Why Aren't Modernist Bridges Awful? A Theory from Marginal Revolution
Key Takeaways
- •Public opinion broadly criticizes modern architecture while generally sparing modern bridges, even though bridges are prominent, expensive, and highly visible pieces of infrastructure.
- •Popular lists of the world's most beautiful bridges pair historic spans like the Brooklyn Bridge (1883) and Tower Bridge (1894) with modern ones such as Brasília's Kubitschek Bridge (2002) and Greece's Rio-Antirrio Bridge (2004).
- •The author's theory is that bridge designers come from engineering schools rather than architecture schools, though structural forms like catenaries, arches, and tension cables may also naturally appeal to people.
- •The post cites Wallpaper, an architecture magazine, selecting mostly unattractive bridges with no overlap with popular favorites as supporting evidence for its theory.
- •The finding that modern bridges are often beautiful is consistent with Samuel Hughes's argument that ugliness in design is a deliberate choice rather than a constraint.
The public broadly dislikes modern architecture, but, generally speaking, it does not dislike modern bridges, Marginal Revolution observes. That contrast matters because bridges are still prominent pieces of public infrastructure: they are visible, expensive, and often meant to be noticed, yet they do not seem to carry the same reputational burden that many postwar buildings do. Roundups of the world's most awesome, most stunning, and most beautiful bridges routinely place classics such as London's Tower Bridge, opened in 1894, the Brooklyn Bridge, completed in 1883, and Germany's Rakotzbrücke alongside distinctly modern structures: the Kubitschek Bridge in Brasília, inaugurated in 2002; the cable-stayed Rio-Antirrio Bridge, which crosses the Gulf of Corinth in Greece and opened in 2004; and the Moses "Bridge," a sunken pedestrian crossing in the Netherlands.
Whether or not one likes these bridges, the author writes, the literature offers no argument that modern bridges are all ugly, or that modern bridge-building has failed or fallen behind the great bridges of the past — in sharp contrast to the well-established critique aimed at modern architecture in general. In other words, the claim is not that every modern bridge is admired, but that bridge design has not become a broad cultural byword for decline in the way modern building design has.
Why is this? The author's theory is that bridge designers come from engineering schools rather than schools of architecture. It is possible, of course, that something in the nature of bridges prunes the design space in a way that attracts beauty — perhaps people like catenaries, arches, and cables in tension, and beauty is simply a byproduct of the engineering. That would help explain why certain forms recur across eras and why newer bridges can still feel continuous with older ones, even when the materials and construction methods are different.
Ugly bridges are nonetheless possible, so beauty cannot be reduced to an engineering constraint. One small but telling piece of evidence for the author's theory, the post argues, is that most of the bridges chosen by Wallpaper magazine, an architecture magazine specifically, are in fact ugly — and with no overlap with the "popular" beautiful bridges of the first category. The post presents several examples and invites readers to judge for themselves.
That modern bridges are often beautiful, especially when they come from engineers, is consistent with Samuel Hughes's argument that ugly has been a choice, not a constraint.
