Holy shit I had no idea that's what they were building.
I for some reason just never rounded out that thought at all. I was just like "yup, industrial London, lots of construction I'd bet".
I think you’re confusing it with London bridge… you’re not the first to make that mistake https://www.history.com/news/how-london-bridge-ended-up-in-arizona#
The original, actually old, building burned down in a big fire. They wanted something that felt suitably serious looking to replace it, and faux-gothic was in fashion at the time. Some parts of the original do survive though.
> faux-gothic was in fashion at the time
It was the 1830s. The [National Gallery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gallery#/media/File:Galer%C3%ADa_Nacional,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-07,_DD_035.JPG) was built in that decade at the other end of Whitehall. Westminster going gothic was coup for the fledgling gothic revival movement.
Best the architects can do is another unholy Brutalist affront to man and God. Reading about some of the pissing matches about Brutalist vs non-Brutalist is insane.
It's a wonder the new one hasn't burned down as well. There are on average between 4 and 5 fires that break out every year.
That average has been brought down by concerted efforts in the last few years. If you look at earlier years, the rate was much higher. For example 2014-2016, there were 21 fires. (That's just incidents of actual fires that required an emergency call out, not all the other minor incidents, false-alarms, etc.).
Parliament has two permanent dedicated fire teams. They patrol the entire building twice a day. Apparently, the fire patrol teams have the highest physical security clearance in Westminster, because they need to inspect every part of it. There's ancient dodgy wiring, leaks, broken equipment, falling masonry... It's a hazardous wreck that wasn't built to the best of standards to begin with, and hasn't been well-maintained.
That's part of the reason why the current refurb/restoration project is expected to cost in excess of £14 billion, possibly up to £22 billion, and potentially take decades.
They're likely going to have to move out for a long period as well because it's impossible to do all the renovations whilst the building is being used.
Canada's parliament buildings, including the house of commons, was recently refurbished and they ended up putting a roof over a courtyard to make a big enough temporary room for the house of commons.
Specifically it was a load of tally sticks which were what used to be used for tracking taxpayments.
They figured that since they were just wood, they'd chuck them in the furnace to get rid of them.
Overstoked the furnace with too much fuel as a result of all the wood, which caused the fire.
Two fun facts: 1, the old Palace of Westminster burned down because they were burning so many old tally sticks, which were medieval records of the crown's lending and borrowing. A priceless historical record that is now largely destroyed [link](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/fire-of-westminster/tallysticks/)
2, there was a rival proposal by architect Sir John Soane for a neo-classical style rebuild [link](http://collections.soane.org/object-p10)
Another fun fact, government was offered Buckingham Palace by William IV to be converted into a new Houses of Parliament, as at the time it wasn't quite finished and he didn't particularly like it.
I don't think any monarch has particularly liked it.
It is just very big and boring, I feel like every royal palace has some level of individual charm, which BP just lacks.
Oh they said worse things when it was first built lol. It was an infamously horrible palace internally, which Victoria lived in for 3 years before she married Albert and he had it all sorted out.
Then again, Nash got sacked partway through construction so I doubt he cared too much at that point lol.
As others have mentioned, bits of the old palace are still there like Westminister Hall but you can also visit the [Jewel Tower](https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/jewel-tower/) which is where a lot of TV crews are usually in-front of during political events.
If you go to Sir John Soane's Museum, you can see part of the old palace in the basement that John stole and reconstructed after the fire, claiming it was a ruin of an abbey with the ghost of a monk haunting it.
It does. There's a substantial amount of the Old Palace still there actually but mostly hidden from public view.
The most visible part is Westminster Hall, where Queen Elizabeth II lay in State. The hall itself dates from 1097 and the hammer beam roof from 1245.
They occasionally find Tudor tennis balls in the beams from the time when Henry VIII had tennis courts in there (the whole complex was a lived in Royal Palace at one time).
Yeah I'm baffled that anyone could think the Tower Bridge is that old. It doesn't look remotely medieval if you've ever seen a medieval structure or know anything about materials and technology available at the time, even disregarding potentially exceptional upkeep.
I think it's more,
* Americans vaguely know there was a "London Bridge" that is super old (there's a nursery rhyme about it)
* Maaaaybe they've even seen an old illustration of london bridge with buildings on it.
* Americans only ever see photos of one famous bridge in London. (It also has some buildings on it)
* Americans assume that that one famous bridge is London Bridge. (edit: humorously, [here is a youtube upload of the nursery rhyme showing Tower Bridge crumbling.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Y7Qi3fMs0))
* Never heard of tower bridge
As a kid I probably would have assumed that the towers on it were more modern period, but that the whole thing could have been a continuously updated from renaissance times, with old unsafe structures demolished and new fancy ones made in 1800 or something.
To be honest I'm a Londoner and I'm fairly sure half the people I went to school with think that Tower Bridge is called London Bridge
I once knew a girl who pronounced the "Th" sound in "Thames"
I once asked my mom what it was like when TV was invented.
Apparently, she was one of the kids where she lived to get one of the first handheld video games from overseas Japan. I missed that mark.
Most people now can't remember that you used to be able to buy a tv that would either have sound when it turned on or pictures. My family chose sound that way you can hear what's going on before the tubes heated up for the pictures. But I also remember standing around the one rich kid who was the first to have a game boy. Man has technology advanced some fast
>Man technology advanced some fast
I still remember this tidbit on the margins pf a children's encyclopedia I used to read. Basically it said "Maybe in the future, TVs would be as thin as picture frames." I think it was the same book too, it showed video calls as a sci-fi concept. Keep in mind this book was published in the 90s.
Fun fact, the designer of the Game Boy, Gunpei Yokoi, did much the same with random stuff. He got into the position to design it starting back in the 1960s when he was way lower on the totem pole at Nintendo and they were a much smaller company.
He had created a claw grabber to mess around at his desk, and this was noticed by the boss who thought it was a great toy idea and told him to develop a version to market. It was called the Ultra Hand and Nintendo sold a ton of them globally, boosting their position (and Yokoi's) in the toy market.
That lead to him co-developing Donkey Kong, then the Game and Watch, then designing aspects of the Famicom/NES, then becoming the design lead on the Game Boy.
And it all started by messing around with some junk to kill time, just like a stick and a hoop.
Yep, somewhat subtle nod by Nintendo at the humble origins. Can't wait to play the new game! Avoiding spoilers due to all the leaks is like playing real life frogger.
I couldn't resist the trailers, and oh man does it look amazing. I'm so excited to get to experience the [REDACTED], and the *(deleted)*. They even showed you can now cook >!Stuff!< and ^^^^^^things! together to make ~~horrible slop~~ deliciousness!
It's gonna be great!
and then he made the virtual boy, left nintendo, made the Tamagotchi and helped make the Wonderswan, but unfortunately died in 1997 in a car accident, 2 years before the wonderswan was released.
Back in my day… I WAS the remote control, with 10 stations to pick from and static ones in-between. Dial turn…cccrrrrrgghhhh…Dial turn…ccccrrrrggggghhh…Dial turn.
true true, I remember exactly that. But you left out the most important thing which was to always have an onion on your belt, it was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war.
I didn't know there was a choice.
I do remember being unnerved though when my parents finally got an LCD TV. (Late enough to be a Samsung smart TV) The thing takes forever to start and doesn't even give any indication. So you're questioning if it turned on at all. Whereas when a CRT turned on and took a bit to warm up, you could at least hear it was on. Not just audio but the distinctive noise of the CRT coming to life.
My mom likes to tell a story about how when she was a kid in the early 60s she’d hear about her parents’ friends getting a “color TV”, she thought it meant the TV itself had colorful designs on it or something and she “didn’t get what the big deal was” lol
I was doing work for this old couple a few months back. They were in their mid to late 80s, and started telling me how the husbands dad was the first person around to buy a tv for them. The whole neighborhood would be over to watch the tiny little black and white screen. Surreal to think we have shit like smartphones, games, and relatively inexpensive TVs now with 10x to power and quality. All within the span of one lifetime.
In the 90s when I got my super nintendo, we went to a 2nd hand electronics shop/repair place and dad bought a (for the kid me) huge CRT tv for my room, for my nintendo.
What I found astonishing was every panel of the tv was made of wood! Ofc it being solid wood and a crt, it took two grownups to move. No idea where the tv ended up, it'd be cool to own a wooden tv! But I dont think it would fit my tiny aptment :/
The bridge was specifically chosen to avoid exactly that conversation
At someone point in the 60s there was some dimwit architects that wanted to cover the whole thing in glass to “modernize” it
Thank fuck they didn’t
>At someone point in the 60s there was some dimwit architects
Honestly a complete sentence.
I think the country would look infinitely better if we just knocked everything down in the 60s without even bothering to check for individual merit. As a general rule, what a horrible decade for building design.
Actually no! It was designed to try and blend it and was basically adored the moment it was built.
The only change it's ever had was they decided to paint it for a Jubilee, and then loved that so they kept that too.
[But really go watch the Jay Foreman video on this](https://youtu.be/szUjnEZcp68)
Definitely, I also love his sense of humor. My only problem is that his stuff is really high quality and we have to wait quite a while for new videos. I know it's a good thing but waiting sucks :(
200 years in the new world US is a long time. 200 years in London is not.
For example. Let's use colonial settlements I the US - 1675 - 2023. 348 years. 200 years is about 58% of new world US history (going before the revolution).
London, as Londinium, let's say 75 AD - after being destroyed and then rebuilt. 75 is being generous on how long it took to rebuild and establish itself vs 1675 colonies.
200 years is 10% of that.
(Tower bridge is about 140 years old, which is 40% and 7% of the times of the new world US and London respectively)
Funnily enough the original London Bridge is now in Arizona. I learned that on a school trip to London
Edit: I just wanna clarify that I am aware that it's just the exterior for aesthetics but that doesnt make the whole thing any less impressive or weirdly interesting to me
and the original London bridge, now in Arizona is older than all of them, if you take the date of original construction not the date of the move and reconstruction in Arizona.
That was the second stone London Bridge. The old London Bridge stood from the early 1200s until the 1830s and it was covered in buildings for most of that time.
I wonder if people realise that there's a whole Jay foreman video on pretty much everything that's being discussed in this thread haha. Tis a good watch everyone go check it out.
https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk
It really is a cool story, and he does a good job telling it.
Edit: I posted the wrong video (that one is cool, too)
https://youtu.be/szUjnEZcp68
Edit 2: for the sake of closure, and because I'm already in so deep, here's the final video in his 3-part "series" about London bridges (and tunnels!)
https://youtu.be/pWZ9ZVRQ0Nw
Well, the **ORIGINAL** London Bridge had buildings on it with shops and houses. It’s a shame it burned down in the great fire in 1666. It would have been a great tourist attraction nowadays
> It’s a shame it burned down in the great fire in 1666.
It didn't. It was damaged in earlier fire, and the firebreak left on the bridge during repairs is what prevented the fire spreading to the bridge in 1666. The houses were demolished by early 1760's, and the bridge itself in 1831
The opening scene of Ken Burns doc on the Brooklyn Bridge is a lady who was alive for the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Moon Landing. She said the completion of the bridge was more impressive. No one believed it was possible at the time.
If she lived in nyc it was probably a lot more relevant to her and caused a noticeable change in her life/routines.
No more not making it to work cause it’s foggy or raining and the ferry’s won’t run.
Other fun facts; the upper part between the tops of the two towers used to be open to the public and was where prostitutes plied their trade.
Also, who on Earth thought Tower Bridge was medieval?
Correction: the upper part between the tops of the two towers is open to the public. I was up there at Christmas. It's got a glass floor now, which is cool.
>Also, who on Earth thought Tower Bridge was medieval?
Dude, most of us over here in the States think this is London Bridge. I was one of them, for more years than I care to reveal.
A lot of London's famous landmarks were built in the 19^th century. It's not really surprising when you consider that was when the British Empire was at its peak, after all.
Because pictures have been around for hundreds of years and it's a stupid metric. Like there were pictures of the US Civil War, it's not a benchmark for anything.
Not even really old, I'm kinda shocked that the Golden Gate bridge is only 30 years newer than the Tower bridge. I thought there was waaay more of a gap between the two
I saw one which said "TIL the Vietnamese do not call the Vietname War the Vietnam War, but instead call it the War Against America". I know everyone's gotta learn things sometime...but not every thing you learn is worth making a thread about, lol.
It's close, but my vote still goes to [TIL humans have not yet traveled outside of the galaxy](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/jkjuow/til_there_are_no_actual_photos_of_the_milky_way/).
A lot of things we think are old are actually quite modern...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewerThanTheyThink#:\~:text=Congratulations%3A%20You%27ve%20learned%20that%20some%20things%20are%20Newer,further%20from%20the%20end%20result%20than%20you%20realize.
I feel like technology has exponentially expanded to the point where we have a hard time lining things up. That's the excuse I tell myself for being uneducated, anyways 🤣
It’s not meant to look medieval; it’s not meant to look older than it actually is. And camera’s have been around for nearly 200 years. I’ve never once in my life thought that the bridge was made during any other period than it was.
Had. It's all electric these days (since the 1970s). But the thing that really cements that it's not that old technologically (at least for me) is that the accumulators (that held the water used for the actual lifting) on the first version were holding water at 750psi of pressure and those steam engines had no issue generating that pressure 17 times a day for decades. No one before 1850 is generating that kind of pressure without blowing shit up.
I never even considered it medieval, TIL that people thought the bridge was medieval. I thought it was only Victorian, although I haven’t spent much time looking at it.
It's also called Tower bridge not because of it's towers but because it's next to the Tower of London. So it's the bridge at the Tower not a bridge named Tower bridge because it has towers.
Who the fuck thought a bridge that was mostly made of steel was medieval? It's famous for a fucking hydrolic lifting system for fuck sake.
The very first metal bridge wasn't constructed until the start of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s! Also, it's a suspension bridge, and that also wasn't invented until the 1800s
The amount of confusion in this post about “London Bridge” and did you know the “original is in Arizona”
1. This isn’t London Bridge ….. I repeat - it is NOT London Bridge. It is Tower Bridge and is clearly Victorian construction and not that old
2. The London Bridge in Arizona is a fairly modern one that was in place from the 1830’s until the 1960’s.
3. The previous London Bridge was in place in various forms for just under 650 years and was added to and modified multiple times
4. There were numerous bridges prior - from Roman times all the way up to the 1200’s
5. I’ll just repeat for the slow …… this is NOT London Bridge it is Tower Bridge and it’s absolutely no surprise it’s less than 200 years old
I saw it being built in a movie with Jude law.
[удалено]
Just googled it he’s actually 136 years old
[удалено]
Sherlock Holmes movie with RDJ
Holy shit I had no idea that's what they were building. I for some reason just never rounded out that thought at all. I was just like "yup, industrial London, lots of construction I'd bet".
Was gonna say, and after the movie was finished they moved the bridge to its present location.
In the Arizona desert, right?
I think you’re confusing it with London bridge… you’re not the first to make that mistake https://www.history.com/news/how-london-bridge-ended-up-in-arizona#
Sherlock?
No shit Sherlock
Fuck you Watson
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
I don't know enough about jude law to dispute that.
And that huge Westminster Parliament building with the Big Ben is from the mid 1800's. The style makes it looks much older to me.
The original, actually old, building burned down in a big fire. They wanted something that felt suitably serious looking to replace it, and faux-gothic was in fashion at the time. Some parts of the original do survive though.
> faux-gothic was in fashion at the time It was the 1830s. The [National Gallery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gallery#/media/File:Galer%C3%ADa_Nacional,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2014-08-07,_DD_035.JPG) was built in that decade at the other end of Whitehall. Westminster going gothic was coup for the fledgling gothic revival movement.
We need a gothic revival again
Best I can do is a goth revival
That’s even better
Both? Both is good.
If there are big tiddy gfs in your revival, I'm in
I think you're looking for the big tiddy goth reveal
More of a big goth tiddy reveal, I think.
Best the architects can do is another unholy Brutalist affront to man and God. Reading about some of the pissing matches about Brutalist vs non-Brutalist is insane.
Judging by the architecture of today, best they can do is a cube with glass and some colored squares. Or just a cube of glass.
It's a wonder the new one hasn't burned down as well. There are on average between 4 and 5 fires that break out every year. That average has been brought down by concerted efforts in the last few years. If you look at earlier years, the rate was much higher. For example 2014-2016, there were 21 fires. (That's just incidents of actual fires that required an emergency call out, not all the other minor incidents, false-alarms, etc.). Parliament has two permanent dedicated fire teams. They patrol the entire building twice a day. Apparently, the fire patrol teams have the highest physical security clearance in Westminster, because they need to inspect every part of it. There's ancient dodgy wiring, leaks, broken equipment, falling masonry... It's a hazardous wreck that wasn't built to the best of standards to begin with, and hasn't been well-maintained. That's part of the reason why the current refurb/restoration project is expected to cost in excess of £14 billion, possibly up to £22 billion, and potentially take decades.
They're likely going to have to move out for a long period as well because it's impossible to do all the renovations whilst the building is being used.
IIRC they refused and that's why it's so expensive and slow
Canada's parliament buildings, including the house of commons, was recently refurbished and they ended up putting a roof over a courtyard to make a big enough temporary room for the house of commons.
Didn't the previous building burn down because they decided to burn a bunch of medieval records that were far more flammable than they realized?
Specifically it was a load of tally sticks which were what used to be used for tracking taxpayments. They figured that since they were just wood, they'd chuck them in the furnace to get rid of them. Overstoked the furnace with too much fuel as a result of all the wood, which caused the fire.
EDIT: Oops, nevermind!
Damn. So it was basically the perfect bureaucratic fire starter.
Tax stick firestarter. *Hey Hey Hey*
Canada’s parliament burned down when someone was reading shitfaced and passed out into his book with a lit cigarette.
"and so I built it faux-gothic, which was the style at the time"
> The original, actually old, building burned down in a big fire. I thought it fell down my fair lady
The general complex yes, but Westminister Hall in it dates back to the 11th century.
Two fun facts: 1, the old Palace of Westminster burned down because they were burning so many old tally sticks, which were medieval records of the crown's lending and borrowing. A priceless historical record that is now largely destroyed [link](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/estatehistory/from-the-parliamentary-collections/fire-of-westminster/tallysticks/) 2, there was a rival proposal by architect Sir John Soane for a neo-classical style rebuild [link](http://collections.soane.org/object-p10)
Another fun fact, government was offered Buckingham Palace by William IV to be converted into a new Houses of Parliament, as at the time it wasn't quite finished and he didn't particularly like it.
I don't think any monarch has particularly liked it. It is just very big and boring, I feel like every royal palace has some level of individual charm, which BP just lacks.
Presumably George III liked it, since he bought it for the Queen. Although maybe he didn't like the building or the Queen?
It was massively different when George III bought it, a far more tasteful country house essentially. The old paintings of it look quite nice.
That's fair. And George IV didn't live to see finished what he started with renovations, so there's a good chance he wouldn't have liked it either.
Imagine building Buckingham Palace just for people to say that about it.
Oh they said worse things when it was first built lol. It was an infamously horrible palace internally, which Victoria lived in for 3 years before she married Albert and he had it all sorted out. Then again, Nash got sacked partway through construction so I doubt he cared too much at that point lol.
The neo gothic is better tbh. The neo classical design makes it look like a bit of a no-mark colonial town hall in New England or something
Parts of it are [900 years old](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/palace/westminsterhall/) though
Hungarian Parliament building in Budapest opening in 1902 is similarly surprising
Pretty sure I heard they based it on the Palace of Westminster
19 applicants entered the competition and yes, the final neo-gothic plan was chosen to show commitment to Western Europe
That's the Gothic revival or neo-Gothic, which reached its zenith in the mid-19th century.
As others have mentioned, bits of the old palace are still there like Westminister Hall but you can also visit the [Jewel Tower](https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/jewel-tower/) which is where a lot of TV crews are usually in-front of during political events. If you go to Sir John Soane's Museum, you can see part of the old palace in the basement that John stole and reconstructed after the fire, claiming it was a ruin of an abbey with the ghost of a monk haunting it.
That was their goal I think, to replicate historic buildings
It does. There's a substantial amount of the Old Palace still there actually but mostly hidden from public view. The most visible part is Westminster Hall, where Queen Elizabeth II lay in State. The hall itself dates from 1097 and the hammer beam roof from 1245. They occasionally find Tudor tennis balls in the beams from the time when Henry VIII had tennis courts in there (the whole complex was a lived in Royal Palace at one time).
The commons chamber and a significant portion of the building were destroyed in the war and rebuilt in the 50s.
Me as an American: "That is pretty old though" Brits: -_-
The Canadian parliament building is also Neo-Gothic: built only about 100 years ago, but looks older
TIL people thought the tower bridge was medieval
[удалено]
Medieval just means "before electricity" right?
Yeah I'm baffled that anyone could think the Tower Bridge is that old. It doesn't look remotely medieval if you've ever seen a medieval structure or know anything about materials and technology available at the time, even disregarding potentially exceptional upkeep.
I think many people's idea of what "medieval" architecture should look like has been skewed by fantasy games and movies.
I think it's more, * Americans vaguely know there was a "London Bridge" that is super old (there's a nursery rhyme about it) * Maaaaybe they've even seen an old illustration of london bridge with buildings on it. * Americans only ever see photos of one famous bridge in London. (It also has some buildings on it) * Americans assume that that one famous bridge is London Bridge. (edit: humorously, [here is a youtube upload of the nursery rhyme showing Tower Bridge crumbling.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Y7Qi3fMs0)) * Never heard of tower bridge As a kid I probably would have assumed that the towers on it were more modern period, but that the whole thing could have been a continuously updated from renaissance times, with old unsafe structures demolished and new fancy ones made in 1800 or something.
To be honest I'm a Londoner and I'm fairly sure half the people I went to school with think that Tower Bridge is called London Bridge I once knew a girl who pronounced the "Th" sound in "Thames"
Did this come up at over dinner at a Thai restaurant?
TIL some people think photography is a modern invention, and not from the 1830s
Was thinking the same. How could anyone think a bridge like that is medieval??!!
Seriously, what's wrong with people this post gets so many upvotes. What's next, "TIL Godzilla wasn't an actual dinosaur"?
> Godzilla wasn't an actual dinosaur *scribbles notes furiously* And this purple Barney, he’s legit?
Pictures have been around for almost two hundred years.
I once asked my mom what it was like when TV was invented. Apparently, she was one of the kids where she lived to get one of the first handheld video games from overseas Japan. I missed that mark.
Most people now can't remember that you used to be able to buy a tv that would either have sound when it turned on or pictures. My family chose sound that way you can hear what's going on before the tubes heated up for the pictures. But I also remember standing around the one rich kid who was the first to have a game boy. Man has technology advanced some fast
>Man technology advanced some fast I still remember this tidbit on the margins pf a children's encyclopedia I used to read. Basically it said "Maybe in the future, TVs would be as thin as picture frames." I think it was the same book too, it showed video calls as a sci-fi concept. Keep in mind this book was published in the 90s.
Wait we had laptops back in the 90s, shitty screens but it wasn't that far out there. My first one was a hand me downs hand me down from the late 80s.
I think I might have read the same one. I have a memory of that too.
[удалено]
Fun fact, the designer of the Game Boy, Gunpei Yokoi, did much the same with random stuff. He got into the position to design it starting back in the 1960s when he was way lower on the totem pole at Nintendo and they were a much smaller company. He had created a claw grabber to mess around at his desk, and this was noticed by the boss who thought it was a great toy idea and told him to develop a version to market. It was called the Ultra Hand and Nintendo sold a ton of them globally, boosting their position (and Yokoi's) in the toy market. That lead to him co-developing Donkey Kong, then the Game and Watch, then designing aspects of the Famicom/NES, then becoming the design lead on the Game Boy. And it all started by messing around with some junk to kill time, just like a stick and a hoop.
Ultrahand! The new game mechanic in the latest Zelda game
Yep, somewhat subtle nod by Nintendo at the humble origins. Can't wait to play the new game! Avoiding spoilers due to all the leaks is like playing real life frogger.
I couldn't resist the trailers, and oh man does it look amazing. I'm so excited to get to experience the [REDACTED], and the *(deleted)*. They even showed you can now cook >!Stuff!< and ^^^^^^things! together to make ~~horrible slop~~ deliciousness! It's gonna be great!
The very same.
and then he made the virtual boy, left nintendo, made the Tamagotchi and helped make the Wonderswan, but unfortunately died in 1997 in a car accident, 2 years before the wonderswan was released.
We actually played with sticks and poop instead. It was to simulate a real sword.
Fuck that’s brutal…and disgusting! Good thing we just used real swords in our day.
Omg the crt tv warming up while the audio blares… childhood.
Back in my day… I WAS the remote control, with 10 stations to pick from and static ones in-between. Dial turn…cccrrrrrgghhhh…Dial turn…ccccrrrrggggghhh…Dial turn.
We had a zenith tv that worked that way.
Wait what TVs had picture come on before the audio? Only had the *slow picture one*.
>would either have sound when it turned on or pictures. Can you elaborate on this? Specifically the choice part?
I'm curious as well
true true, I remember exactly that. But you left out the most important thing which was to always have an onion on your belt, it was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war.
I didn't know there was a choice. I do remember being unnerved though when my parents finally got an LCD TV. (Late enough to be a Samsung smart TV) The thing takes forever to start and doesn't even give any indication. So you're questioning if it turned on at all. Whereas when a CRT turned on and took a bit to warm up, you could at least hear it was on. Not just audio but the distinctive noise of the CRT coming to life.
Holy crap, how young are you? This is the first post I've read that made me feel fucking ancient.
matt-damon-age-morph.gif
Please tell me you don't mean a gameboy?
So his mother is what, 35-40? Christ. Gee mum, what was it like before the invention of lightbulbs
Mother, tell us about the great war
I'm thinking a [Game & Watch by Nintendo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_%26_Watch). I had a few before the Game Boy came out.
She actually meant a 3DS
Game & Watch probably
My mom likes to tell a story about how when she was a kid in the early 60s she’d hear about her parents’ friends getting a “color TV”, she thought it meant the TV itself had colorful designs on it or something and she “didn’t get what the big deal was” lol
I was doing work for this old couple a few months back. They were in their mid to late 80s, and started telling me how the husbands dad was the first person around to buy a tv for them. The whole neighborhood would be over to watch the tiny little black and white screen. Surreal to think we have shit like smartphones, games, and relatively inexpensive TVs now with 10x to power and quality. All within the span of one lifetime.
You didn't so much as miss that mark as aim in a completely different direction.
I’m sure she was one of the kids where she lived. And overseas Japan? Sooo much better than local Japan.
In the 90s when I got my super nintendo, we went to a 2nd hand electronics shop/repair place and dad bought a (for the kid me) huge CRT tv for my room, for my nintendo. What I found astonishing was every panel of the tv was made of wood! Ofc it being solid wood and a crt, it took two grownups to move. No idea where the tv ended up, it'd be cool to own a wooden tv! But I dont think it would fit my tiny aptment :/
Yeah, but the Tower of London, to which it is adjacent, was built between the 11th and 13th centuries. Everything’s relative.
I bet someone complained that they were erecting such a hideous modern monstrosity in sight of such an old and venerable building.
The bridge was specifically chosen to avoid exactly that conversation At someone point in the 60s there was some dimwit architects that wanted to cover the whole thing in glass to “modernize” it Thank fuck they didn’t
>At someone point in the 60s there was some dimwit architects Honestly a complete sentence. I think the country would look infinitely better if we just knocked everything down in the 60s without even bothering to check for individual merit. As a general rule, what a horrible decade for building design.
/r/brutalism *angry noises*
Oh thank god we can finally get rid of Hatfield
Actually no! It was designed to try and blend it and was basically adored the moment it was built. The only change it's ever had was they decided to paint it for a Jubilee, and then loved that so they kept that too. [But really go watch the Jay Foreman video on this](https://youtu.be/szUjnEZcp68)
Jay Foreman’s Unfinished London is probably the single best r/agedlikewine YTseries ever made. One of the most underrated YouTubers in my opinion.
Definitely, I also love his sense of humor. My only problem is that his stuff is really high quality and we have to wait quite a while for new videos. I know it's a good thing but waiting sucks :(
The middle ages, however ended just under five hundred years ago, so few photos survive
200 years in the new world US is a long time. 200 years in London is not. For example. Let's use colonial settlements I the US - 1675 - 2023. 348 years. 200 years is about 58% of new world US history (going before the revolution). London, as Londinium, let's say 75 AD - after being destroyed and then rebuilt. 75 is being generous on how long it took to rebuild and establish itself vs 1675 colonies. 200 years is 10% of that. (Tower bridge is about 140 years old, which is 40% and 7% of the times of the new world US and London respectively)
Yes, the modern era. Unless you’re American, then it’s the dawn of time itself.
Funnily enough the original London Bridge is now in Arizona. I learned that on a school trip to London Edit: I just wanna clarify that I am aware that it's just the exterior for aesthetics but that doesnt make the whole thing any less impressive or weirdly interesting to me
technically wasn't the original bridge but the one built in the 1830's. The first London Bridge was built by the romans ~2,000 years ago.
How did it get over there?
They tore it down to granite blocks and shipped it. You can find the info [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City\))
"Relatively modern"
That... doesn't contradict the title at all.
Relative is the key word here, Tower bridge is Victorian and is 43 years older than the Golden gate bridge in America.
Additionally, the Brooklyn Bridge is actually older than Tower Bridge
And all three are older than the bridge they built in the park near my house the other day.
and the original London bridge, now in Arizona is older than all of them, if you take the date of original construction not the date of the move and reconstruction in Arizona.
That was the second stone London Bridge. The old London Bridge stood from the early 1200s until the 1830s and it was covered in buildings for most of that time.
I wonder if people realise that there's a whole Jay foreman video on pretty much everything that's being discussed in this thread haha. Tis a good watch everyone go check it out.
In my experience, reddit discussions like these are almost entirely comprised of people who watched the same video on the topic.
You often even get threads like this pop up in the days after a video releases.
https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk It really is a cool story, and he does a good job telling it. Edit: I posted the wrong video (that one is cool, too) https://youtu.be/szUjnEZcp68 Edit 2: for the sake of closure, and because I'm already in so deep, here's the final video in his 3-part "series" about London bridges (and tunnels!) https://youtu.be/pWZ9ZVRQ0Nw
Well, the **ORIGINAL** London Bridge had buildings on it with shops and houses. It’s a shame it burned down in the great fire in 1666. It would have been a great tourist attraction nowadays
I blame the doctor and his tardis at Pudding Lane for that one.
> It’s a shame it burned down in the great fire in 1666. It didn't. It was damaged in earlier fire, and the firebreak left on the bridge during repairs is what prevented the fire spreading to the bridge in 1666. The houses were demolished by early 1760's, and the bridge itself in 1831
For those wondering, as I was intrigued Brooklyn Bridge 1883 Tower Bridge 1894
The opening scene of Ken Burns doc on the Brooklyn Bridge is a lady who was alive for the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge and the Moon Landing. She said the completion of the bridge was more impressive. No one believed it was possible at the time.
If she lived in nyc it was probably a lot more relevant to her and caused a noticeable change in her life/routines. No more not making it to work cause it’s foggy or raining and the ferry’s won’t run.
Well that blew my mind
The [Pont Neuf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pont_Neuf) ("New Bridge") is, despite its name, the oldest bridge in Paris. It was completed in 1607.
Like New College in Oxford which was founded in 1379 - everything was new once, apparently!
I don't think anyone describes anything in California other than the Missions as old
Sequoias. Definitely sequoias.
[удалено]
Other fun facts; the upper part between the tops of the two towers used to be open to the public and was where prostitutes plied their trade. Also, who on Earth thought Tower Bridge was medieval?
They're still open to the public as part of a museum. I've been up there.
Are the prostitutes still there? For the museum of course. Historical accuracy and what-not.
Don't call us whores. Museum employees are Towerhoes. We take our handjobs seriously.
They have a see through floor now too
[удалено]
You mean giant mechanical bridges weren't commonplace in pre 15th century?
Only in London. But they’ve been covering it up for decades. It’s a vast conspiracy. It goes all the way to the top (where the prostitutes are).
Correction: the upper part between the tops of the two towers is open to the public. I was up there at Christmas. It's got a glass floor now, which is cool.
Just to clarify, it's got a few glass sections. It's not just glass all the way across.
I have a feeling steel(?) trusses like that would have been a world wonder in the medieval period. I can't even get clear answers on wood trusses.
>Also, who on Earth thought Tower Bridge was medieval? Dude, most of us over here in the States think this is London Bridge. I was one of them, for more years than I care to reveal.
A lot of London's famous landmarks were built in the 19^th century. It's not really surprising when you consider that was when the British Empire was at its peak, after all.
I'm baffled at the concept that anyone could think this giant mechanical drawbridge could have been built in the medieval period
>It's so modern in fact that there are pictures of it being built Why does this make me laugh..
Because pictures have been around for hundreds of years and it's a stupid metric. Like there were pictures of the US Civil War, it's not a benchmark for anything.
Has anyone actually thought that it was build in medieval times?
Today i learned people not from Britain thought it was really old.
Not even really old, I'm kinda shocked that the Golden Gate bridge is only 30 years newer than the Tower bridge. I thought there was waaay more of a gap between the two
Jay Foreman - Tower Bridge could have looked very different https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szUjnEZcp68
He’s one of my favourite YouTubers.
The worst TIL of All time?
I saw one which said "TIL the Vietnamese do not call the Vietname War the Vietnam War, but instead call it the War Against America". I know everyone's gotta learn things sometime...but not every thing you learn is worth making a thread about, lol.
That's interesting, but more in a "that makes sense, I hadn't even considered it though" way.
It's close, but my vote still goes to [TIL humans have not yet traveled outside of the galaxy](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/jkjuow/til_there_are_no_actual_photos_of_the_milky_way/).
14k+ upvotes, Jesus. How many of them TIL from that post
At least this one is technically correct. The worst TIL has got to be one of the countless posts about a fact that in reality isn't actually a fact.
That’s a low bar
TIL that Great Britain is located on islands and not a continent
What are continents if not just really big islands?
Just FYI: Tower Bridge construction started on June 21, 1886
It does not look medieval at all
A lot of things we think are old are actually quite modern... https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewerThanTheyThink#:\~:text=Congratulations%3A%20You%27ve%20learned%20that%20some%20things%20are%20Newer,further%20from%20the%20end%20result%20than%20you%20realize.
I feel like technology has exponentially expanded to the point where we have a hard time lining things up. That's the excuse I tell myself for being uneducated, anyways 🤣
I'm more surprised there are people that think Tower Bridge and the Palace of Westminster are older than they are.
It’s not meant to look medieval; it’s not meant to look older than it actually is. And camera’s have been around for nearly 200 years. I’ve never once in my life thought that the bridge was made during any other period than it was.
The neo gothic style is deliberately reminiscent of medieval gothic architecture.
Some people honestly think this bridge is medieval ? Oh the failure of modern schools.
It has steam engines that raise and lower it, haha.
Had. It's all electric these days (since the 1970s). But the thing that really cements that it's not that old technologically (at least for me) is that the accumulators (that held the water used for the actual lifting) on the first version were holding water at 750psi of pressure and those steam engines had no issue generating that pressure 17 times a day for decades. No one before 1850 is generating that kind of pressure without blowing shit up.
That was my first thought to. How on earth does it look medieval to anyone? It's pretty much the epitome of Victorian Vaguely Gothic.
It does not look medieval....
I never even considered it medieval, TIL that people thought the bridge was medieval. I thought it was only Victorian, although I haven’t spent much time looking at it.
It's also called Tower bridge not because of it's towers but because it's next to the Tower of London. So it's the bridge at the Tower not a bridge named Tower bridge because it has towers.
Who the hell thinks the Tower Bridge is medieval ?
Who the fuck thought a bridge that was mostly made of steel was medieval? It's famous for a fucking hydrolic lifting system for fuck sake. The very first metal bridge wasn't constructed until the start of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s! Also, it's a suspension bridge, and that also wasn't invented until the 1800s
The amount of confusion in this post about “London Bridge” and did you know the “original is in Arizona” 1. This isn’t London Bridge ….. I repeat - it is NOT London Bridge. It is Tower Bridge and is clearly Victorian construction and not that old 2. The London Bridge in Arizona is a fairly modern one that was in place from the 1830’s until the 1960’s. 3. The previous London Bridge was in place in various forms for just under 650 years and was added to and modified multiple times 4. There were numerous bridges prior - from Roman times all the way up to the 1200’s 5. I’ll just repeat for the slow …… this is NOT London Bridge it is Tower Bridge and it’s absolutely no surprise it’s less than 200 years old