|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2009 22:01:25 GMT
Here they are but frankly, I do not understand what is supposed to be interesting about them. Wooden covered bridge. So what? I do not see any point in their existence or any architectural value or any particular utility. Can anybody explain to me what the big deal about these things is supposed to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Cuevas on Feb 26, 2009 22:41:14 GMT
Nostalgic romanticism, a longing for "the good old days".
I think that the practical reason for covered bridges was that crossing a stream wouldn't shy the horses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2009 23:20:16 GMT
There are a number of them in New England that are far more attractive but I see your point. They're just kind of quaint and as Don said people long for that nostalgia.
|
|
|
|
Post by komsomol on Mar 2, 2009 19:01:53 GMT
What is this thing about horses? Don't horses cross other bridges?
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 2, 2009 20:41:20 GMT
There is a reason! This question has been nagging at me (nag=horse ~ get it?  ) since I read this thread. Wikipedia has an extensive article which includes this: Covered bridges are generally considered old-fashioned, and appeal to tourists, but the enclosure acts as weather protection over the working part of the structure. A bridge built entirely out of wood, without any protective coating, may last 10 to 15 years. Builders discovered that if the bridge's underpinnings were protected with a roof, the bridge could stand for 70, or even 80 years. |
|
) since I read this thread.