Bridge_(Rochester,_New_York) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_Bridge_(Rochester,...

Lio 3y ago
That's a great example, thanks. From the timeline that bridge was built in 1857 so I guess still dominated by foot traffic. It might be better for traffic capacity but I think Rochester must have lost something special when they removed the bridge buildings.

wongarsu 3y ago

In modern times any street with so much foot traffic is lined with shops to take advantage of all the potential customers. Remember that when walking you have plenty of time to take in the shop window, and taking a quick detour into a shop or pub isn't much effort. Especially if traffic is moving slow anyways. It's not at all comparable to driving past in a car. I imagine the same reason made it attractive to have shops on one of the main streets into London, even if it happened to be a bridge. And once you are erecting a building for the shop or pub, why not add a couple stories to house the shop owner, workers, or anyone willing to pay rent for living inside the city wall?

dijit 3y ago

If you're interested in that, you might be interested in a weird fact about my home city. Coventry (also in the UK) was built on a river. I don't mean near a river.. I literally mean, on a river; the river Sherbourne which you would never know even exists today. What seems to have happened is that in medival times Coventrians built bridges, then homes on the bridges, then more bridges until eventually the river was sunken and runs underneath the modern day city center. It's still possible to glimpse the river as it hasn't been entirely covered, but you would have to go looking for it quite intently. https://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/tour/content.php?pg=sherbourne https://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/tour/content.php?pg=sherb... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Sherbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Sherbourne

mytailorisrich 3y ago
It's not unusual. If a river is small enough, as the city grows the river often ends up completely culverted and buried underground. There are many in London, for instance: https://londonist.com/london/maps/london-s-lost-rivers-mapped-with-the-place-names-they-inspired https://londonist.com/london/maps/london-s-lost-rivers-mappe...
- NikkiA 3y ago
  Similarly, Sheffield's railway station (fmr "midland"/"pond street") is built over one of sheffields rivers (the river sheaf - in fact, two rivers, since the Porter Brook and the River Sheaf join under Platform 5a)

ajb 3y ago

Bridge maintenance was funded by the rents of those houses, as well as bridge tolls. The maintenance charity still exists, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Bridge_Foundation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Bridge_Foundation

muyuu 3y ago

when traffic is sparse and/or mostly pedestrian those houses likely added more than they impeded, and then they stayed there vestigially until the incentive to remove them was strong enough this happened in many other places as well as business and housing were strongly integrated into the 20th century, and to some extent right next to traffic is still prime location in most of the world that will perhaps leapfrog the era of strong segregation of business and residential