This file portion of www.watertownhistory.org website
The Milwaukee Street Bridge
1889-1930: Iron Bridge
1930-2005: Concrete Arch Bridge - A Luten-designed bridge
1888
Watertown
Gazette, 07 27 1888.
Board of Street Commissioners:
Resolved, That a bridge be built
across Rock River connecting Milwaukee Street on the east side and Spring
Street on the west side of said Rock River, and that the Committee on Streets
and Bridges be and is hereby instructed to procure plans and specifications for
an iron bridge as well as for an arched stone bridge
_________________________________________________________
Article below written and contributed by Ben Feld
Page edited and annotated by Ken Riedl
It is safe to say that throughout
the first one hundred years of Watertown’s existence, things did not often
happen quickly and many things did not turn out as envisioned by the city
officials.
That was certainly true about the
bridges of Watertown. At least two were
talked about frequently and discussed in council meetings, but nothing was ever
done about them. One, the proposed
bridge from the south end of Washington Street across the river to Waldrow
Street, was seen as creating a better and more direct communication between the
city and the road leading to Jefferson.
All preliminary steps to the construction of such a bridge were taken
but the city was powerless to overcome the objection by the Chicago, Milwaukee
and St. Paul Railway company to a crossing over their tracks at the
intersection of the proposed
thoroughfare and the railroad.
All efforts to reach an agreement with the railroad had failed.
As early as 1848 a bridge from the
south (western) end of Western Avenue across the river to a yet-to-be-built
street, seemed a certainty. In fact, in
January 1849 the city council announced a 230-foot bridge would soon be
constructed at that location. With two
tracks and boarded sides, erected at a cost of $600 it would extend Western
Avenue all the way from “the Milwaukee road about one mile east of this
village,” across the river to a point 18 rods west of the river where it would
intersect with the road leading to Aztalan, a road which was to be opened the
summer of 1849.
It was envisioned that, with the
building of the bridge, Western Avenue would
attract retail establishments and that a beautiful, wide thoroughfare would
become the commercial street for the city.
But that was not to be. The
street was soon recognized as an ideal residential area, land speculators
entered the picture and soon the lots became too high-priced for retail shops
and, with the exception of one or two corner groceries, it became a residential
street with no great need for a bridge to tie them to the farmland west of the
river.
With the coming of the railroad in
1855 it became apparent that the Main
Street bridge and the Cady Street bridge
were neither adequate nor properly located to handle the traffic from west of
the river to the depot. What was needed
was a by-pass, as it were. But it took
33 years for any action to be taken.
In July, 1888, the city council
resolved to build another bridge, this one connecting Milwaukee Street on the
east side with Spring Street on the west side (name of street before West
Spring Street being renamed West Milwaukee) and the committee on streets and
bridges was instructed to procure plans and specifications for an iron bridge
as well as for an arched stone bridge.
1889
Acting on the recommendations of
that committee, the city council, a few months later, opted for an “iron
bridge” and requested the contractors begin construction as soon as
possible. When no material had arrived
by mid-January, 1889, alderman Racek paid the Milwaukee company a visit and
learned they had been unable to procure the necessary iron from Pittsburgh but
they would have it by January 25. It
finally did arrive the second week in February and the building of the long
anticipated bridge began. On April 6 the
bridge was finished, tested and accepted by the city, the Watertown Gazette declaring it “a fine piece of work, the best
bridge in the city, and the least expensive, size and style considered.”
The new bridge proved a boon for the
townspeople and farmers from west of the river.
No longer was it necessary for heavily loaded wagons to travel through
the business section of town, with its notoriously muddy streets, on their way
to the elevators, which were now much more accessible. The disappointment of not having the use of a
bridge at the foot of Western Avenue was alleviated. The Jefferson County board of supervisors
showed their appreciation for the convenience seven months after the bridge was
opened to traffic by appropriating $300 for the purpose of improving the
approaches to the new bridge.
Watertown had existed nearly half a
century as a city before this new iron bridge became a reality; would the
bridge give them trouble-free service for the next half-century? Hardly!
Even with our sophisticated engineering and construction today,
pavements and bridges do deteriorate.
Within seven years the planking on this bridge had deteriorated
alarmingly, as a farmer named Zimmer learned one Sunday in August, 1896, when
his horse stepped through a rotting plank and only with great difficulty was it
extricated without serious injury. It
was revealed then that it had been common knowledge for some time that the
bridge had been in poor condition for some time and extensive repairs were
needed. Similar repairs were made many
times during the next 35 years.
1929
Watertown was jolted from its
complacency over the permanency of the truss-work of the iron bridge the
morning of February 4, 1929 when a truck driver informed the city officials
that one of the main beams had dropped from a foot to a foot and a half. Traffic on the bridge was immediately halted
and an inspection was made; an inspection which revealed that rust had put the
bridge in an alarmingly poor condition, “in some cases the ironwork was holding
only by a small margin”.
Now the city council had its hands
full; bids on the new Main Street bridge were in the process of being
considered; a new high school building was being proposed; the office of an
assistant in the city street department was being vacated and a new one needed
to be employed; a new ordinance fixing the salaries of certain city officials
was being enacted; and now it was necessary to consider the repair or
replacement of the Milwaukee Street bridge.
Everything nailed down was coming loose!
But first things first.
The city council lost no time in
securing the Otto Biefeld Company to make temporary repairs and in just two
days, on February 7, 1929, the bridge was again open to traffic.
During the next fifteen months the
council argued the pros and cons of repairing the bridge versus replacing
it. In June, 1930, they decided to
replace the floor of the bridge at a cost of $1200 knowing this was only a
stop-gap move and anticipating the complete replacement of the bridge in a very
few years, which a subsequent report from the state engineers deemed
necessary. That report included the good
news that the present stone foundations were good and could be used for a new
bridge. It also suggested that two plate
girder spans to fit the present foundations could be designed and that these
would make a suitable and durable bridge and would result in a great saving of
money to the city instead of building an entirely new substructure and
superstructure. The report also
reiterated what had been pointed out to the council when temporary repairs were
discussed, that it would be necessary to post signs as to maximum speed of traffic
loads passing over it and that for heavy traffic it would be unsafe The necessity of such action became evident
when the old floor was torn up and the deplorable condition of the substructure
became clear. Most of the aldermen, and
Mayor Lutovsky, who at that time was being attacked from all sides for
mismanagement of his office, agreed that in light of repair work being “wasted
economy”, a new bridge made more monetary sense.
1930
It was a forgone conclusion that, at
the council meeting of July 1, 1930, plans for a new bridge would be formally
lost when a resolution authorizing the board of public works to proceed with
the preparation of plans and specifications for a new span would be voted
on. The results were as anticipated. Then came the task of selecting an engineer
to prepare these preliminary plans and specifications. The selection of E. B. Parson, 419 North
Washington Street seemed to please all.
The depressing news that the cost of
the span was estimated to be $35,000 (this being less than 9 months before
Black Tuesday, the day when the stock
market crashed setting off the Great Depression which lasted for a decade) was
somewhat tempered by the statement of “one well known contractor” that this was
the ideal time for bridges and other municipal projects to be built, because
contractors on the whole were not busy;
“…labor can be had freely and
costs as a result will be reduced in such instances.” He declared that when bids for $35,000
projects are received, the actual cost would be nearly 15 per cent less.
Not unexpectedly, preparations for
replacing the condemned bridge did not proceed smoothly. Whereas it was generally supposed that a
concrete structure would be in order, several members of the council favored
another iron bridge and their proposal to secure figures on such a structure
delayed progress another six weeks.
After hearing nothing from the iron bridge company, Worden-Allen of
Milwaukee, for nearly six weeks, Mayor Lutovsky finally gave them just three
days to submit estimates for an iron span as, he claimed, “not much more time
can be wasted if the work is to be completed this winter.”
The three-day time limit given by
the mayor the last week of July was not observed by Worden-Allen. The deadline was extended to August 19, at
which time the mayor called a special meeting of the council (notice being
served that afternoon to all aldermen via the police department). Should the requested figures not be available
by meeting time, the mayor announced, a concrete structure would be selected by
default as time was of the essence, especially when it was acknowledged that
after the decision was made it would take another three weeks before bids could
be accepted for consideration.
Three sets of plans and specifications
were approved at that meeting; those from E. Parsons of Watertown, those from
Worden-Allen, and an unsolicited set of plans from Daniel B. Luten of
Indianapolis for a concrete open arch bridge, a concept with which the city
council was not very familiar. All three
plans were accepted and the preliminary work relating to the official call for
bids was put into action. It was
expected it would be at least six weeks before the board of public works would
be in a position to report on the figures submitted by bidders.
The unsolicited plans from designer
Luten came with the assurance that the city was not to be charged “one cent”
for the plans , not now or in the event he were to succeed in getting the
contract for the construction of his proposed bridge. In the event of some other construction firm
were to bet the contract on the Luten plans, that contractor would be permitted
to use the full set of plans and specifications and all other copyrighted data
relating to it paying for the use of such designs. The Watertown
Daily Times of August 20, 1930, stated that “in the event the successful
bidder bids $35,000 for the bridge that is all it will cost the city, there
being no extra charge to the city for the Luten plans”. Luten’s representative assured the city
council that the plan has been carried out successfully in other cities and had
worked out very satisfactorily. The
council was much impressed with the 46-page booklet, containing views of
bridges designed by Mr. Luten and giving information concerning them, which was
shown to the council.
It was the general agreement that
work on the new bridge could not possibly begin before the middle of September
and it would take from three and a half to four months to construct the new
span. It was estimated that the costs of
the three sets of plans and specifications for the bridge would cost $1500 or
less depending on the amount to be paid E. Parsons, whose contract called for a
payment of three per cent of the total bridge cost but limited to no more than
$900.
In the midst of consideration of the
fee to be paid for plans and specifications for the Milwaukee Street bridge,
the $400 fee paid for similar work on the North Fourth Street bridge was
brought into question. It was hinted
that some chicanery was involved some years ago when the city engineer had
invited the former engineer for the state highway commission to conduct a
survey of the city’s bridges and found, to everyone’s surprise, that the North
Fourth Street bridge had to be replaced at once.
The bids from 14 contractors were
opened in the council room crowded with spectators and contractors the night of
September 4, 1930. Twenty-six bids had
been received on the three types of structures.
The lowest bid filed was for the steel bridge designed by the
Worden-Allen company. It was for $31,000
which was only 11.5%, not 15% less than the predicted $35,000 as estimated by
“a well-known contractor” in July. The bids
revealed that 12 contractors were interested in constructing a concrete girder
bridge, while 8 favored the concrete arch and only 6 the steel bridge. Two local contractors entered bids: George C.
Lehman submitted only one bid, an even $35,000 on the concrete girder type,
while Maas Bros. entered a bid for all three types, theirs being the third
lowest bid for the concrete arch, the Luten design, which had met with immense
favor among officials.
When the council meeting convened
Friday, September 5, there was no doubt the contract would be awarded to the
Eau Claire Construction Company but since they had bid the same amount of
$30,800 for both the concrete arch type bridge designed by Mr. Luten, and the
concrete girder type designed by E. B. Parsons of Watertown, the concrete
girder type, a decision had to be made - would the new Milwaukee Street bridge
be concrete arch type or concrete girder type?
By unanimous vote the contract for the concrete arch type bridge was
awarded to the Eau Claire contractor using Mr. Luten’s design, the contractor
announcing that work would begin on Monday, September 8 with the tearing down
of the present structure.
A foot bridge, they announced, would
be built across the river south of the old bridge and at a lower level using
the old span to permit pedestrians to pass while the new structure was in the
building. The company was allotting 100
working days for the completion of the work making the target date for opening
the bridge to traffic early December.
The railing on the bridge, it was decided, were not to be placed until
spring weather arrive, temporary railings to be placed during the winter
weather. The final date for completion,
which included the placing of the railings, was set as
A few days after the commencement of
the work, the Watertown Daily Times,
in an uncharacteristically jovial tone carried this item:
The Milwaukee Street Bridge is being
torn down and now the wreckers have gone to it with vim and vigor the old
structure seems to have been in a more deplorable condition the most
pessimistic reports indicated. The other night the question arose in the
council about what is to be done with the old bridge and that is to be left to
the contractor. Just so long as they don’t
haul it to the Seventh ward dump everything will be O. K. They have been
hauling everything else there from wrecked automobiles to dead horses, so a
bridge wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for that monstrosity.
WDT
Construction proceeded at a steady
and rapid pace during September and the first week in October when rain caused
a short cessation of works. The concrete
slab was poured the third week in October and after three weeks of setting the
bridge was ready for traffic. As had
been agreed upon previously, the erection of the side rails was still being
postponed until the arrival of warm weather in the spring. Lee E. Williams, bridge expert for the Luten
engineering enterprise, which provided the plans, and specifications for the
structure had been on the scene from time to time watching the progress of the
work. Unofficially he had inspected the
The last of the concrete was poured
October 18, which, allowing for sufficient time for the concrete to set, was
expected to make it possible to have the bridge ready for use on Thanksgiving
Day. Unusually favorable weather
permitted a change in plans and it was decided to install the permanent
railing, the casting of which was to begin by October 22.
Tuesday night,
At the meeting of the city council that
night $6,300 of the remaining amount due the contractor, was paid, the balance
of $500 being held for 30 days in accordance with the usual custom.
Allegations of mismanagement on the
part of the mayor surfaced at that meeting, as they had at many previous
meetings. Alderman Carey asserted that
representatives of 132 railroad men who lived in the city had told him that the
railroads had been slighted and that trucks had been used to bring the material
into the city instead of the trains. The
mayor replied that he had the word of the men in charge of the bridge
construction that all material for the bridge had been brought in by railroad
with the exception of the cement. He
added that the material brought in by train was said to have constituted a major
portion and included lumber, steel and other materials used in the bridge. No further mention is made of these
allegations in subsequent issues of the Watertown
Daily Times.
It is interesting to note that the
first Milwaukee Street bridge served the city for 41 years; the present bridge
has, at this writing (2005) served for a little over 75 years but, admittedly
is beginning to show her age.
Maybe it is time to rethink the
all-too-common indictment, “They don’t build them (bridges) like they used to.”
Maybe they build them
better.
Image Portfolio
Click to enlarge
Looking north
c1909 Looking south c1909 The Iron Bridge, 1911
from Milw
Bridge from Milw Bridge
NEW: Have photo
of 1930 construction of bridge (WHS_006_Semrich_020)
Cross-References:
No 1: Engineering record, Library of Congress: [ 1 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ]
No 2: Pictorial record, c1940, Library of
Congress: [ 1 ]
[ 2 ]
[ 3 ]
No 3:
Watertown Daily Times, 2005
article
No 4:
Daniel B. Luten of Indianapolis, Indiana, began patenting reinforced
concrete bridge designs in 1899, and his national network of companies,
established after 1905, was important to the popularization of reinforced
concrete bridges throughout the United States. The Luten Bridge Company of York
was founded about 1909 by John and Alexander Whittaker who worked under a
licensing agreement with Luten. The company sought bridge building contracts
around the world. Luten was one of the
nation's most important civil engineers.
A former Purdue engineering professor, he held more patents than anyone
else for the use of reinforced concrete. By 1920, his Indianapolis firm had
designed or built more than 17,000 bridges worldwide. Luten was part of a new generation of
professionals, applying invention in terms of concrete design to make it
efficient and economical.
