> only bridges that "barely" stand are economically viable

That really depends on what is counted as part of the economy and who is doing the valuing.

well, "economically viable" doesn't necessarily mean scraping the bottom.

For example the great pyramids of giza are very solidly built. You certainly don't expect that level of build for every commercial or residential building out there.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum you can have buildings that can collapse on minor earthquakes.

There is a balance somewhere in the middle.

I’m a huge “it’s capitalism’s fault” person, but this one feels mostly inevitable. Bridges are wonders of engineering that require this delicate balance, and I don’t think “just build em the old way” is an option. It’s not just price, it’s strength (for non-container-ship events…), span, height, construction time, etc. Obviously I’m in no place to evaluate the specifics of this bridge, and as someone from the SF Bay Area I know allll about corporate corruption fucking up expensive brand new bridges, but I feel like you’re yelling at the moon a bit here. Apologies if I misunderstood though!