[Lone Primate]

what year was the flindon bridge built?

judging by the stone, i say between 1890-1920??

A steel frame bridge like that? Probably no earlier than the 1930s; likely the 1940s. It probably replaced a wooden bridge in the same location, but that's entirely a guess on my part. A municipality wouldn't have had the money to build something like this much before there was a serious build-up of urban properties in the area. No one back then built something that sturdy just for farmers. That's a bridge designed to carry serious commerce.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

A steel frame bridge like that? Probably no earlier than the 1930s; likely the 1940s. It probably replaced a wooden bridge in the same location, but that's entirely a guess on my part. A municipality wouldn't have had the money to build something like this much before there was a serious build-up of urban properties in the area. No one back then built something that sturdy just for farmers. That's a bridge designed to carry serious commerce.

but that white stone suggests to me that it was built before 1920's because they would have used cement in the 1930's and on. there are bridges in the area from the 1920's made from cement.

that looks to be the same type of stone they used for bridges in the late 1800's and early 1900's. it looks to be the same stone that was used on the queen street railway bridge near the dufferin jog.

is there any way to find out for sure?

 

[Lone Primate]

but that white stone suggests to me that it was built before 1920's because they would have used cement in the 1930's and on. there are bridges in the area from the 1920's made from cement.

that looks to be the same type of stone they used for bridges in the late 1800's and early 1900's. it looks to be the same stone that was used on the queen street railway bridge near the dufferin jog.

is there any way to find out for sure?

Tough assignment. I don't know who'd know for sure. Back then you'd be looking at York Country records, I imagine. But I still don't think you'd have seen a steel structure much north of Lawrence before the 1930s, stonework notwithstanding. There was just no call for it.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Tough assignment. I don't know who'd know for sure. Back then you'd be looking at York Country records, I imagine. But I still don't think you'd have seen a steel structure much north of Lawrence before the 1930s, stonework notwithstanding. There was just no call for it.

would they build a wooden bridge on that white stone maybe? and then replace the wood with iron later on?


p.s, a recent aerial image of area from 1999 i think....

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=43.720027&lon=-79.543359&z=17.8&r=19&src=aska

 

[Lone Primate]

p.s, a recent aerial image of area from 1999 i think....

Now look at that! Isn't that something! The old original Albion Road course is still in evidence, but quite obviously out of service! What a kick it would have been to have walked that and photographed it. Good find!

You guys are utterly amazing.

 

[adma]

Judging by the trusswork, I wouldn't be surprised if the bridge was substantially earlier than 1930s--maybe even 19th century?

And re farmers vs "serious commerce": presuming this is an "original alignment" for Albion, it might have been a more important road than you're counting on--think of the Weston/Albion continuum as a main route from Toronto through Weston to Bolton and other points NW.

Even in rural/farm country, they didn't necessarily skimp on bridges. Remember that a rural remoteness that'd make Flindon blush didn't prevent the Sewells Rd suspension bridge being built 4 1/2 score years ago.

Besides, rattly, flimsy truss bridges were deemed obsolete even in Flindon-type locations by the 30s and perhaps substantially earlier; think of the old concrete-arch Middle Road (Sherway) bridge, from 1909 as that which set the new model...

 

[JasonParis]

Even in rural/farm country, they didn't necessarily skimp on bridges. Remember that a rural remoteness that'd make Flindon blush didn't prevent the Sewells Rd suspension bridge being built 4 1/2 score years ago.

Also, Canada/Ontario was much more rural then, so it would make sense that infrastructure of that sort would also be built in sparsely populated rural areas too.

 

[Lone Primate]

Also, Canada/Ontario was much more rural then, so it would make sense that infrastructure of that sort would also be built in sparsely populated rural areas too.

Anything's possible, but I'm disinclined to imagine the bridge was much older than the 30s. Sheppard Avenue itself still had a wooden bridge where it crossed the West Don in the First World War. Huge main roads in Mississauga like Eglinton Avenue and Burnhamthorpe Road didn't even cross the Credit whatsoever until the 1960s and 1970s respectively. Steeles didn't cross the Humber till 1983! I don't doubt there was some kind of Humber crossing, but my feeling is the steel bridge is probably more recent.

 

[adma]

Perhaps remember that rather than going by the "huge main road" matrix of today, we should try and examine what were deemed major rural arteries in the pre-highway era. And I suspect Albion (which, significantly, did *not* follow the concession grid) was one of them--don't know whether it was a plank road or toll road or whatever, but it was major enough (as a logical part of the Weston Road continuum t/w Woodbridge, Bolton, etc NW of Toronto) that a stagecoach-friendly metal truss doesn't seem out of the question at this location...

Eglinton, Burnhamthorpe, Sheppard, Steeles--all "just" concession roads. Their present major-artery status is deceiving.

 

[Lone Primate]

Perhaps remember that rather than going by the "huge main road" matrix of today, we should try and examine what were deemed major rural arteries in the pre-highway era. And I suspect Albion (which, significantly, did *not* follow the concession grid) was one of them

That's actually usually a disincentive. Older roads that deviate from the grid pattern (aside from curving to avoid obstacles like valleys, river bends, and so on) usually begin life as private concerns... a long driveway to someone's home/business that survives the concern itself, an easement that's never successfully challenged, or something following an Indian trail that's convenient for its directness. It's often a long time before a municipality will take responsibility for it (or ANYTHING they didn't legally have to); even today such things are called "unassumed" roads. They're on private property and aren't the direct responsibility of any government. A notable instance of this is Dawes Road in East York. It was only grudgingly adopted by civil administration; before that, it was use at your own risk. Lots of our "public" streets actually started life this way. I don't know if Albion was among them, but what I mean to say is that simply because something looks, or even was, of importance isn't necessarily to say a government was initially financially behind it. The upkeep of even the concession roads of the main grid was once the responsibility of the adjacent properties and an obligation of settlement.

 

[adma]

That's actually usually a disincentive. Older roads that deviate from the grid pattern (aside from curving to avoid obstacles like valleys, river bends, and so on) usually begin life as private concerns... a long driveway to someone's home/business that survives the concern itself, an easement that's never successfully challenged, or something following an Indian trail that's convenient for its directness. It's often a long time before a municipality will take responsibility for it (or ANYTHING they didn't legally have to); even today such things are called "unassumed" roads. They're on private property and aren't the direct responsibility of any government. A notable instance of this is Dawes Road in East York. It was only grudgingly adopted by civil administration; before that, it was use at your own risk. Lots of our "public" streets actually started life this way. I don't know if Albion was among them, but what I mean to say is that simply because something looks, or even was, of importance isn't necessarily to say a government was initially financially behind it. The upkeep of even the concession roads of the main grid was once the responsibility of the adjacent properties and an obligation of settlement.

For every Dawes, there's a Dundas or Weston. And Albion's more Dundas/Weston than Dawes.

Besides, your description more befits "early settlement" than, we may safely assume, a solidly post-Confederation era; nor does it allow for flukes, variables, etc, that may explain why a bridge of this scale was erected at this location at such-and-such a date--which I may assume from visual evidence is most likely pre-WWI, if not pre-c20 (and more than likely intended as permanent, rather than a Bailey-type temp measure). Why here? Well, once upon a time, this would have been part of the main road from Weston to Woodbridge, Bolton, etc. And why a steel truss rather than wood? Sometimes, that's just the way it is. You won't believe some of the weird out-of-the-way places they built trusses-with-pretensions in New York or Pennsylvania or wherever. (NB: it might also be possible that the Flindon truss came from another location--perhaps as a rail bridge?--such things happened.)

I'm going mostly by educated-guess local-history recall here; but here's a case where one might find it useful to bone up on actual local histories of Weston/Etobicoke/North York, as well as maybe a touch of engineering history (eg. David Cuming's gov't sponsored 1980s study of heritage bridges in Ontario). Flindon hasn't turned up anywhere I recall; then again, I haven't been systematically looking for it...

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

(NB: it might also be possible that the Flindon truss came from another location--perhaps as a rail bridge?--such things happened.)

the bridge uses the same type of stone as some late 1800's railway bridges in the toronto area.

 

[Lone Primate]

For every Dawes, there's a Dundas or Weston. And Albion's more Dundas/Weston than Dawes.

Why?

which I may assume from visual evidence is most likely pre-WWI, if not pre-c20

Such as?

Well, once upon a time, this would have been part of the main road from Weston to Woodbridge, Bolton, etc.

That's as may be, but that's not in and of itself proof it was a sanctioned road supported by a municipal government at the time.

And why a steel truss rather than wood? Sometimes, that's just the way it is.

That's never "just the way it is"; someone has to pony up for that. National railroads in the 19th century had the money for steel bridges; rural municipalities, generally speaking, didn't. Often, they depended on local farmers to do the work of building wooden bridges, in fact. When they did assume the responsibility for a bridge, they tended to build to cheap, and back then that was rebar and concrete. Lots of those are still around from the first thirty years of the 20th century... Pottery Road, Middle Road, Gorewood Drive, Cummer Avenue, Kirby Road... that was the model for rural bridges that were meant to last; a lot of them are still in use. Steel became a lot less expensive to use after the war, and particularly once the province got involved in financing improvements to the road system.

Another factor is that many of the smaller wooden bridges in south central Ontario were destroyed by Hurricane Hazel and had to be replaced. The bridge at Flindon predates that, but it's just the kind of thing that was put up in Hazel's wake. Often, as I've said previously, they were built with an eye to being temporary; something had to be there but the money and the population for more was still a generation in the future. Steel frame bridges were by then cheap to build, and cheap to remove (bridges like the one at Flindon tend to be removed; concrete rebar bridges don't because their materials are hard to recover and reuse).

(NB: it might also be possible that the Flindon truss came from another location--perhaps as a rail bridge?--such things happened.)

Well, as I said; cheap to remove, and easily recovered.

Flindon hasn't turned up anywhere I recall; then again, I haven't been systematically looking for it...

That's really the only way to answer the question. But so many municipalities are involved, and over such a range of time, that's it's hard to know where to look. My inclination, though, is that the bridge we see in 1950 and gone by 1962 is probably no older than the Depression.

 

[adma]

If you want "visual evidence", here it is, as originally posted

How does that look like a Depression-era bridge?

 

[Lone Primate]

If you want "visual evidence", here it is, as originally posted

How does that look like a Depression-era bridge?

Well, does the QEW look like a Depression-era highway? After all, it is. The Depression was, in fact, noted for being the initiation of a semi-command economy in North America. One of its hallmarks is the use of construction projects to enhance infrastructure as a means of redistribution of wealth, and this was particularly true in rural areas which were the hardest hit (the best example I can think of is the Tennessee Valley Authority project). Yes, that looks very much to me like a Depression-era bridge, or later, and not much like a road bridge predating the First World War.

What I was asking about, in conjunction with your statement, were hints as to the specific details about the bridge you'd noticed that typify the era of which you're suggestion it's characteristic. For example, the warning stripes on the edges of the bridge date to a standard adopted, if I'm not mistaken, in 1935. Now that doesn't mean the bridge isn't older than that (the stripes could, of course, have been applied later), but it is at least an indication of some kind of dating the bridge. That's the sort of detail I expected you were drawing your conclusions from.