Roeblings Brooklyn Bridge The Brooklyn Bridge is one of the finest examples of structural art that has ever

been created. It was designed by John A. Roebling who put all his skills and imagination into the project and was able to make it possible. The report that he wrote to the Directors of the New York Bridge Company was so explicit that they could not but approve the project. The reason for it being so persuasive is because Roebling in his report did not just address the technical or scientific feasibility of the Bridge but also the symbolic and social aspects of it which the cities of New York and Brooklyn will benefit from. In this report, scientific, symbolic and social aspects intertwine and consequently support each other. In the first section (p. 6 p. 11) that Roebling called Location he takes into consideration four possible routes for the future Bridge: Park Line, Chatham Square and Bowery and Canal. From scientific point of view he presents all the necessary data (distances across the river, lengths of approaches etc.) as well as the sources and based on that builds his argument that the Park Line would fit the best. Roebling also supports his argument with symbolic and social aspects on page 8 with a prediction that for the next fifty years the City Hall Park will attract a large number of visitors and consequently (page 9) will generate large revenues. Roebling is being very descriptive from the scientific perspective in the section General Description of Plan of Bridge. He talks about the overall arrangement of the trusses, girders, towers etc. and assures the Directors that the Bridge will not impede boat traffic and the streets will be crossed at such elevations as to leave them unobstructed (page 12). Again, he adds a social argument into his report saying that the passenger trains (characteristics of which he describes explicitly) that run across the bridge will also bring revenue as they will transport passengers from one city to the other (page 13). Moreover he takes into account the variable train capacity that will be needed during various times of the day (page 15). Roebling also considers a possibility of a foreign invasion which is another social

aspect of the Bridge (page 17). In his report he persuades the readers that his structure is capable of transporting soldiers swiftly and efficiently (nearly half a million men with artillery in 24 hours). A very significant social and symbolic aspect that Roebling has included in his report is an introduction of a fifth division of the Bridge floor or an elevated promenade. According to the engineer, it will allow people of leisure, old and young to walk over the Bridge and enjoy the magnificent views of the city (page 18). This route is in fact another substantial income source. In chapter 3, Roebling elaborates on the theory that lies behind the strength and deflection of the cables used in the Bridge design and recommends using steel instead of iron. For example he says that if iron was employed, the cables would have to be nearly 15 inches in diameter as opposed to 11 inches for steel (page 22). On page 24. Roebling mentions another scientific aspect of the bridge and that is his careful consideration of the wind forces. He assures the Directors that he is fully aware of the danger of the great force of a several gale and thus assigns a large proportion of the supporting strength to the stays instead of cables. In fact the use of stays as a wind resisting system is a very distinctive feature of the Brooklyn Bridge as they are very hard to design for and are rarely used even in modern structures. Roebling in his report has presented an outstanding analysis of the subsurface structure under the proposed site. On pages 28 to 31 he presents all the data collected from bore holes which supports his argument that a good and efficient foundation can be made for the support of the Brooklyn tower without any unusual expenditure of either money or time. Roebling pays a lot of attention to a possible problem of mollusks that can affect the integrity of timber caissons that helps construct the towers and serve as their foundation (pages 32 33). A social aspect that Roebling added to his design on page 36 implied a creation of eight rooms in each anchorage, which can be converted into high safety and

security treasure vaults. He expected that the eventual rent of safes will pay more than ten percent upon the above [$600,000] cost. On page 38 Roebling implies that the Bridge will serve as a symbol of general improvement of the city of New York. According to Roebling, the blocks are densely crowded by the poorest class of buildings, the removal of which will be desired by every citizen who feels an interest in general improvement of the city. Roebling thus suggests that the construction of the Bridge goes hand in hand with the improvements underneath. The most significant symbolic aspect of the Bridge in my opinion is it becoming a token of the future great city of New York. Roebling on page 40 states that the importance of the new commercial channel (Brooklyn Bridge) will increase every year until eventually New York becomes the great commercial emporium, not of this continent only, but of the world. In my point of view all the types of justifications that Roebling presented in his report are still relevant today for modern infrastructure projects. Nowadays we also present data that we collect in the field. We carry out geotechnical studies, evaluate the needed capacity of a structure, take into consideration various materials that we can use for construction, investigate the topography of the proposed site etc. We also estimate the future possible growth in population and a consequent need for an increased capacity. Even though for small scale projects the social and symbolic aspects are not very critical, their importance rises when we start to deal with structural landmarks like Brooklyn Bridge. Therefore Roeblings justifications would still apply to a modern project that possesses scientific, social and symbolic significance.