Talk:High Bridge (New York City)/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long one, but I think I can pull this off. Will have first comments soon. As is usual, I am going to do the lead and infobox last. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update – sorry about the delays. I’m going to have more comments in just a few minutes. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: – I’ve got a lot more comments now. I’ll try to pick back up tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to do this last after I’ve had a chance to review the article.

• Is the Inwood marble located in the riverbed, or just the part of the valley around the river?
  • It’s both. The source mentions that the valley floor is made of Inwood marble, but the river flows through the valley floor. – EG
• Consider mentioning the next bridge to the south.
• and there were steps leading to the former Highbridge Reservoir and a trail running south to 155th Street – I haven’t looked yet, but I’m guessing this is discussed in the history section. Add “originally” in front of “were” or “steps”.
• I’m guessing Highbridge takes its name from the bridge. You might want to consider mentioning this.
  • You are correct on the etymology. However, this is already mentioned later on in the “Impact” section. – EG
• Flip refs 17 and 13 in second to last sentence.

• Could you explain the variation in the deck height above the river? Do the sources disagree? Is this based on the variation in the water level? Or maybe the bridge’s height varies?
  • Essentially, sources disagree on the bridge’s height; this is most likely due to the variation in water level, as multiple sources give both figures. – EG

• the narrow arches spanned the shoreline on either side since it looks like this was in the past.
  • These arches still exist today. I have made it more clear. – EG
• Flip refs 22 and 16.
• a series of wooden grillages was were built atop the pilings
• Excess water from the deck was drained into the side walls of the piers. – was this during the construction process, or something that was done whenever the deck accumulated excess rainwater?
  • The latter; I have fixed it. – EG
    • I guess I should follow up on this. Is this still done? Is/was there some kind of opening in the pier walls for water to move into the river, such as at the bottom of the piers on top of the foundation? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m guessing the doors on the Bronx side are for maintenance purposes?
  • Yep, I’ve done that. – EG
• Add |spell=in to {{convert|8|ft|m}}
• Change either end of the steel to “each end” or “both ends”.

• Flip refs 1 and 7.
• Do the sources differ on the width of the pipes, or did the widths vary? Also suggest changing “across” to “in diameter”.
  • It’s the former; I’ve fixed that – EG
• Spell out “5-foot-thick” for consistency.
• This certainly isn’t necessary, but do you know what maximum flow rate the original and enlarged pipes could carry? I’m guessing the larger pipe was necessitated by a growing water demand.
  • You are correct that the larger pipe was due to higher demand (and this is mentioned in the History section). Unfortunately, while the sources do mention the daily capacity of the aqueduct as a whole, they don’t really single out the capacity of this bridge. This source from 1860 indicates that the original aqueduct could carry 60 million gallons a day but that half of that had to be discharged by the time it reached the High Bridge. – EG
    • It sounds like it was probably originally designed to carry around 30 million gallons, but that would definitely be synthesis and OR. I am curious, was about half of the capacity redirected elsewhere, such as Manhattan or other areas west of the Harlem River, before it reached the High Bridge? Bneu2013 (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Link “cast iron” and cut dash.
• Link “manhole“.
• When was the interior of the largest pipe determined to have been rusted?
• Just to confirm, all three pipes still remain of the bridge, correct?
  • Yes, that is correct. – EG
• Link “Hudson River“.
• When were the original bricks determined to have darkened?
• Link “Victorian” to Victorian era.

• Link “springs” to spring (hydrology)
• Cut dashes in “wells-and-cisterns”, and link cistern.
• Cut comma after “Hudson Valley”.
  • The full sentence is “Efforts to bring freshwater from the Croton River watershed in New York’s Hudson Valley, north of the city, commenced in the early 1830s.” The phrase “north of the city” is treated as a parenthetical phrase, and removing the comma would make it unbalanced. – EG
• Does “old” in “old Croton Aqueduct” need to be capitalized?
  • Probably. I have capitalized it. – EG
• When was Douglass replaced by Jervis?
• and the Croton Aqueduct opened in 1842. – suggest rewording to something like “it opened in…” Also, I’m not sure “opened” is the best terminology for this. Maybe “completed”? Did it start supplying water in 1842?
  • It started supplying water in 1842, but it wasn’t really complete due to the incompleteness of the High Bridge.
• Link “gravity feed“.
• continuing to the Central Park and Murray Hill reservoirs. – change “continuing” to “connecting”, “leading”, or something similar for lack of repetition in this sentence.
• Suggest providing a short descriptor of what “Sing Sing Kill” is.

Planning

• I feel like and there was particular debate over the height of the bridge should be reworded to avoid repetition since the word “debate” is used in the first half of the sentence. I would also consider elaborating on why this was debated. I’m guessing there were probably disagreements about the necessary vertical clearance under the bridge.

• The term “high-level bridge” is vague, and would probably be confusing to someone unfamiliar with civil engineering. Can you elaborate?
  • It’s not a specialized term, but rather their relative positions to each other. The low-level bridge was about 30-50 feet above ground; the high-level bridge was much higher than that (at least 100 feet). This is mentioned somewhere in this section. Epicgenius (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• When did Douglass make his proposal?
• Flip refs 89 and 88.
• Sources disagree on whether the low-level bridge would have provided 30 feet (9.1 m) – I’m guessing this was the initial proposal? Suggest elaborating.
• When did Jervis revise his plans?
  • Unfortunately, the source does not say. – EG
• Can you provide a brief description of what the Water Commission was? Was it a government or intergovernmental agency set up to supervise the aqueduct project? Or just an agency in charge of water service in the city, like a modern-day public utility?
  • Done. It was a group established in 1833 to oversee the aqueduct’s development, although I feel that detail may be extraneous for the article. – EG
• When did the water commissioners accept Jervis’s plans?

Construction

• Inflation adjustment for $755,130.
• Did the lowest bidder drop out before the contract could be awarded?
• This certainly isn’t a necessity, but could you find a date for when construction began?
  • Unfortunately, I could only narrow it down to between August 13, 1839, and the end of the same year. This isn’t helped by the lack of contemporary sources from that time; news in these days tended to be sensationalist and less reliable than later on. – EG
• Was the slow progress on the bridge one of the reasons for the commissioners’ replacement?
  • Actually, new governors tended to switch out the commissioners. I’ve clarified this. – EG
• What would the tunnel have been for exactly?
  • It would have carried the water across the river, rendering the bridge unnecessary. – EG
• Where were the loose boulders exactly?
• Add |spell=in to {{convert|3|ft|m}}
• Maybe I’ve misread, but it sounds like the temporary pipe wasn’t very high across the river, or at least a lot lower than the present-day bridge. If this is correct, was the siphon powerful enough to pump the water uphill on the Bronx side?
  • It was very low, being just above the cofferdams, only a few feet above the water at most. The water would have gone back uphill on the Manhattan side. Due to the mechanics of how a siphon works, a pump wouldn’t even have been needed; since there was water continuously flowing through the pipe, the water could go down the valley and back up without any interruption. – EG
• Spell out “4 feet” and “3 feet”, and flip refs 7 and 1.
• Pluralize “cofferdam”.
• Construction was completed in November 1848 forat a cost of $963,427.80
• When was the western stair completed?
  • The sources don’t really say, but it was definitely by the 1860s. – EG

• The bridge was frequently used for day trips into the countryside – I see there were no vehicular crossings, so I’m guessing this means it was effectively used as a pedestrian bridge. Was the bridge originally designed to specifically carry pedestrians?
  • It was specifically designed to carry water. The pedestrians were an afterthought (the main purpose of the bridge was for the Croton Aqueduct to continue into Manhattan without going under the Harlem River), but yes, it functioned as a pedestrian bridge. – EG

Early years and capacity expansions

• Order refs 6,7, and 1.
• When you refer to the tubes’ “reduced capacity”, I’m guessing this is a reference to how they were smaller than Jervis originally recommended? Also flip refs 122 and 118.
  • “Reduced” isn’t the right word; I meant something along the lines of “limited”, since the capacity was smaller than that of the rest of the aqueduct. I have reordered the refs. – EG
• an additional pipe was built at the Manhattan end of the bridge to supply reservoirs further south – did this pipe connect to reservoirs to the south?
• Suggest adding a small descriptor for Andrew Craven.
• used to lift the pieces of the pipe toonto the deck
• Where was the flow in the old pipes diverted to?
  • The pipes were merely relocated to another part of the bridge. – EG
    • I’m still confused. Were the old pipes relocated and then reinstalled in their original location? And where were on the bridge were they relocated to exactly? Bneu2013 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      On further thought, this detail is pretty minor, so I have removed it. For what it’s worth, it seems like the pipes were shifted only a few feet beside their original position, then moved back into place. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly was the “tub”? Was this the effective ditch/gutter on top of the bridge deck that was formed when the parapets were constructed atop the bridge? Also, how high were the parapet walls?
  • Edit – this looks like a typo for “tube”.
    • Oops. I have fixed that as I did indeed mean “tube” (it wasn’t caught by my spellcheck). The sources don’t really discuss the parapet’s height. – EG
• Flip refs 48 and 42.
• How did the masonry arch create a flat surface for the walkway? I’m guessing the flat walkway was constructed atop the arch.
  • Yes, that is correct; the top of the arch was flat, creating a surface for the walkway. – EG
• When did the new pipe start carrying water?
  • The sources don’t give an exact date, but it was in 1862. – EG
• Flip refs 133 and 50.
• Link “water tower“.

Further modifications

• The bridge’s brick arches were modified that year to allow more water to flow through them. – Does this mean that water was transported through the space between the pipes and the arches, in addition to the pipes?
  • I think so, but I haven’t found sources describing what exactly happened. I just know that the arches were modified, and water flow was then increased. – EG
• Link “The Wall Street Journal“.
• What was the purpose of the incline railway on the Bronx end?
  • It carried people up the hill. Since there was no stairway at the time, there was no other way for people to cross the bridge if they were starting from the bottom of the hill. – EG
• Why did water stop flowing in 1910, and why was the flow intermittently halted and resumed?
  • The new aqueducts reduced demand for the old aqueduct, so parts of it were closed and reopened between 1910 and 1958. I might expand the Croton Aqueduct article later to discuss this in more detail, but basically, during the 20th century, the old aqueduct was partially shut down in phases after the New Croton and Catskill aqueducts replaced it. – EG
• Is a dash after “12” necessary in “12-or-20-inch-wide”? I guess this depends on convention, but I don’t see that it is.
  • It is not necessary. This is created by the template, so I’ve replaced the template with plain text. – EG
• the steps leading to the bridge’s western terminus would also have to behave been demolished. Or alternatively, something like “required demolition”.

• Was the bridge actually prone to watercraft strikes, or was this just a concern?
  • This was a concern, but I think the US government required the removal of obstructions nonetheless. – EG

Early demolition proposals

• Add inflation adjustment for $300,000.
• Comma after “supported the plan”.
• Inflation adjustment for $800,000.
• Did the American Association of Engineers’ chapter want the entire bridge demolished instead of the partial demolition?
  • I can see how that could be confusing. They did not want any part of the bridge demolished at all; the “partial demolition” plan refers to how only five of the 15 arches would have been removed. – EG
• How far down had the piers settled?
  • The sources say several inches, but I didn’t think this was particularly pertinent to that paragraph. – EG

Change of plans

• the DPS created plans for a steel arch measuring 420 feet (130 m) long with a clearance of 103 feet (31 m), withat an estimated cost of $1 million.
• Suggest small descriptor for Merritt H. Smith.
• Why was the lowest bid rejected?
  • The source doesn’t say exactly why, but given that the original low bid was $1,481,000, I think cost may have been a factor. – EG
• The plans were modified to call for the removal of five arches
• In addition, new lighting was installed on the deck – when was lighting first installed on the deck? Did the bridge have gas lighting before electricity?
  • There was lighting before, but a comprehensive study of the bridge failed to pinpoint when the lighting was installed. It states only that there were no lampposts in 1859, but that there were at some point after 1872. The original lampposts are similar to gas lamps installed throughout the city during that era, but it is not known definitively whether the High Bridge lamps used gas, since that sort of detail is too specific to have been accurately recorded. – EG
• Cut dash in “real-estate”.

Reduced aqueduct operations

• Was Robert Moses behind some of the land transitions?
  • He might have been, but the sources don’t explicitly say that he was involved. – EG
• Suggest new benches and railings were installed early in that decade.
• Could you give a brief description of what the “sinking fund” is?
• When was the pump plant demolished?
• being accessedaccessible from Manhattan by a wooden staircase.
• Why did the ownership transfer take five years?
  • The sources don’t say, but it isn’t uncommon for even relatively simple city transactions to take a long time. – EG
• Flip refs 213 and 55.
• Local youth also dived off the piers of the High Bridge. – This bridge is awfully high to be diving off of, and I would think there would have been lots of serious injuries and fatalities from this. I seriously doubt many people knew how to dive safely from that height back then, as now.
  • Edit – was this from the wider parts of the bottoms of the piers close to the water?
  • Yes, I think it was from the lower parts of the piers, but the source doesn’t say so with certainty. – EG

Closure and disuse

• I haven’t looked at the sources yet, but do they explicitly say that NYC Parks does not have records of the bridge’s closure date?
  • The sources do say that, yes. – EG
• Suggest linking “fiscal crisis” to History of New York City (1946–1977)#Fiscal crisis of 1975.
• Subsequently, the railings and brick were partially replaced, and gates were installed at both ends. – When was this? The previous paragraph seems to imply that the bridge was effectively abandoned for roughly the last quarter of the 20th century.

• Suggest rewording At the turn of the 21st century, there were calls for the High Bridge to be reopened as either a pedestrian or bike path to something like “At the turn of the 21st century, there were once again calls for the High Bridge to be reopened, either as a pedestrian or bike path.”

Renovation plans

• NYC Parks hosted a celebration for the bridge’sHigh Bridge’s 155th anniversary in January 2004, when Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe announced that the New York City Department of Transportation was completing a $1 million study on the feasibility of restoring and reopening the High Bridgebridge.
• Had the bridge been refurbished to a level safe enough for pedestrians by the time of the 2008 path opening? Or had it always been considered safe to walk across? Also include a more precise date, since part of the event took place on the bridge.
  • I have added the date. The bridge hadn’t been refurbished at all at the point, but it was also not degraded to the point that people could not walk across it. The general public could walk across it with supervision, but the bridge was closed outside of these times; a couple of other sites, like the Ellis Island Immigrant Hospital, are still like that. – EG
• The design consultants proposed adding high fences to the bridge’s walkway, prompting objections that the fencesthis would ruin views from the bridge.
• The renovation plans coincided with increased development at the Bronx end of the bridge.

Renovation and reopening

• Order refs 61, 62, and 29.
• Did any notable people, such as the mayor or members of Congress, participate in the reopening ceremony?
  • The borough presidents and park commissioner attended, but I don’t know of any state or federal officials who participated. – EG
• Change “pedestrian-only” to “pedestrian-exclusive”.
• Suggest providing a brief description of the new lighting system. In addition to walkway lighting, it looks like decorative lights, such as under the arch, were also installed. This might work better in one of the description sections.

High Bridge Water Tower

• Change constructed in 1866–1872 to “constructed from 1866 to 1872”.

• Suggest changing It was burned in 1984 and later restored to “It caught fire in 1984 and was later restored.”